The Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
Sasiwimon Paosanmuang
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has supported me in successfully completing this project.
First and foremost, I extend my deepest thanks to my tutor, Dr. David Robert, for his unwavering support, invaluable guidance, and encouragement throughout this journey. His insights not only inspired me to develop my practices but also made me thoroughly enjoy the process. I am equally grateful to all tutors—Henrietta Williams, Dr. Merijn Royaards, and Dr. James O'Leary—for their thoughtful suggestions and constructive feedback, which prompted me to reflect deeply on the key concepts of my work and enhanced its technical execution. I would also like to express my appreciation to the program director of the Situated Practice MA, Dr. Polly Gould, for her unwavering support, care, and readiness to discuss and resolve issues related to my exhibition installation.
I am profoundly thankful to my family for their constant encouragement and moraleboosting during stressful times. A special thanks to my sister, Thidatat Paosanmuang, for her instrumental role in documenting and filming, and for accompanying me on visits to the button factory in Thailand, a pivotal aspect of my research methods.
I would also like to acknowledge my friend, Júlia Moreno Villaça, for her invaluable assistance in setting up the film screening and her practical advice on material selection. Her encouragement and support throughout both the project and exhibition were deeply appreciated.
I extend my gratitude to my dear friend and flatmate, Maytika Laddakom, for her enriching discussions and thoughtful perspectives, which greatly contributed to the project. Her kindness in preparing meals during my busiest days and her emotional support helped me stay confident and reduce stress.
Finally, I am deeply grateful to everyone who contributed to this project in any capacity. Your collective efforts and support have made this a fulfilling and enriching experience. Thank you all for your invaluable contributions.
Abstract
Fashion is a hyper-capitalist industry reliant on the mass production of cheap, disposable clothing. Labourers on clothing production lines perform repetitive, mechanical tasks devoid of creativity or decision-making, alienating them from their work and humanity (Marx, 1844). At the same time, factories enforce temporal and spatial discipline, a form of control that extends into workers’ lives outside the factory, shaping their everyday behaviours and routines (Smart, 1983).
Draw the Lines explores this alienation inside a Thai button factory's production line as well as its internalisation in workers’ personal lives. The project critically examines how factory processes reshape human movements—once organic and natural—into rigid, monotonous, and linear patterns focused solely on efficiency (Ingold, 2007). It does so by developing a form of situated durational performance practice manifest in a tripartite series of works which expose and enact these experiences.
A 10-hour film documents a durational performance in which I monotonously repeat bodily movements from a 9-hour work shift of a Thai button factory's production line, which I visited and observed under the constraints of efficiency, space, and time. An 8-minute cut intersperses footage with process-oriented experiments which highlight the influence of factory control extending into workers’ lives. Finally, a set of clothing labels stitched into fast-fashion garments reveal the nature of exploitation associated with specific items available in high street stores worldwide to prompt consumer awareness.
This practice takes inspiration from performance artist Tehching Hsieh and filmmaker Cao Fei's whose works use the body and time as key tools to explore human conditions, as well as Brechtian and Boalian theories to engage audiences in confronting alienation directly. It reveals the structural realities of production, encouraging audiences—whether as consumers or capitalists—to become aware of their roles and boundaries, and ask where they will draw the line.
Chapter
Introduction
Draw the Lines project aims to create a Situated Practice approach for investigating the phenomenon of alienation brought on by temporal and spatial discipline in the production line of a Thai button factory, as well as criticising how it is internalised in the workers' personal lives outside of the factory. "Draw the Lines" is a metaphorical expression that challenges the alienation of workers in capitalist industries. It does this by highlighting the authority of capitalists in defining the limits, restrictions, and divisions of labor in the production line, as well as the boundary of consuming behaviour. This approach reveals the essence of work under capitalism and encourages audiences, whether they are consumers or capitalists, to recognise their roles, boundaries, and boundaries. Furthermore, "Draw the Lines" illustrates the methodology approach of participant observation through visits to a button factory in Thailand that operates under strict regulation, emphasising how this approach aligns with the project's aim to critique alienation.
The idea of lines has evolved to reflect the development of human society. In Lines: A Brief History by Tim Ingold, the concept of lines is explored in relation to the significant shifts in human society's perception and adoption of lines that evolved from industrialisation. The process of industrialisation has transformed the traditional idea of lines, originally perceived as traces of movement, into rigid, fixed, and abstract forms that dominate modern production, management, and urban development. Today, we use the lines to define control and order, symbolising productivity, consistency, and separation. For instance, production lines divide tasks into repetitive and separated components, precisely planning factory layouts and reducing the complex nature of human work to simple mechanical processes (Ingold, 2007). This separation of labourers from the products reflects Marx’s concept of alienation in capitalist industry (Marx, 1844). Ingold contrasts the rigid structural lines of industry with the flexible lines that are typical of preindustrial civilisations, where indistinct boundaries create a more integrated and dynamic social environment.
