(DE)WORK: The Political Economy of Labour and Material Extraction by reWork

reWork

(DE)WORK

SOFIE A HOVGAARD

(DE)WORK

BRUNO MALUSA

(DE)WORK

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF LABOUR AND MATERIAL EXTRACTION

DE)WORK

GUSTAV VALLIN

(DE)WORK

(DE)WORK (DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

reWork

office@rework.work reWork is a strategic design studio specialising in action-led research and spatial strategies. The studio strives to re-imagine the spatial and organisational logics that steer and complements emerging trends of work. Bruno Malusa Sofie Angelie Hovgaard In collaboration with: Gustav Vallin - publication Danni Drommi - coding Printed and Sponsored by:

Christensen Grafisk Copenhagen - Denmark T: +45 35360144 Screen Sponsored by:

Vision LED World Aarhus - Denmark T: +45 82828208

DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF WEALTH 10

MATERIAL EXTRACTION 12

DEGROWTH AND LABOUR 16

TECHNOLOGY BEYOND LABOUR 22

(DE)WORK

8 (DE)WORK

INTRODUCTION

(DE)WORK

THE INSTALLATION

DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

OVERVIEW (DE)WORK

THE INSTALLATION Technological development and intensifying processes of globalisation have engendered an apparent decoupling between economic growth and processes of material extraction. However, this has only been made possible due to the increased abstraction of labour, and the spatial distance between sites of production and consumption. The current installation, (DE)WORK, seeks to expose the interdependencies between processes of material extraction, productive labour, and economic growth within the contemporary globalised economy. It presents raw data on economic and financial, environmental, and political metrics in an abstract and continuous flow, manicured live by an algorithm to further demonstrate the importance of digitalisation in contemporary society. Using deforestation as an illustrative example, the installation illustrates the linkages between these complex processes, inviting the viewer to appreciate the relationship between these fluctuating metrics which drive processes of material extraction. The environmental metrics present the overall status of deforestation with regard to five different aspects: hectares of forests cut down or burned; hectares of replanted forests; percentage of wild forest remaining; hectares of desert growth; and cubic meters of wood produced. The financial metrics display the value of public and private companies whose activities contribute to deforestation. Companies like Cargill, Amagi, and ADM trade, purchase, and distribute agricultural commodities worldwide. These commodities not only pertain to lumber and wood, but any commodity linked to deforestation via their supply chains. The political metrics are illustrated as news feeds in the form of immediate updates regarding information related to the above processes of deforestation. These news feeds include statements by politicians, legal proposals, and other actions directly concerning or related to deforestation. The political metrics are filtered via the use of tags, selecting specific news items from the raw data. The current publication seeks to present the relations between these metrics, as presented by the installation, and labour by reflecting on their interconnectedness within the contemporary globalised economy.

DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

STILL VIEW OF THE SCREEN INFORMATION.

(DE)WORK

INTRODUCTION 1 Peters, G. P., Minx, J. C., Weber, C. L. & Edenhofer, O. (2011). Growth in Emission Transfers via International Trade from 1990 to 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, no. 21, pp. 8903-8908. Bonneuil, C. & Fressoz, J.-B. (2016). The Shock of the Anthropocene: The Earth, History and Us. London, UK: Verso Books. Wunder, S. & Sayer, J. (2000). The Economics of Deforestation: The Example of Ecuador. Great Britain: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Intensifying mechanisation of processes of material extraction, and the increasing spatial distance between sites of production and consumption, has precipitated an ostensible decoupling between natural resource use and greenhouse gas emissions, and economic growth. Further exacerbated by technological development, these factors have engendered a discord between our socio-economic systems, their requirement of productive labour, and the natural world. However, this illusion of decoupling has only been made possible due to the increasing embeddedness of spatially distant activities within global networks of production and consumption.1 Further resulting in an increased sense of individual and societal alienation, these processes also elucidate how all forms of labour are, either directly or indirectly, related to processes of material extraction. Conjoined, these factors have contributed to the advent of the Anthropocene, illustrating how humanity has become its own force in geological history.2 It is thus imperative to conceptualise the interrelatedness between different forms of productive labour and processes of material extraction to appreciate how our activities are increasingly dependent on the latter. The current installation, (DE)WORK, seeks to problematise the relationship between production and consumption, the financial system, and productive labour by illustrating their conjoined influence on processes of deforestation. The globalisation of economic activity has resulted in an increased rate of land-use change, of which deforestation is one of the main drivers. Defined in a broad sense, deforestation thereby â&#x20AC;&#x153;highlights not only forest conversion [...] but also different types of degradation [...]â&#x20AC;?.3 Using deforestation as an example, the installation argues that the economic, environmental, and social consequences of our socio-economic systems require us to appreciate how patterns of production and consumption in spatially distant places interrelate. Further characterised by complex and multi-dimensional dynamics, demonstrating this interrelatedness may help us understand the adverse effects of our current systems and the labour which enables these. The concept of degrowth serves as basis for the promotion of a fundamental transformation of current perceptions regarding the

(DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK

Transforming our societies towards degrowth requires the adoption of radically new ways of organising our socio-economic systems, actualising or intrinsic interrelatedness with our environment. This further necessitates a fundamental reimagining of contemporary forms of productive labour. Visualising how different forms of labour are related to processes of deforestation necessitates the imagining of new societal development trajectories. Within this process, we should also promote individual agency and autonomy by negating the presumptive requirement of productive labour for societal development. This installation is a call to envisage how degrowth, and new forms of labour, may act as an emancipatory source in a society within which individuals are increasingly alienated from their surroundings.

DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

4 Bonneuil, C. & Fressoz, J.-B. (2016). The Shock of the Anthropocene: The Earth, History and Us. London, UK: Verso Books.

necessity of economic growth and productive labour to achieve societal development. Here, the advent of the Anthropocene reaffirms the primacy of relationship to our environment, obliging us to move beyond contemporary forms of labour and societal organisation.4 This necessitates an appreciation of the linkages between (de) growth-inducing activities and emergent forms of labour. Only by appreciating the global interdependencies of our activities, and negating current conceptualisations of labour and work, may we deconstruct their true value while realising their adverse effects. This allows us to illustrate how all forms of modern economic growth are rooted in processes of material extraction, here exemplified by deforestation.

THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF WEALTH

DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

PROCESSING

(DE)WORK

NATURE AND WORK: THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF WEALTH. SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM OF A GENERIC SUPPLY CHAIN: WORK IS INTRINSICALLY TO EACH STAGE OF THE CHAIN

EXTRACTION

(DE)WORK

SERVICES

(DE)WORK

MATERIAL EXTRACTION Intensifying rates of material extraction is a direct consequence of our current ways of life, and the belief that economic growth is a requirement to promote societal development. However, the existential threat of grand challenges - such as climate change, increasing inequalities, and the threats to biodiversity - imply that we cannot continue along our current development trajectories.1 These challenges present an existential imperative, necessitating a fundamental transformation of the way in which we currently organise our socio-economic systems. Only by transforming our systems towards degrowth may we be able to respond to the social and environmental degradation our current development trajectories engender.

1 Grin, J., Rotmans, J. & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. UK: Routledge. 2 Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. Ecological economics, 70(5), 873-880.

Degrowth presents a radically new vision for how to achieve societal development without simultaneously degrading our social and environmental conditions. What we mean by degrowth is the achievement of socio-ecological development without the requirement of economic growth and socio-economic inequalities, and with no degradation of the biosphere.2 The concept of degrowth thereby encourages us to decouple our societal progress from processes of environmental and social deterioration. Processes of material extraction are regarded as one of the most important factors contributing to this deterioration. Not only does it influence the biosphere via its impact on global land-use change, but it also displaces marginalised peoples in the process. Within this context, deforestation is identified as one of the main drivers of land-use change.7 There are currently signs that productive land will be marginalised in the majority of developing countries by 2030 if current rates of deforestation continue. Deforestation further illustrates and problematises the direct and indirect relationship between different forms of productive labour and processes of material extraction. While productivity gains and technological development may ameliorate these adverse effects we argue that, in order to protect both the planet and society, humanity must transition from our currently unsustainable development trajectories as suggested by the concept of degrowth. The dynamics of forests and land use are contextually contingent, but also respond to interactions between events transpiring in spatially distant places. Current rates of

(DE)WORK (DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

(DE)WORK 13

DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

The dominant conceptualisation of economic activity, as theorised by neoclassical economics, insufficiently incorporates the complex dynamics of our globally interconnected socio-economic and ecological systems. These neoclassical economic models, widely used by businesses and governments worldwide, rely on stringent assumptions regarding human behaviour and promote a primarily static view of the world. Markets and price signals are regarded as the most efficient way by which societies may mitigate the effects of climate change. Here, innovation in the form of technological development is seen as the primary way by which we will tackle the challenges we are facing. However, markets lack an appreciation of intergenerational needs as well as environmental and social scarcities. They are furthermore characterised by asymmetric information and rely on simplistic assumptions regarding human behaviour. We can see the devastating effects of these assumptions in the financial crash of 2008-2009, before which the markets were completely unaware of what was about to happen. It is thus unwise to rely on current economic models to find solutions to the crises humanity is facing today.

