This essay uses autoethnography to illuminate the shifting conditions of global creative and academic labor. By reflecting on my experiences during a 2014 research trip to Manila, the Philippines, I, as a U.S. scholar, consider the different experiences of precarity in transnational cultural production, as academic and creative labor are both shaped by neoliberal structural forces. Through production autoethnography, I argue we may build forms of solidarity between cultural studies scholars and creative workers. Attending to the broader political changes that have occurred over the last several years, I conclude that as neoliberalism has lost its hegemonic authority, cultural producers, including cultural studies scholars, have the opportunity to help forge something better.
DolberB. (2016). Blindspots and blurred lines: Dallas Smythe, the audience commodity, and the transformation of labor in the digital age. Sociology Compass, 10, 747-755.
10.
FloridaR. (2003). The rise of the creative class. New York, NY: Basic Books.
FuchsC. (2012). Dallas Smythe today—The audience commodity, the digital labour debate, Marxist political economy and critical theory. Prolegomena to a digital labour theory of value. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism, and Critique, 10, 692-740.
14.
GillR. (2014). Academics, cultural workers and critical labour studies. Journal of Cultural Economy, 7, 12-30.
15.
GitlinT. (2000). Inside prime time. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1983)
HallS. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In HallS.HobsonD.LoweA.WillisP. (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972-1979 (pp. 117-127). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
HallS. (1988). The hard road to renewal: Thatcherism and the crisis of the Left. New York, NY: Verso.
19.
HallS. (2006). Notes on deconstructing “the popular.” In StoreyJ. (Ed.), Cultural theory and popular culture: A reader (pp. 477-487). Athens: University of Georgia Press. (Original work published 1981)
KuehnK.CorriganT. F. (2013). Hope labor: The role of employment prospects in online social production. The Political Economy of Communication, 1(1), 9-25.
22.
LeeM. (2011). Google ads and the blindspot debate. Media, Culture and Society, 33, 433-447.
23.
LotzA. B. (2009). Industry-level studies and the contributions of Gitlin’s Inside prime time. In MayerV.BanksM. J.CaldwellD.T. (Eds.), Production studies: Cultural studies of media industries (pp. 25-38). New York, NY: Routledge.
ManzerolleV. (2010). Mobilizing the audience commodity: Digital labor in a wireless world. Ephemera, 10, 455-469.
26.
MayerV. (2011). Below the line: Producers and production studies in the new television economy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
27.
MayerV.BanksM. J.CaldwellJ. T. (2009). Production studies: Cultural studies of media industries. New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
McChesneyR. W.FosterJ. B. (2012). The endless crisis: How monopoly-finance capital produces stagnation and upheaval from the USA to China. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
29.
McGuiganL. (2012). Consumers: The commodity product of interactive commercial television, or, is Dallas Smythe’s thesis more germane than ever?Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36, 288-304.
30.
MillerT. (2012). Blow up the humanities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
SmytheD. (1977). Communications: Blindspot of western Marxism. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1, 1-27.
41.
TedlockB. (2008). The observation of participation and the emergence of public ethnography. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY.S. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 151-171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
TuchmanG. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York, NY: New Press.