Therefore, the commentary will present the content through the concept of lines, consisting of four chapters, alongside related project archives displayed on the right side, which include sketches, diagrams, photographs, and precedent references.
Chapter I: WHOSE LINES DO WE DRAW explores the theories of worker alienation, a concept that has faced inspection since the 18th century. Adam Smith, a foundational economist of modern capitalism, initially highlighted the division of labor as a driver of productivity.
In contrast, Karl Marx critically examined the consequences of this division, linking it to worker alienation and the rise of class distinctions. The early 20th century noted the emergence of scientific management, articulated by Frederick Winslow Taylor, which intensified critiques of worker alienation. Moving into the 21st century, scholars like Zygmunt Bauman and Tansy E. Hoskins have addressed the detrimental effects of consumerism on worker relationships, emphasising how capitalism fosters inequalities and exploitation through a focus on overconsumption. This chapter will delve into these perspectives, illustrating the ongoing and evolving nature of worker alienation within economic systems.
Chapter II: WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINES examines the concept of spatial discipline within factory settings, drawing on Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon as a framework for understanding surveillance and selfregulation. This chapter highlights how spatial arrangements in factories promote a culture of observation, compelling workers to regulate their own behaviour to meet productivity standards while alienating them from their sense of agency. Michel Foucault’s analysis extends this idea, showing how disciplinary power shapes worker behaviour through spatial organisation and time management. Barry Smart linked these theories to Marxist critiques of capitalism, highlighting how factory structures' spatial control not only exploits workers economically but also permeates their personal lives, thereby intensifying their alienation. The discussion further incorporates Henri Lefebvre’s perspective on the production of space, conveying how industrial environments strip away humanity and individuality, transforming workers into simply extensions of machinery. This chapter reveals the significant impacts of spatial structure and surveillance in continuing worker alienation and explores how these dynamics operate within the broader context of global capitalism.
Chapter III: HOW DO WE SEE THE LINES focuses on forms and methodologies in art practices that have extensively explored the notion of alienation within capitalist systems. Artists and practitioners have critiqued and revealed the profound alienation from society embedded in modern labor systems through performance art, theatre, and film. By analysing the works of Bertolt Brecht, Augusto Boal, Cao Fei, Tehching Hsieh, and Mika Rottenberg, this chapter will examine the narrative methods and responses to the condition of alienation in capitalism that each artist has employed in their work.
Chapter IV: HOW DO WE DRAW THE LINES DIFFERENTLY offers a conclusion on the development of art practices, specifically in response to the site, situation, and research questions. This chapter will focus on the methodology of participant observation, detailing my experience visiting a Thai button factory. Through this crucial process, I observed both the spatial and production environments on the production line, which informed my artistic reflection. I will demonstrate how I translated these experiences, along with the theoretical insights from Chapters I to III, into durational performance, film, and object installation.
In conclusion, the Draw the Lines project commentary interrogates the nature of alienation within capitalist frameworks, focusing on the impacts of temporal and spatial discipline in industrial settings. By utilising a situated practice approach, the project critiques the constraints imposed by capitalist structures and highlights the human experiences affected by these systems. Through a blend of theoretical analysis and artistic expression, this project aims to raise awareness and provoke dialogue on the ongoing issues of alienation and exploitation in contemporary labor practices.
I WHOSE LINES DO YOU DRAW
Theories of Alienation in Capitalism
Adam Smith laid the theoretical framework for modern economics in The Wealth of Nations (1766) and first extensively discussed the division of labor. He deemed it efficient in terms of money and wealth production. In fact, if the workforce specialises in one function, more similar products can be sold (Fig. 1-2). For example, in the case of the garment factory, if only one employee made the entire product, most of the attention would have been diverted to time-consuming and sometimes too challenging tasks, leaving no surplus to diversify the selling activities.
Adam Smith, although recognising the effectiveness of division of labor at the time, also delineated that such an approach could have been harmful in terms of ethics. Dividing the workforce into exceedingly narrow activities could have made the workers increasingly obsessed with monotonous and alienating embodiments of the product, depriving the goods of their humane touch. Additionally, the division excluded the physical and emotional realities of experience in the production of goods. Nonetheless, these conditions remained an acceptable approach to Smith rather than a fundamental problem of the entire economic system.
William James analysed the concept of habit in his 1890 work Habit. According to James's view, even though scientific literature often deals with the concept of habit in relation to economics, in reality, habits have a much broader significance in human life. He considers such a great importance of habits in people’s lives that one needs to have a lot of habits to cope with all personal peculiarities since habits guarantee ease of one’s life. Even though James does not devote much attention in his work to the impact of social and economic structures on alienation, his ideas suggest that the birth of a habit follows the development of a special repetitive activity to become a habit, such as the pattern division of labor. As a result, the concepts of economic activity and habit are interconnected because of the relationship's foundation.
One of the most in fl uential philosophers of the nineteenth century, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, introduced in his Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) the concept of alienation as a philosophical process in which self-consciousness becomes estranged from itself. However, the process of alienation culminates in overcoming this estrangement through dialectical reconciliation. Notably, Hegel’s concept of alienation is closely connected to the development of selfconsciousness. That is to say, individuals are alienated as they experience themselves separated from the external world and other selves; for this reason, alienation presupposes a dialectical process of attaining self-consciousness.
