[G_O] Lazzarato/Alliez/Jollivet talk in London

[EE]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C26FE4.9B0C0CC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

But he went on to say about Imaterial labour in the classic definition

"All the characteristics of the postindustrial economy (both in industry =
and society as a whole) are highly present within the classic forms of =
"immaterial" production: audiovisual production, advertising, fashion, =
the production of software, photography, cultural activities, and so =
forth. The activities of this kind of immaterial labor force us to =
question the classic definitions of work and workforce, because they =
combine the results of various different types of work skill: =
intellectual skills, as regards the cultural-informational content; =
manual skills for the ability to combine creativity, imagination, and =
technical and manual labor; and entrepreneurial skills in the management =
of social relations and the structuring of that social cooperation of =
which they are a part. This immaterial labor constitutes itself in forms =
that are immediately collective, and we might say that it exists only in =
the form of networks and flows. The organization of the cycle of =
production of immaterial labor (because this is exactly what it is, once =
we abandon our factoryist prejudices-a cycle of production) is not =
obviously apparent to the eye, because it is not defined by the four =
walls of a factory. The location in which it operates is outside in the =
society at large, at a territorial level that we could call "the basin =
of immaterial labor." Small and sometimes very small "productive units" =
(often consisting of only one individual) are organized for specific ad =
hoc projects, and may exist only for the duration of those particular =
jobs. The cycle of production comes into operation only when it is =
required by the capitalist; once the job has been done, the cycle =
dissolves back into the networks and flows that make possible the =
reproduction and enrichment of its productive capacities. =
Precariousness, hyperexploitation, mobility, and hierarchy are the most =
obvious characteristics of metropolitan immaterial labor. Behind the =
label of the independent "self-employed" worker, what we actually find =
is an intellectual
proletarian, but who is recognized as such only by the employers who =
exploit him or her. It is worth noting that in this kind of working =
existence it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish leisure time =
from work time. In a sense, life becomes inseparable from work.This =
labor form is also characterized by real managerial functions that =
consist in (1) a certain ability to manage its social relations and (2) =
the eliciting of social cooperation within the structures of the basin =
of immaterial labor.

The quality of this kind of labor power is thus defined not only by its =
professional capacities (which make possible the construction of the =
cultural-informational content of the commodity), but also by its =
ability to "manage" its own activity and act as the coordinator of the =
immaterial labor of others (production and management of the cycle). =
This immaterial labor appears as a real mutation of "living labor." Here =
we are quite far from the Taylorist model of organization.

Immaterial labor finds itself at the crossroads (or rather, it is the =
interface) of a new relationship between production and consumption. The =
activation of both productive cooperation and the social relationship =
with the consumer is materialized within and by the process of =
communication. The role of immaterial labor is to promote continual =
innovation in the forms and conditions of communication (and thus in =
work and consumption). It gives form to and materializes needs, the =
imaginary, consumer tastes, and so forth, and these products in turn =
become powerful producers of needs, images, and tastes. The =
particularity of the commodity produced through immaterial labor (its =
essential use value being given by its value as informational and =
cultural content) consists in the fact that it is not destroyed in the =
act of consumption, but rather it enlarges, transforms, and creates the =
"ideological" and cultural environment of the consumer. This commodity =
does not produce the physical capacity of labor power; instead, it =
transforms the person who uses it. Immaterial labor produces first and =
foremost a "social relationship" (a relationship of innovation, =
production, and consumption). Only if it succeeds in this production =
does its activity have an economic value. This activity makes =
immediately apparent something that material production had "hidden," =
namely, that labor produces not only commodities, but first and foremost =
it produces the capital relation.

The Autonomy of the Productive Synergies of Immaterial Labor

My working hypothesis, then, is that the cycle of immaterial labor takes =
as its starting point a social labor power that is independent and able =
to organize both its own work and its relations with business entities. =
Industry does not form or create this new labor power, but simply takes =
it on board and adapts it. Industry's control over this new labor power =
presupposes the independent organization and "free entrepreneurial =
activity" of the labor power. Advancing further on this terrain brings =
us into the debate on the nature of work in the post-Fordist phase of =
the organization of labor. Among economists, the predominant view of =
this problematic can be expressed in a single statement: immaterial =
labor operates within the forms of organization that the centralization =
of industry allows. Moving from this common basis, there are two =
differing schools of thought: one is the extension of neoclassical =
analysis; the other is that of systems theory.In the former, the attempt =
to solve the problem comes through a redefinition of the problematic of =
the market. It is suggested that in order to explain the phenomena of =
communication and the new dimensions of organization one should =
introduce not only cooperation and intensity of labor, but also other =
analytic variables (anthropological variables? immaterial variables?) =
and that on this basis one might introduce other objectives of =
optimization and so forth. In fact, the neoclassical model has =
considerable difficulty in freeing itself from the coherence constraints =
imposed by the theory of general equilibrium. The new phenomenologies of =
labor, the new dimensions of organization, communication, the =
potentiality of spontaneous synergies, the autonomy of the subjects =
involved, and the independence of the networks were neither foreseen nor =
foreseeable by a general theory that believed that material labor and an =
industrial economy were indispensable.

