In Non-places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, Marc Augé defines the archetypal spaces of globalization. The defining factor for Augé is that non-places are transitory, hence any effect they have on us is temporary. This article addresses the expansion of non-places into spaces of habitation and the consequences that ensue from perpetual exposure. This article proposes that the middle-class office is a non-place. Giorgio Agamben’s “state of exception” provides a framework for understanding the environment of the contemporary precariat office worker. The non-place and the state of exception share properties of explicit democracy, total visibility, and the perpetual necessity of proving one’s innocence and loyalty. The preservation of a sovereign state is transformed in a non-place office into a series of isolated, individual, and anxious performances in an attempt to preserve one’s employment. The explicit availability of the individual worker prevents the appearance of identity and community.
AgambenG. (2005). State of exception. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AgambenG.Heller-RoazenD. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
AndersonA. (2004). Ultraviolet light reduces sick building syndrome. Supply House Times, 46(11), 28-29.
4.
AriesM. B. C.VeitchJ. A.NewshamG. R. (2010). Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 533-541.
5.
AugéM. (1995). Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London, England: Verso.
6.
BaldryC.BainP.TaylorP. (1997). Sick and tired? Working in the modern office. Work, Employment and Society, 11(3), 519-540.
7.
BourdieuP. (1999). Acts of resistance: Against the tyranny of the market (NiceR., Trans.). New York, NY: New Books.
8.
ButlerJ. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. London, England: Verso.
9.
DingS. (2008). Users’ privacy preferences in open plan offices: Privacy preferences in open plan offices. Facilities, 26, 401-417.
10.
FantoneL. (2007). Precarious changes: Gender and generational politics in contemporary Italy. Feminist Review, 87, 5-20.
11.
FrisbyD. (2002). Georg Simmel. London, England: Routledge.
12.
GennA. (2002). Unleashing canines on sick buildings. Long Island Business News, 49(2), 25.
13.
GillR.PrattA. (2008). In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(7/8), 1-30.
14.
GoinsJ.JellemaJ.ZhangH. (2010). Architectural enclosure’s effect on office worker performance: A comparison of the physical and symbolic attributes of workspace dividers. Building and Environment, 45, 944-948.
15.
GregoryT. (2011a). Safety first [Digital image]. Collection of the artist, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
16.
GregoryT. (2011b). Cubicle [Digital image]. Collection of the artist, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
17.
JohnstonA.ChengM. (2003). Electronic workplace surveillance, Part 1: Concerns for employees and challenges for privacy advocates. Privacy Law & Policy Reporter, 9(9), 161-167.
LindbergM. A. (2002). The role of suggestions and personality characteristics in producing illness reports and desires for suing the responsible party. Journal of Psychology, 136, 125-151.
20.
MarmotA. F.EleyJ.StaffordM.StansfeldS. A.WarwickE.MarmotM. G. (2006). Building health: An epidemiological study of “sick building syndrome” in the Whitehall II study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63, 283-287.
21.
MassumiB. (2007, December14). Perception attack. In The poetics of mobilities. Symposium conducted at the meeting of College of Fine Arts, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
22.
MitropoulosA. (2005). Precari-us?Mute: Culture and Politics After the Net, 1(29), 88-96.
23.
MittelstaedtF. H.NicholsW. D.RegierP. R. (1995). SFAS No. 106 and benefit reductions in employer-sponsored retiree health care plans. Accounting Review, 70, 535-556.
24.
NancyJ.-L. (1991). The inoperative community (ConnorP.GarbusL.HollandM.SawhneyS., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
25.
NancyJ.-L. (2000). Being singular plural. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
NancyJ.-L. (2004). Of the one, of hierarchy. Cultural Critique, 57, 108-110.
27.
NancyJ.-L.MandellC. (2007). Listening. Ashland, OH: Fordham University Press.
NeilsonB.RossiterN. (2008). Precarity as a political concept, or, Fordism as exception. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(7-8), 51-72.
30.
NellyP. (2005). Plants: Elementary answer to a larger problem. Occupational Health & Safety, 74(2), 20-22.
31.
NemetzE. B. (1993). Trends and “re-trends” in office furniture. Office Systems, 10(1), 12-14.
32.
OldhamG. R. (1988). Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 253-258.
33.
PejtersenJ.AllermannL.KristensenT. S.PoulsenO. M. (2006). Indoor climate, psychosocial work environment and symptoms in open-plan offices. Indoor Air, 16, 392-401.
34.
RancièreJ. (1999). Dis-agreement (RoseJ., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
35.
RicheyG. W. (2003). Psychosocial factors in IAQ crises. Occupational Health & Safety, 72(10), 80.
36.
Ryan-SeggerT. (2006, September28). Eco-friendly design combines efficiency, style. Australian Financial Review, p. 15.
37.
SandbergJ. (2003, January29). Mystery underfoot: The dizzying, ugly, reliable office carpet. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), p. 1.
38.
StrausD. C.CooleyJ. D.WongW. C.JumperC. A. (2003). Studies on the role of fungi in sick building syndrome. Archives of Environmental Health, 58, 475-479.
39.
VirnoP. (2004). A grammar of the multitude: For an analysis of contemporary forms of life. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
40.
YildirimK.Akalin-BaskayabA.CelebiaM. (2007). The effects of window proximity, partition height, and gender on perceptions of open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 154-165.