According to Hegel, social roles lead to alienation because they divide an individual’s life and prevent one’s fullness. However, alienation is also part and parcel of self-consciousness and freedom. In this respect, in trying through labour to realise itself, the selfconsciousness merely asserts itself and brings out for display its distinctiveness from the informal immediacy of the object. At the same time, such interaction between the internal and external worlds allows the selfconsciousness to recognise its human essence as a social and rational being.
1: Collection of button production steps, divided into 18 tasks in two factories in South Korea and Thailand.
2: Comparison of button production steps and division of labor in two factories.
Fig.
Fig.
Karl Marx based his concept of alienation on Hegel’s idea but related it to capitalist production. In Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, The Communist Manifesto, and Das Kapital, Marx provided an analysis of how capitalism alienated workers from their labor, from the products they made, from their fellow men, and from their essence. In Marx’s account, the division of labor in the capitalist system has produced profound alienation in the following ways:
1. Alienation from the product: since workers do not own the goods they produce; instead, these goods are sold for the benefit of the capitalist.
2. Alienation from the labor process: The division of labor reduces workers to performing repetitive, dehumanising tasks, which prevent them from realising their creative potential.
3. Alienation from fellow workers: Capitalism fosters competition among workers, eroding social bonds and solidarity.
4. Alienation from species-being: Workers are alienated from their human essence, as labor under capitalism prevents them from engaging in free, creative activity that is fundamental to human nature.
Thus, Marx believed that alienation was not a necessary condition of human life, as Hegel suggested. In Hegel’s view, alienation was necessary to the existence of man since subjects become objective to themselves, which leads to actions. Marx’s theory, however, holds that alienation is a historically specific effect of social formation. In conclusion, Marx saw the only solution to overcoming alienation as revolution, abolition of private property, and the capitalist mode of production. In a communist society, Marx envisioned that labor would become a fulfilling, creative activity, allowing individuals to realise their human essence through free, cooperative production. (Fig. 3)
3: Who Made This Jacket?
The object installation uses assumed names and role labels for those who played eight different roles in making the jacket
Fig.
In twentieth century, The Principles of Scientific Management by Frederick Winslow Taylor, written in 1911, was truly revolutionary as he took chances to provide a novel approach to the industrial production of that period. The effects of Taylor’s system, which is generally referred to as scientific management or Taylorism, contributed to the continuous development of modern capitalism. The system is based on a number of principles that helped to increase work efficiency and productivity to the maximum. (Fig. 4)
Primarily, Taylor advocated for the division of labor and specialisation of tasks by breaking them down into the smallest elements. Subsequently, workers became specialised in that part of work and became more efficient. Additionally, there was a standardisation of tools, details of work, and methods, to ensure that the output was consistent. Moreover, the time and motion studies appeared to show how the work can be done effectively. Following that, Taylor called for an explicit division of the planning and the performance of work.
Consequently, supervisors were planning work and analysing the process, while workers were given the work and were obliged to perform the instructions. Finally, to encourage workers to be the most effective ones, the system of incentive-based pay was introduced, so the employees who were faster than the existing productivity standards received a salary that was higher than the average.
These principles greatly assisted in the development of capitalism in the early 20th century. Taylorism was closely related to the capitalist focus on efficiency and automatic profit generation by allowing for streamlining of labor input and minimising the variation of output. His approaches later became the basis for the implementation of mass production, most famously observed in the case of Ford’s assembly lines, which allowed companies to produce goods in record time and vast numbers, thus further embedding the logic of rapid production for profit of capitalism (Braverman, 1974).
However, one of the most profound and critical examinations of Taylorism comes from Harry Braverman. In his studies, they explored key issues about capitalist labor and the consequences of the human factor becoming more efficient. Tylorism was defined as a system of scientific management, and the main arguments of these two scholars include the increased control of managers.
Braverman was the author of Labor and Monopoly Capital, published in 1974, where he described Taylorism as a concept of de-skilling workers to increase professional dependence on supervisors. Specifically, the principle of this concept refers to the specialisation of tasks and division of work into several elements. As a result, the work should be consistent, with each worker performing their task in the most common way. He also proposed that the human body, specifically the hand, plays a crucial role in the production process, particularly in creative and skilled work. In industrial work, however, the hand’s role becomes limited to performing simplified, repetitive movements, operating levers and control panels. (Fig. 5)
4: Time diagram of the Performance Intervention Prototype: 'When Time Becomes a Commodity,' showing a timeline for each period where spatial reduction shortens time to enhance eûciency, revealing the concept of Taylorism
Fig.
The Performance Intervention Prototype: 'When Time Becomes a Commodity,' showing a timeline for each period where spatial reduction shortens time to enhance eûciency, revealing the concept of Taylorism
As navigating through the 21st century, Zygmunt Bauman and Tansy E. Hoskins offer us a relevant summation of the relevance of modern capitalism, where consumerism and overconsumption become commodities of profit on the backs of extreme alienation and exploitation.
