Abstract
Martin Parker builds his text on three assumptions that I share fully, which probably makes me a biased reviewer. First, he strongly opposes the contrast between ‘economy’ and ‘culture’, so obstinately presented in academia (where it is reinforced by internal divisions within faculties, departments and publishing outlets) and in the media (which brings it to the eyes of the general public). Economy is the central tenet of contemporary cultures, and should be considered as such. Second, the connection between the two can be easily seen and studied by turning the researcher’s attention to popular culture and to its double role of reflecting contemporary phenomena and simultaneously shaping them. Third, although popular culture mythologizes and romanticizes historical events and personages, what needs to be scrutinized is its message (form and content alike) and, indeed, its popularity, rather than its correctness (or lack of it).
Parker’s first excursion into popular culture is to trace the career of Robin Hood in all his incarnations, old and new. He tends to agree with Eric Hobsbawm’s opinion that Robin-Hood-type characters can be seen as proto-revolutionary, but conservative in their politics. In organizational terms, it could be said that Robin Hood is a rebel who fights against middle management, but admires top leadership and does not seek to subvert the system.
In Chapter 3, Parker analyses another group of characters and products of popular culture: pirates. These characters seem to be extremely fashionable now, in the second decade of the 21st century—some say because of and some say in spite of the real-life Somali pirates. Parker raises historical information, likely to be lost on Johnny Depp’s fans: sea-faring was a horrible occupation (bad food, low pay and sadistic bosses). To be engaged in piracy, therefore, was considered liberation, and seen with tolerance by more humanitarian observers. It is certainly not by accident that young(ish) people who oppose strict jurisdiction on file sharing and copying formed ‘Pirate Parties’ following the Swedish example. 1 Nevertheless, real pirates often worked on commission from the authorities.
Next, Chapter 4 makes a connection between Romanticism on the one hand and the way contemporary popular culture treats robbers or banditi on the other hand. Bandits existed before Romanticism, of course, but the romantic idea of portraying them as ‘noble, authentic and passionate’ (p. 53) is related to the fact that Romanticism is coeval with the time when urbanized capitalism supplanted feudalism and mercantilism. It can be added that this cultural trend was closely related to independence movements in many parts of Europe, where the occupying forces defined rebels as ‘bandits’.
In Chapter 5, the scene moves to USA—the characters as well as the popular culture. Whereas Robin Hood and the pirates were involved in wealth redistribution— from the rich to the poor—here it was the redistribution of land (and related wealth) between the natives and the settlers. It is no accident that marketing specialists speak of conquering new frontiers. The cultural expressions vary, though, between those that glorify the conquerors and those that glorify the opposition or the rebels. The conquest of America coincides with the birth of mass communication, which may, in itself, explain a fact that Parker highlights about the popularity of the Western: ‘for the most of the twentieth century, the Western was the dominant genre across whole swathes of cultural production’ (p. 72). Especially important here was the rise of the film industry. In this context, Parker shares some little known but fascinating facts—that robbers and cowboys in Hollywood films were often played by real robbers and cowboys, for example. Although noting its imperialist and patriarchal traits, Parker nevertheless sees the Western as an anti-modern genre, especially critical of modern workplaces and employment conditions. In the Western, wilderness is opposed to city civilization, and freedom to the iron cage of industry.
Dealing with the Mafia in Chapter 6, Parker makes a somewhat surprising decision to concentrate on the US Mafia, only marginally evoking its Italian origins, with its ‘family against the robber state’ ideology—probably because it is the portrayal of the US Mafia that has entered the popular imagination. Yet another choice that he makes is to use The Sopranos as the cultural representation of Mafia; this goes against several other statements, as it is Scarface that is usually seen as the primary modelling influence for the present mafiosi (see e.g. various reviews by Varese, 2004 and later). The Sopranos does work, though, as a source of information on contemporary US Mafia for a general audience. Parker is also right in pointing out the upsetting similarity between the Mafia and legitimate businesses, including the crimes committed by the latter. Paradoxically, the Mafia is also an ethical business, in that it follows a moral code, albeit a ‘family’ code, and not one supported by law. Some Italian students of accounting, who did not see the US portrayals of the Mafia as relevant for their country, told me that their choice of a workplace will depend on where they find a job—in one of the organized crime organizations or in a legitimate one.
In Chapter 7, Parker traces historical developments in portraying the outlaws, noticing the shift from an individual to a group, and the change of location from the countryside (‘nature’) to the city. Thus the 20th century places in relief ‘the organized criminal as a member of a group that hides on the mean streets of the city’ (p. 113).
Culture analysts have claimed for quite some time, in contrast to the opinion of the Frankfurt School, that popular culture carries counter-cultural messages. Martin Parker agrees with that observation, but notes that the narrow meaning of ‘culture’ rather than the wider, anthropological meaning is usually meant in that context. Applying such a wide perspective helps one to notice that popular culture in modern times indeed carries counter-cultural messages, and as economy and formal employment are central tenets of modern cultures, the counter-economy and counter-workplace messages must be rescued from oblivion. To strengthen his thesis, he abandons the outlaws in Chapter 8 in order to focus on popular artifacts, jokes and a variety of symbols, to signal ‘that work is boring and degrading, and that escaping from it can be fun’ (p. 130). These products of popular culture, like any other, serve a double function: they stabilize what it is by describing and materializing it; and they poke fun at it, especially at the pomposity of power. Thus the intense discussion between various scholars on the role of Dilbert: does the cartoon work as a safety valve, permitting people to tolerate lousy working conditions longer, or does it carry an encouragement to revolt? (see e.g. Borowski, 1998; Miles, 2001).
An observation: most examples used in this chapter come from the UK, and to a lesser extent, from the USA. A reader from another country may wonder if UK workplaces are worse than any other, or if Anglo-Saxons are more daring in their counter-cultural endeavours?
The final chapter makes a bold and serious pledge: for a ‘popular political economy’. This unusual concoction, incorporated into the figure of an economic outlaw, crosses several other distinctions: legitimate and illegitimate business, fact and fiction (where fiction both reflects and shapes the facts), economy and culture (popular culture products are staggeringly successful in economic terms) and confirmation and critique. In the remainder of the chapter, Parker delivers a defense of the figure of outlaw as worthy of study (and on the way, he makes a useful distinction between structural functionalism and functionalism, usually and unfortunately combined as one concept). I would claim, however, that his proposal is not necessarily limited to the figure of the outlaw, but can be taken as an appeal to the reader to consider popular culture when studying economic and workplace phenomena. It is only to be hoped that this appeal will soon find many a follower.
A methodological comment: Parker’s book widens the meaning of the concept of ‘fieldwork’ as well; it does not have to be limited to a series of interviews with over-interviewed managers. His material is extremely impressive and his analysis detailed and profound. It is therefore a model to follow—not only in its content, but also in its form.