(DE)WORK

Meyfroidt, P. & Lambin, E. F. (2011). Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to Deforestation, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 343-371. 7,8

deforestation are directly influenced by the dominant belief that economic growth is a necessity for societal development. Modern economic growth, conjoined with processes of industrialisation and urbanisation, is a primary factor influencing deforestation rates.8 Moreover, as the world is getting ever more integrated, individual societies cannot continue to promote economic growth. Rates of deforestation are influenced by geographically diverse socio-environmental and economic causes, but also unexpected feedback loops between and within our socio-economic and ecological systems. To counteract processes of material extraction and biospheric degradation, it is necessary to transform our current relationship to nature.

DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

INPE (BR) - ALTAMIRA / AGRICULTURAL FIRES AT SOUTHERN PARÁ, BRAZIL MATERIAL EXTRACTION AND LAND COLONISATION IN THE AMAZON. 2019 WAS A SYMBOLICALLY IMPORTANT YEAR DUE TO THE SURGE IN WILDFIRES, MAKING WAY FOR AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK, LOGGING, AND MINING

(DE)WORK

DEGROWTH AND LABOUR

Komlosy, A. (2018). Work: The Last 1,000 Years. London, UK: Verso Books. Srnicek, N. & Williams, A. (2015). Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World without Work. London, UK: Verso Books. Daly, H. E. & Townsend, K. N. (1992). Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics. US: MIT Press, p. 75-76.

Work, in its broadest sense, has been a crucial aspect of human societies for centuries. Despite taking a series of forms throughout history, work is, in our current socio-economic systems, constraining individuals to wage-labour.1 In this form, work becomes an activity involving mental or physical effort with four outcomes: profit; income; taxes; and often a material product. The development of work into its current status as wage-labour occurred concomitant to the construction of cultural, economic, and political structures supporting economic growth as the primary mechanism for societal development.2 Consequently, within the context of capitalism, economic growth has arisen as a hegemonic force to the extent that envisaging any possible alternative seems almost unrealistic. However, we believe that acknowledging the relationship between our environment and labour in the generation of economic value presents an opportunity for challenging the perceived primacy of economic growth while elucidating the negative social and environmental influence current societal structures. A certain indication that mainstream economic thinking has not departed from the assumptions and logics of their forefathers is the archetypal representation of economic systems as circular diagrams; a pendular movement between production and consumption within closed systems. This understanding finds itself within both Marxist and classical economics, both representing such systems as closed loops. However, even earlier writers such as William Betty recognised the importance of including nature and the environment within these processes.3 Here, labour may be reconceptualised as the father of wealth - and nature the mother. Consequently, the interrelatedness of labour and nature for subsequent wealth creation is crucial to the functioning of our economic systems. Due to complex global interlinkages, all forms of labour and work are either directly or indirectly related to processes of material extraction. Subsequently, forms of labour generated via the production of goods are not inherently separated from that of labour generated in the production of services. Both types of labour contribute to the production of commodities via resource requirements and wage expenditures, pro-

(DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK

The most direct manner of tackling current forms of labour and work within established institutional frameworks is via reduction of the working week. This idea was introduced as early as the 1880s by Paul Lafargue, who envisaged a future in which we would be working three to four hours a day due to technological development.8 This idea what later echoed by John Maynard Keynes in 1930, half a century later, in his proposal of a 15-hour working week. However, historical developments have demonstrated that the end result entailed a much smaller decrease in working hours than originally envisaged. This has occurred simultaneously to an exponential increase in productivity

(DE)WORK

Engendering a transformation towards degrowth requires radically novel ways of imagining the organisation of our societies. Proposals for degrowth take diverse forms, ranging to “exit from the economy” alternatives6 (often spatialised as eco-villages, consumer-producer cooperatives, or alternative non-monetary exchange systems) to proposals for reformist institutional and political change.7 To reconsider the social construction of work and labour, and its relationship to current cultural, financial, and social systems provides a way of understanding how our current patterns of production and consumption are intrinsic barriers for promotion of degrowth.