Firstly, Bauman, in his 2007 book Consuming Life, assesses how capitalism has transformed modern life into a 'consumerism'-dominated society. Otherwise, the revolution occurred where people switched from a producer society into a consumer society, and the primary value of a human—one’s definition—is the capacity to buy. Bauman highlights that such an approach has intensified the effect of alienation as people rate consumption as the only way to construct their orders rather than having substantial social ties and personal satisfaction. This phenomenon is viewed as having a cycle of desire and instant gratification, resulting in further consumption just for fun within capitalism.
After that, author Tansy Hoskins wrote Stitched Up: The Anti-Capitalist Book of Fashion (2014), which details the situation with a fast-fashion industry as a clear example of capitalism exploitation through overproduction. The exploitation has been driven further as cheap clothes have been forgiven, and modern consumers have high purchasing power to buy as much as possible. The whole situation is unjust, and otherwise, fashion as a medium to distinguish oneself and have a unique clothing style has been exploited as everything following the shift touches Robespierrean’s principle of “consume or die.” (Fig. 6)
On the contrary, workers in developing countries face exploitative labor conditions, highlighting the global inequalities produced by capitalist production. Hoskins considers that such a condition is due to the weight of fashion and other forms of consumption on capitalism's society, and the effect is dramatic as capitalism produces the same phenomena, leading to the exploitation of physical and human resources.
5 : The Sewing Task for 1,000 Buttons (2024). The self-experiment of sewing buttons as a repetitive task includes fingerprint clocking and time records.
Fig
Fig 6 : Photographs of shoe shelves in a fastfashion store in poor condition.
The Sewing Task for 1,000 Buttons (2024). The self-experiment of sewing buttons as a repetitive task includes fingerprint clocking and time records.
II WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINES
Spatial and Factory Discipline
Bentham's concept was a model for what an ideal prison might resemble, but its implications for surveillance and spatial control also extend beyond prisons to many other institutions, such as schools, psychiatric hospitals, and factories. The Panopticon was operated around the principle of perpetual imprisonment, where a main watch tower can view all prisoners; those vacillants are never sure whether they were under observation. This results in what is known as self-regulation, whereby people behave autonomously since they are not aware of when they are being watched. (Fig. 8)
The study examines the application of Panopticon in factory settings, highlighting space arrangement systems that discourage employees. Manufacturers arrange factories in such a way that workers can observe each other, or monitor themselves through supervisors, cameras, or open doors. The awareness of workers that they may be under observation at any moment encourages them to regulate their behaviour to meet the expectations of productivity and efficiency. Through constant observation, their autonomy is detached from themselves, and they are then compelled to internalise surveillance norms as control mechanisms that alienate them from a sense of agency.
In Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault extends Bentham’s Panopticon to uncover how power works through discipline in modern institutions, such as factories. According to Foucault, disciplinary power is exercised in space, time, and behaviour, creating docile bodies that respond to the demands of authority (Foucault, 1975).
Factories are the ideal settings of this discipline, which is imposed on workers in space through the organisation of the workplace—assemble lines, stations, and machinery, which set the pace and necessary rhythm. The space ensures that workers’ bodies are disciplined strictly to the needs of the production process. However, workers tend to become the subjects of such spatial arrangements; therefore, they regulate their behaviour not because they are being watched but because they watch themselves. Workers are able to become self-regulated and adapt their demands to meet those of the factory. This affect, however, separates them from their creative abilities and their human side. They begin to be perceived as mere parts of the production machinery.
and CCTV monitoring.
Fig 8 : Video still from Performance Intervention Test I, created to engage the audience in experiencing repetitive tasks under surveillance
In Foucault, Marxism, and Critique, Barry Smart establishes a parallel between the Foucauldian theories of power and the Marxist critiques of capitalism. To do this, he conveys about the relationship between Foucault’s analysis of a disciplinary model of power and Marx’s ideas of alienation in labor. Notably, Smart suggests that the disciplinary power in factories, which is exercised based on specific spatial organisation and management of time, the process of discipline within the factory is not solely an aspect of the economic exploitation of man but also a form of control that extends beyond the factory and into the workers’ personal lives (Smart, 1983) (Fig. 9). In particular, by managing spatial organisation, time, and surveillance, the factories control the bodies of individuals and groups, making them powerless and imposing autonomous discipline. The worker thus feels alienated from his labor, which becomes a commodity, as well as from his body and mind, which are controlled through spatial arrangement and surveillance. The general organisation of space is complemented by the capitalist system, which disciplines the workers into obedient labourers, docile bodies that cannot resist domination due to being alienated from their true selves through the tools at the disposal of the discipline and taken aback by the desire to control any aspect or form of life.