Today, with the new data available, we find the microeconomy in revolt =
against the macroeconomy, and the classical model is corroded by a new =
and irreducible anthropological reality.

Systems theory, by eliminating the constraint of the market and giving =
pride of place to organization, is more open to the new phenomenology of =
labor and in particular to the emergence of immaterial labor. In more =
developed systemic theories, organization is conceived as an ensemble of =
factors, both material and immaterial, both individual and collective, =
that can permit a given group to reach objectives. The success of this =
organizational process requires instruments of regulation, either =
voluntary or automatic. It becomes possible to look at things from the =
point of view of social synergies, and immaterial labor can be taken on =
board by virtue of its global efficacy. These viewpoints, however, are =
still tied to an image of the organization of work and its social =
territory within which effective activity from an economic viewpoint (in =
other words, the activity conforming to the objective) must inevitably =
be considered as a surplus in relation to collective cognitive =
mechanisms. Sociology and labor economics, being systemic disciplines, =
are both incapable of detaching themselves from this position.

I believe that an analysis of immaterial labor and a description of its =
organization can lead us beyond the presuppositions of business theory- =
whether in its neoclassical school or its systems theory school. It can =
lead us to define, at a territorial level, a space for a radical =
autonomy of the productive syner=ADgies of immaterial labor. We can thus =
move against the old schools of thought to establish, decisively, the =
viewpoint of an "anthropo-sociology" that is constitutive.

Once this viewpoint comes to dominate within social produc=ADtion, we =
find that we have an interruption in the continuity of models of =
produc=ADtion. By this I mean that, unlike the position held by many =
theoreticians of post-Fordism, I do not believe that this new labor =
power is merely functional to a new historical phase of capitalism and =
its processes of accumulation and reproduction. This labor power is the =
product of a "silent revolution" taking place within the anthropological =
realities of work and within the reconfiguration of its meanings. Waged =
labor and direct subjugation (to organization) no longer constitute the =
prin=ADcipal form of the contractual relationship between capitalist and =
worker. A poly=ADmorphous self-employed autonomous work has emerged as =
the dominant form, a kind of "intellectual worker" who is him or herself =
an entrepreneur, inserted within a market that is constantly shifting =
and within networks that are changeable in time and space."


So Lazarrato talks of the cycle of immaterial labour thus

"Up to this point I have been analyzing and constructing the concept of =
immaterial labor from a point of view that could be defined, so to =
speak, as "microeconomic." If now we consider immaterial labor within =
the globality of the production cycle, of which it is the strategic =
stage, we will be able to see a series of characteristics of =
post-Taylorist production that have not yet been taken into =
consideration.

I want to demonstrate in particular how the process of valoriza=ADtion =
tends to be identified with the process of the production of social =
communica=ADtion and how the two stages (valorization and communication) =
immediately have a social and territorial dimension. The concept of =
immaterial labor presupposes and results in an enlargement of productive =
cooperation that even includes the produc=ADtion and reproduction of =
communication and hence of its most important contents: subjectivity.=20

If Fordism integrated consumption into the cycle of the reproduc=ADtion =
of capital, post-Fordism integrates communication into it. From a =
strictly eco=ADnomic point of view, the cycle of reproduction of =
immaterial labor dislocates the production-consumption relationship as =
it is defined as much by the "virtuous Keynesian circle" as by the =
Marxist reproduction schemes of the second volume of Capital. Now, =
rather than speaking of the toppling of "supply and demand," we should =
speak about a redefinition of the production-consumption relationship. =
As we saw earlier, the consumer is inscribed in the manufacturing of the =
product from its conception. The consumer is no longer limited to =
consuming commodities (de=ADstroying them in the act of consumption). On =
the contrary, his or her consumption should be productive in accordance =
to the necessary conditions and the new prod=ADucts. Consumption is then =
first of all a consumption of information. Consumption is no longer only =
the "realization" of a product, but a real and proper social process =
that for the moment is defined with the term communication."