(DE)WORK

The geography of labour and material extraction has expanded greatly, governing much vaster areas than previously. This has been the result of technological developments and increasing socio-economic integration globally, factors which will continue driving these processes unless an alternative is provided and implemented. As Saskia Sassen claims, the “mix of innovations that expands our capacities for extraction now threatens core components of the biosphere, leaving us also with expanded stretches of dead land and dead water.”5 Consequently, our current social and environmental crisis is directly related to the dependency of our economies on current forms of wage-labour and the requirement of increasing material extraction.

DE)WORK

Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review, p. 288. Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions. US: Harvard University Press, p. 12. Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. 70(5), 873-880. 7 Fournier, V. (2008). Escaping from the Economy: The Politics of Degrowth, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 28, no. 11/12, pp. 528-545. 8 Lafargue, P. (2012 [1883]). The Right to Be Lazy. The Floating Press [e-book].

ducing objects for value exchange while simultaneously generating surplus value, both key components of a capitalist economy.4 Therefore, all forms of labour either directly or indirectly influence the rate and intensity of material extraction processes.

and consumption, determined by the logic of the market.

9 https://autonomy.work 10 Frey, P. (2019). The Ecological Limits of Work: On Carbon Emissions, Carbon Budgets and Working Time. Hampshire: Autonomy Institute. 11 Nässén, J. & Larsson, J. (2015). Would Shorter Working Time Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions? An Analysis of Time Use and Consumption in Swedish Households, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 726-745. Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. 70(5), 873-880. Frey, P. (2019). The Ecological Limits of Work: On Carbon Emissions, Carbon Budgets and Working Time. Hampshire: Autonomy Institute. 12

Reducing working hours has become a pragmatic response to our unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, potentially ameliorating the social and environmental crisis we are facing. Autonomy Institute’s report “The Ecology of Work”9 discusses current levels of carbon intensity in relation to labour, posing the ultimate question of how much more work the environment can afford.10 This report rests on research which suggests that a 1% decrease in working hours may result in a 0,8% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.11 Based on calculations performed with Sweden as an example, this research shows that Sweden’s sustainable level of working hours is approximately 12 hours per week - in contrast to its current 40-hour week. Consequently, not only the quality but also the quantity of work has implications concerning environmental degradation. Faced with an accelerating rate of technological development and a deepening social and environmental crisis, there is currently a growing discussion regarding how reducing working hours may be regarded as a multiple-dividend policy initiative. Reforms seeking to reduce working hours may engender a redistribution of work and leisure, as well as natural resources and wealth.12 In the process of transforming our societies towards degrowth, reducing working hours will thus bring about additional concerns regarding the redistribution of wealth and access to social security - while potentially implying the gradual decentralisation of previously centralised institutions and provisional systems. However, such policies should not be implemented in isolation. In curtailing our current crisis, it is imperative that labour policies are supplemented by additional policies seeking to facilitate the radical transformation of socio-economic systems.13 Reducing working hours is thus only the first step in the task of fundamentally reimagining our relationship to wage-labour and the dominant work ethic. However, this is a much more complex endeavour due to the embeddedness of our activities within the global capitalist system. It is therefore required that we begin the process of reimagining our subjectivity, and the social construction of the human as a worker or

(DE)WORK (DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

(DE)WORK 19

DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

In order to affront the existential crisis we currently face, it will be necessary to present a powerful alternative to the hegemonic project which is capitalism. As noted by Williams and Srnicek, the dynamics of accumulation are at the heart of Capital.15 The promotion of non-expansionary capitalism is, therefore, an oxymoron. A new alternative must seek to accommodate differences in regional prerequisites around the globe, re-shaping our relationship to wage-labour and thus also transforming current patterns of production and consumption. It will then be necessary to challenge our culturally held beliefs about humanity and labour, and our relationship to nature, in order to construct a new logic with which we may learn to navigate in the age of the Anthropocene.

(DE)WORK

Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. 70(5), 873-880. Srnicek, N. & Williams, A. (2015). Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World without Work. London, UK: Verso Books. 15

employee, to re-envisage our existential purpose as well as the spatiality of our systems of production and consumption. This necessitates that policies seek to focus on welfare rather than income.14 In promotion of degrowth, it will thereby be more important to define what constitutes an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s welfare rather than to seek to merely increase their median income in quantitative terms.