Leaving aside the exploration of abstract space, Henri Lefebvre offers a potent critical paradigm in his work, The Production of Space. While industrial spaces, particularly factories, organise the environment to control it completely, its main objective is consistency and efficiency in achieving profit. In essence, the space ensures total control over the worker’s activities while channeling occupation and movement in every way to maximise efficiency (Fig. 10). This can be attributed to the fundamental division in space, where the environment in which the worker works is no longer reflective of their daily life and is instead molded to serve the machinery of production. Conversely, the lived space is shaped by a person’s experiences and interactions with other human beings, in contrast to the mechanised environment of industrial spaces (Lefebvre, 1991). This situation is alienating to workers brought on by the sheer rigidity and lack of humanity in the structures of factories. As a result, workers, who are constantly constituted, are entirely separate as they become little more than extensions of the machinery they have been accommodated to.
9 : Diagram showing the cluster of worker housing close to the factory and industrial areas, most of which are provided by the factory, illustrating how control can extend beyond the factory
Fig
Fig 10 : Workspace study sketches for each task in the button production line, including work areas, conveyor belts, and machine operating zones.
In the study titled Rethinking Modernity: Space and Factory Discipline in China, Lisa Rofel. She contends that factories worked not just as sites of production but as political spaces, and that they turned workers into socialist subjects. The location of factories, workstations, machines, dormitories of workers, and everyone was situated for maximisation of efficiency and control; efficient workers would be disciplined or corrected to become more efficient citizens and follow state ideology. Factory spaces were purposely designed with the infrastructure created to keep the power balance between management and labour and separate them further from each other and the state. Similarly, Rofel explores the gendered nature of factory discipline, as dormitories cultivated collectivism and moral discipline, aiming to produce the perfect socialist female worker. Even though the state tried to construct a collective identity, factory discipline and spatial control resulted in the alienation, subjugation, and isolation of workers. The article draws out a connection between space and discipline in factories to show how capitalism and socialism structure industrial and social alienation.
It is essential to trace the interdependence of spatial organisation and factory discipline as a way of controlling labor and production to understand modern capitalism dynamics (Fig. 11). The ideas of global capitalism targeting spatial organisation and labor practices have been examined by Pun Ngai and Saskia Sassen.
In Made in China, Pun Ngai was focused on the experiences of Chinese female workers to stress the spatial discipline at the factories as a way of labor discipline. Particularly for young female migrant workers who were drawn to China's industrial hubs. Factories' spatial layout, which includes the placement of dormitories and workspaces, creates an institution that constantly monitors and regulates workers both within and outside the factory. Pun highlighted how spatial control alienated workers from their communities and personal lives. Migrant workers, generally from rural areas, were isolated in industrial zones, cut off from their family and social networks, exacerbating their alienation. Factory space thus became an instrument for economic exploitation and discipline, enhancing global capital's power to extract labor while tightly controlling workers' movements and relationships. (Fig. 12)
While In the book Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy (2014), Sassen argued that workers, particularly in the Global South, were situated in zones of labor exploitation, where they were disposable and cut off from wider social relations. The spatial structure of those factories corroborated their expendability since workers operated in temporary and acutely vulnerable living arrangements with limited scope for action. Similarly, factory space is also a site of brutality, as workers are systematically expelled from the wealth they contribute to produce. Therefore, the creation and geography of those expulsions—social, economic, and spatial—underscored the international capital’s brutality and reliance on spatial policies for disciplined and marginalised labor.
Fig 11: Primary scenes and equipment positioning diagram in the Performance Intervention Prototype: When Time Becomes a Commodity, critiquing space, time, and motion studies in Taylorism, which discusses the relationship between space reduction and increased productivity.
Fig 12 : Photograph from the website of a button factory, showing the systematic nature and arrangement of the production line and machines.
III WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINES
Forms and Methodologies in Art Practices
This chapter examines artistic practices that question the modern capitalist concept of alienation, as well as focusing on the interplay of time and the body, to explore the human condition under discipline. The study will investigate how performance art, theatre, and film question and critique sociopolitical dynamics.
The theory of alienation in Marxism directly correlates with the theatrical techniques of Bertolt Brecht. Practitioner and playwright Bertolt Brecht remains well known for his work in epic theatre, and his objective is to inspire critical thinking instead of emotional involvement from the audience. His storytelling tools, particularly the "alienation effect," encourage audiences to reflect on their role in capitalism and social norms. Brecht communicates essential truths about capitalism in works such as Mother Courage and Her Children (1941). (Fig. 13)
In doing so, he challenges audiences to acknowledge their own complicity within these systems. Brecht's notion of alienation while having a grounding in consciousness shares more attention to social and political context. One of the ways he does this is by making strange, which elevates awareness of the conditions existing and ultimately generates a consciousness that can lead to social action. (Fig. 14)
Fig 13: Photos of Mother Courage and Her Children (1941) by Brecht's theatre
Fig 14: A document studying and analysing Brecht's techniques in epic theatre
Brechtian theatre, has had a great impact on the theatre field and other practitioners. Inspired by Brecht, Augusto Boal created the Theatre of the Oppressed in 1974 with a special emphasis on interactive performance, giving space for voicing non-dominant voices. They are in direct conversation with the audience to interpret their experiences of systemic oppression. The work of Boal inspires people to consider other possibilities for their economic and social lives. Boal found that by converting spectators into "spect-actors," he can foster a sense of both power and collective responsibility in capitalist societies, and this helps the audience become active participants. (Fig. 15-16)
In modern times, Cao Fei's Whose Utopia (2006) is a video installation that critiques the rise of urbanisation, labor, and identity in contemporary China. The performers are workers of the Guangzhou-based light bulb factory, where Cao worked during her six-month stay, highlighting the crucial role of participant observation. They engaged in various activities, including dancing and playing guitar, within the factory setting in order to "release the workers from a standardised concept of productivity" and allow them to express their personal aspirations and dreams.
Her work juxtaposes the realities of factory life and how workers were caught up in it with their fantasies that they were able to escape to, especially during break times. This raises some questions about utopia within capitalism. Cao plays with the blur line between documentary and fiction, living through workers that are struggling against impossible dreams and swathing in life of fantasy. This story also connects with Marx's concept of alienation, depicting how workers become estranged from their sense of self and what they want out of life.
Whose Utopia is a meditation on consumerism and the price we pay for so-called human progress, encouraging us to confront the real costs behind developments that bring economic prosperity at any cost. By using this installation, Cao speaks on behalf of marginalised individuals, showcases the socio-political reality of modern China, and compels more profound contemplation on capital versions for humanity. The participatory approach of Cao's is similar to Boal’s techniques, such as Forum Theatre, inviting audiences to engage directly with the narrative, which aims to give voice to those who are often silenced in traditional narratives, fostering a sense of agency among the performers.
16: A document studying and analysing Boal’s techniques in the Theatre of the Oppressed
Fig
Fig 15: Collecting photos from the Theatre of the Oppressed workshop by Boal
VI HOW DO WE DRAW THE LINES DIFFERENTLY
Draw the Lines explores and critiques labor alienation within a key component of the clothing industry: button production. The site of study is a medium-sized button factory in Bangkok, Thailand, employing approximately 80 workers and producing buttons for both domestic sale and export. Participant observation through on-site visits was essential for gathering data on the physical aspects of the factory’s interior, the relationships and interactions among workers, the structured activities on the production line, and the surrounding context. Due to regulations prohibiting photos and videos in the production area, data collection relied primarily on sketches and detailed notes.
Production eûciency
Production efficiency is one of the foundations of capitalist profitability, both based on factory operational objectives and management approach. In this case, a button factory published their ability to churn out as many as 1 million buttons a day, which illustrates how this focus on output becomes a metric of legitimacy for consumers and a performance goal for employees.
Time discipline and task division
In mass production, a button factory divides work into 18 specific tasks, from material mixing to packaging. Each worker is assigned to a highly specialised, repetitive role, contributing to a system that becomes very efficient, easily managed, and subject to close inspection. The production process depends on machinery interconnected with conveyor belts in a structured sequence. Consequently, human movements are confined, simplified, and reduced to repetitive actions, tightly synchronised with the machines. (Fig. 17)
This hyper-structured environment, as described in Chapter I, reinforces workers’ alienation by transforming them into extensions of the machinery rather than active participants in the production process. The impacts of repetitive tasks, as theorised by Harry Braverman (1974), lead to skill degradation and dependency on employers. In the long term, such monotonous roles risk causing physical and psychological decline, as employees lose agency and become progressively alienated from their work. (Fig. 18)
Monitoring, Time Regulation, and Discipline
To maintain security and manage entry and exit, the factory enforces strict surveillance, including a fingerprint scanning system that verifies identity and monitors attendance. The standard shift runs from 07:30 to 17:30, totaling 9 hours with a 1-hour lunch break. Although Thai labor laws require a break at least every five hours, the lack of specific considerations for factory work, such as the constant exposure to loud machinery or prolonged seating on chairs without back support, highlights a gap in protective measures for workers. This oversight leaves employees vulnerable to occupational hazards, reinforcing the notion that efficiency in capitalist frameworks often overlooks the well-being of individual workers.
Fig 17: A sketch of human motion made after a visit to a button factory in Thailand, showing the relationship between 18 movements and machine operations within the factory layout.
Fig 18: A sketch of machines made after a visit to a button factory in Thailand, showing several modified pedal levers on machines made by workers to protect the human body from injury during long hours of continuous work.
During peak production periods, extended work hours become routine, with additional pay calculated as overtime. While this may seem like a benefit, it often reflects the capitalist tendency to push workers beyond standard limits to meet high-demand schedules. This lack of agency contributes to an environment where employees feel further removed from their work and increasingly like mere instruments of production. (Fig. 19)
In terms of spatial discipline, the button factory’s layout is methodically organised to meet precise standards that align with the stages of button production. The machines and conveyor belts are arranged in regimented lines that follow the specific steps of the production process. On the ground floor, the sales staff office and reception area are situated near the production line, ensuring quick access for product transportation. Above the mezzanine level, are the sorting, quality control, and packaging areas, strategically connected to the administrative office by a walkway. This space facilitates continuous oversight, allowing the supervisors to closely inspect and monitor production progress.