RAFAEL MATSUNAGA - FLICKR THE FINANCIALISATION OF THE ECONOMY HAS INTENSIFIED OUR GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCY. ANY RELATIONSHIP WITHIN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM CONTRIBUTES TO PROCESSES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND MATERIAL EXTRACTION.

DE)WORK

(DE)WORK

TECHNOLOGY BEYOND LABOUR

1 Morris, M. S. L. & Morris, R. (1979). Class and Class Consciousness in the Industrial Revolution 1780â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1850. London, UK: The Macmiillan Press Ltd. Grin, J., Rotmans, J. & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. UK: Routledge.

In the 19thcentury, textile workers in England collectively protested against the technological development of the day. They perceived that the use of technology was being promoted in order to circumvent labour laws and standards. The Luddites, as they have come to be called, believed that new machinery would reduce the requirement of manual labourers.1 However, as history demonstrates, this never transpired. Rather, the Industrial Revolution instigated a period of rapidly increasing socio-economic standards in industrialising countries and regions. Subsequently, the assertion that there is a negative relationship between technological development and labour demand has been termed the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Luddite fallacyâ&#x20AC;?. This fallacy presumes that the former will permanently reduce the latter, increasing unemployment while contributing to socio-economic inequalities. While the Luddite fallacy is still being used by proponents of economic growth and innovation as primary means of societal development, trying to understand our current situation through the lens of historical events is problematic. Not only has the globalisation of capitalism fundamentally transformed our societies, but the nature and speed of the current technological transition towards automation, artificial intelligence, and digitalisation present radically different challenges than the transition which occurred during the Industrial Revolution. This may particularly be the case with regard to its social impacts, and how these are unevenly spread globally. These factors thereby call into question whether innovation, in the form of technological development, will be sufficient in responding to our social and environmental crisis. This crisis not only demands that we question the contemporary validity of the Luddite fallacy, but it also necessitates a consideration of the broader societal impacts resulting from contemporary technological progress. Within the neoclassical tradition, the dominant perception is that technological innovation will ameliorate the most negative effects of our current socio-economic systems. However, the challenges facing us today cannot be mitigated by the sole help of technologies.2 Rather, they require a radical transformation of current societal structures - encouraging us to formulate new visions of a global society which is socially, ecologically, and economi-

(DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK (DE)WORK

Questioning our relationship to technologies, and their crucial role in determining our patterns of production and consumption thus provides a point of departure for imagining new possibilities and visions regarding our social, political, and economic organisation. However, the promotion of an alternative vision such as degrowth will require concerted efforts of actors from multiple disciplines. In the same manner as current forms of labour and work influence the nature and spatial organisation of these structures, new ways of imagining labour will present challenges not only to existing institutions and the hegemony of mainstream economics - but also how a transformation towards degrowth may manifest itself into new spatial dynamics of production and consumption. This will require a redesign of the relationship between labour, nature, and their role in the creation of economic value.

(DE)WORK

(DE)WORK 23

Consequently, the techno-optimism exhibited by those in power - who further promote a continuation of current development trajectories intrinsically dependent on processes of material extraction, wage-labour, and economic growth - thereby neglects to account for the complex trade-offs associated with technological development. Mainstream economic conceptualisations of the transition towards more sustainable societies are thus built on conceptually linear ideas of social and environmental contexts, and the interdependencies between the different dimensions which determine future societal development.

(DE)WORK

3 Frey, C. B. & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?, Technological forecasting and social change, vol. 114, pp. 254-280.

The impact of climate change and environmental deterioration on the livelihoods of peoples will furthermore be unequally distributed in space. Correlating to the social dimension of the challenges facing us today, it will, therefore, be pertinent to ask who will gain (and who will lose) from future technological advancements. As it currently stands, the globally distributed pattern of benefits with regard to automation, artificial intelligence, and digitalisation is positively correlated to the current distribution of wealth.3

DE)WORK

cally sustainable. This further necessitates a reconfiguration of our socio-cultural fabric, so heavily influenced by unrealistic assumptions regarding how humans, nature, and societies functions. This calls for transforming our socio-economic systems towards degrowth.

reWork

office@rework.work