CCTV cameras are placed strategically throughout various production sections, intensifying the control over both product quality and worker behaviour. This visual surveillance layer echoes Jeremy Bentham's concept of the Panopticon, discussed in Chapter II, where constant observation serves as a mechanism of control, compelling workers to self-regulate their actions even when direct supervision may not be present. This architectural arrangement transforms the workspace into a site of disciplinary power, shaping how workers move, behave, and perform their tasks.
19: A sketch from a visit to a button factory in Thailand, illustrating time discipline with working hours from 07:30 to 17:30, for a 9-hour shift.
Fig
The strict spatial arrangements impose notable constraints on each worker. This division not only limits the variety of each worker’s role but also confines them to a minimal physical space, averaging just 1.44 square meters per person. Within this restricted area, workers are expected to operate machinery continuously, limiting their mobility and diminishing their sense of autonomy. Michel Foucault’s analysis of spatial discipline highlights how such environments, with rigid spatial constraints and surveillance, strip individuals of agency, effectively reducing them to extensions of the machinery they operate. This spatial arrangement creates a sense of alienation, as workers are distanced from their labor’s overall purpose and outcome, rendering them detached from the product they help create.
Moreover, this physical separation enforces a clear division between management and labor. The administrative team, positioned with direct lines of sight to the production floor and easy access for inspections, embodies capitalist authority over workers, underscoring the hierarchical divide. Barry Smart’s extension of Foucault’s theories to Marxist critiques highlights how such spatial control not only economises on labor costs but also permeates workers’ social and psychological lives, enforcing a regimented routine that extends beyond the factory floor.
From my observations, this form of control reaches into nearly every corner of workers' lives. The factory’s provision of worker accommodations, a common practice among similar establishments, reinforces a continuous, structured environment for workers, further extending the reach of spatial and temporal discipline. Most factories in the same area also provide pick-up and drop-off services, orchestrating when and how workers travel to and from the factory. This integration of accommodation and transport, while seemingly convenient, serves to regulate workers' daily movements, minimising their autonomy and creating a routine that blurs the line between work and personal time. The monotony of this arrangement reinforces the alienation discussed earlier, as workers’ lives are segmented into repetitive cycles of labor, with little opportunity for personal freedom or identity outside of their assigned roles. (Fig. 20-21-22)
This overarching control system fosters a pervasive environment of surveillance and routine that encapsulates not just the factory space but the entirety of workers’ lived experiences. Consequently, the capitalist power structures that define workplace boundaries also seep into workers’ private lives, maintaining a rigid schedule that reinforces their role as labourers above all else.
Fig 22 Monotonous surroundings, illustrating that outside of work hours, workers live in a monotonous and disconnected environment.
Fig 20-21: Sketches of the film storyboard showing the relationship between film timing, factory shift time, and outside work time in alignment with button productivity
The Interventions
Draw the Lines has been developed and presented as a tripartite series of works that explore the alienation of workers under spatial and temporal discipline, specifically in the context of production lines in a Thai button factory. This exploration unfolds through three distinct pieces: Draw__ the Lines, A 10-Hour Film, The Unbuttoning, An 8-Minute Film, and Auxiliary Materials, a set of clothing labels. Each piece examines the intersection of labor, time, and surveillance from a unique perspective.
1.Draw__ the Lines, A 10-Hour Film
This film documents a durational performance where I monotonously repeat the 18 task movements performed during a 9-hour shift, with a 1-hour break, based on my observations of a Thai button factory’s production line. Here, I mimic the constraints of efficiency, space, and time that structure the factory environment.
The film emphasises strict time discipline, simulating a workday from starting at 7:30, breaking at 12:30, and finishing at 17:30 within a confined space that restricts movement. The factory’s production goal of 1 million buttons per day is underscored by camera angles shot from above, resembling CCTV surveillance commonly installed on ceilings to monitor production lines. Additionally, the performance divides tasks into small, repetitive channels, representing the total workforce of approximately 80 employees. This approach immerses the audience in a system of controlled, real-time movements synchronised with machine sounds, creating a repetitive, monotonous experience that reflects the relentlessness of factory work.
Fig 23-27 Video stills from Draw the Lines, a 10-hour film
2. The Unbuttoning, An 8-Minute Film
This short film assembles segments of the durational performance, capturing my enactment of the factory’s 18 task movements under the constraints of efficiency, space, and time. It intersperses these sequences with experimental, process-oriented footage to highlight how factory discipline extends beyond the workplace and permeates workers’ lives.
The film uses 1,800 channels to reflect the approximate daily repetitions of these tasks, symbolizing the routine endured by workers. It also combines monotony-filled footage with insights from sociologist Barry Smart, who critiques how factory discipline seeps into workers’ private lives. This critique is grounded in observations of a Thai button factory, where accommodations and transportation are provided by the factory itself, extending control over workers’ schedules even outside of work hours. Night vision footage further conveys the omnipresent surveillance in workers' lives, culminating in a powerful message about the invisible systems and constraints behind each button produced. The film invites viewers to consider the hidden costs of production and the limitations imposed on workers’ freedom beyond factory hours.
Fig 28-33: Video stills from The Unbuttoning, an 8-minute film
3. Auxiliary Materials, A Set of Clothing Labels
This series of labels, stitched into ten fast-fashion garments, brings attention to the exploitation underlying these items. Instead of presenting a monetary price, the labels reveal the labor and discipline embedded in their production. Each label reflects the working conditions and factory control that contribute to these garments, inviting a re-evaluation of value within the clothing industry. The collection is paired with archival materials exploring the significance of garment labels, along with data linking specific factories that produce auxiliary components for various clothing brands.
“Auxiliary materials” refers to garment components like trims, care tags, and buttons, often listed in a brand's production details without specifying the factories responsible for these smaller elements. The project critiques this invisibility, highlighting the labor that goes into even these “secondary” parts of the clothing.
Fig 34: Photograph of a clothing rack containing 10 labels stitched into 10 garments
Fig 35: Photograph of label No. 01 stitched into Jacket U
Auxiliary
The Live Intervention at Petticoat Lane Market takes place at a major clothing market with over 1,000 stalls along Middlesex Street. This interactive walking tour begins at the heart of the market with a mobile clothes rack, guiding the audience through both street stalls and store displays. The goal is to provoke questions about the origin of clothing, the individuals involved in its creation, and the often-overlooked layers of labor exploitation in affordable clothing industries.
During the intervention, the audience is invited to search for labels hidden within garments on the racks, turning them inside out to uncover details about the labor behind each piece. Each label contains information about the labor involved, coupled with archival materials to reveal the often-overlooked exploitation in garment production, including components like buttons and labels. This intervention encourages participants to critically consider the impact of their clothing choices within a system built on labor exploitation, emphasising a deeper understanding of how mass consumption perpetuates these conditions.
Fig 36: Photograph of Auxiliary Materials Live Intervention at Petticoat Lane Market. Photo by David Roberts
Conclusion
Through this exploration, Draw the Lines exposes the layers of control and disciplinary practices that bind workers to the demands of the fashion industry under capitalism. The project offers insights into various facets of this system, from the nature of alienation to the spatial and temporal structures that confine and shape workers' lives, as well as highlighting practitioners who have revealed these issues through their practices. The film and label interventions evoke a deeper understanding of the pervasive impact of capitalist structures on labor, showing how these dynamics affect not only workers’ physical roles but also their social identities and personal lives. Moreover, Draw the Lines challenges viewers to confront the true costs of consumption and to consider their own line within these systems, advocating for greater awareness of the human impact behind industrialised labor and the exploitative structures that sustain it.
Fig 37: Photograph of Auxiliary Materials Live Intervention at Petticoat Lane Market.
Photo by David Roberts
Bibliography
Bauman, Zygmunt. Consuming Life. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
Boal, Augusto, and M-O. Leal McBride. "Theatre of the Oppressed." In The Applied Theatre Reader, pp. 134-140. Routledge, 2020.
Braverman, Harry. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Foreword by Paul Sweezy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974.
Brecht, Bertolt. Mother Courage and Her Children. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015.
Durkheim, Émile. The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by W.D. Halls. New York: Free Press, 1984. Originally published 1893.
Frieze. "Tehching Hsieh on Durational Performance." Frieze. Accessed September 21, 2024. https:// www.frieze.com/article/tehching-hsieh-durational-performance-235.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. Translated by Alan Sheridan. Paris: Gallimard, 1975.
Hayes, Shannan. "Pleasure Aesthetics: On the Art of Mika Rottenberg." Camera Obscura 39, no. 2 (2024): 71-102.
Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A.V. Miller. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Originally published 1807.
Hoskins, Tansy. Stitched Up: The Anti-Capitalist Book of Fashion. London: Pluto Press, 2014.
Ingold, Tim. Lines: A Brief History. Abingdon: Routledge, 2007.
Institute of Fine Arts, NYU. "Whose Utopia: Cao Fei." IFA Contemporary. Accessed September 21, 2024. https://ifacontemporary.org/whose-utopia-cao-fei/.
James, William. The Principles of Psychology. Vol. 1. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1890.
Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
Marx, Karl. Das Kapital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume I. Translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, edited by Frederick Engels. 1867. Reprint, New York: International Publishers, 1967.
Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Translated by Martin Milligan. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. 1848. Reprint, London: Penguin Books, 2002.
Ngai, Pun. Made in China: Women Factory Workers in a Global Workplace. Duke University Press, 2005.
Rofel, Lisa. "Rethinking Modernity: Space and Factory Discipline in China." Cultural Anthropology 7, no. 1 (1992): 93-114.
Sassen, Saskia. Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Harvard University Press, 2014.