And Large-Scale Industry and Services thus



"To recognize the new characteristics of the production cycle of =
immaterial labor, we should compare it with the production of =
large-scale industry and services. If the cycle of immaterial production =
immediately demonstrates to us the secret of post-Taylorist production =
(that is to say, that social communication and the social =
relation=ADship that constitutes it become productive), then it would be =
interesting to examine how these new social relationships innervate even =
industry and services, and how they oblige us to reformulate and =
reorganize even the classical forms of "production."



and Large-Scale Industry thus


The postindustrial enterprise and economy are founded on the =
manipulation of information. Rather than ensuring (as nineteenth-century =
enter=ADprises did) the surveillance of the inner workings of the =
production process and the supervision of the markets of raw materials =
(labor included), business is focused on the terrain outside of the =
production process: sales and the relationship with the consumer. It =
always leans more toward commercialization and financing than toward =
production. Prior to being manufactured, a product must be sold, even in =
"heavy" industries such as automobile manufacturing; a car is put into =
production only after the sales network orders it. This strategy is =
based on the production and consump=ADtion of information. It mobilizes =
important communication and marketing strate=ADgies in order to gather =
information (recognizing the tendencies of the market) and circulate it =
(constructing a market). In the Taylorist and Fordist systems of =
pro=ADduction, by introducing the mass consumption of standardized =
commodities, Ford could still say that the consumer has the choice =
between one black model T5 and another black model T5. "Today the =
standard commodity is no longer the recipe to success, and the =
automobile industry itself, which used to be the champion of the great =
'low price' series, would want to boast about having become a =
neoindustry of singularization"-and quality.1 For the majority of =
businesses, survival involves the permanent search for new commercial =
openings that lead to the identification of always more ample or =
differentiated product lines. Innovation is no longer sub=ADordinated =
only to the rationalization of labor, but also to commercial =
imperatives. It seems, then, that the postindustrial commodity is the =
result of a creative process that involves both the producer and the =
consumer.

Services
If from industry proper we move on to the "services" sector (large =
banking services, insurance, and so forth), the characteristics of the =
process I have described appear even more clearly. We are witnessing =
today not really a growth of services, but rather a development of the =
"relations of service." The move beyond the Taylorist organization of =
services is characterized by the integration of the rela=ADtionship =
between production and consumption, where in fact the consumer =
inter=ADvenes in an active way in the composition of the product. The =
product "service" becomes a social construction and a social process of =
"conception" and innovation. In service industries, the "back-office" =
tasks (the classic work of services) have dimin=ADished and the tasks of =
the "front office" (the relationship with clients) have grown. There has =
been thus a shift of human resources toward the outer part of business. =
As recent sociological analyses tell us, the more a product handled by =
the service sector is characterized as an immaterial product, the more =
it distances itself from the model of industrial organization of the =
relationship between production and consumption. The change in this =
relationship between production and consump=ADtion has direct =
consequences for the organization of the Taylorist labor of =
produc=ADtion of services, because it draws into question both the =
contents of labor and the division of labor (and thus the relationship =
between conception and execution loses its unilateral character). If the =
product is defined through the intervention of the consumer, and is =
therefore in permanent evolution, it becomes always more diffi=ADcult to =
define the norms of the production of services and establish an =
"objective" measure of productivity.=20


He goes on to talk about Immaterial Labor like this


"All of these characteristics of postindustrial economics (present both =
in large-scale industry and the tertiary sector) are accentuated in the =
form of properly "immaterial" production. Audiovisual production, =
advertising, fashion, soft=ADware, the management of territory, and so =
forth are all defined by means of the par=ADticular relationship between =
production and its market or consumers. Here we are at the furthest =
point from the Taylorist model. Immaterial labor continually cre=ADates =
and modifies the forms and conditions of communication, which in turn =
acts as the interface that negotiates the relationship between =
production and consump=ADtion. As I noted earlier, immaterial labor =
produces first and foremost a social rela=ADtion-it produces not only =
commodities, but also the capital relation.

If production today is directly the production of a social rela=ADtion, =
then the "raw material" of immaterial labor is subjectivity and the =
"ideologi=ADcal" environment in which this subjectivity lives and =
reproduces. The production of subjectivity ceases to be only an =
instrument of social control (for the reproduc=ADtion of mercantile =
relationships) and becomes directly productive, because the goal of our =
postindustrial society is to construct the consumer/communicator-and to =
construct it as "active." Immaterial workers (those who work in =
advertising, fash=ADion, marketing, television, cybernetics, and so =
forth) satisfy a demand by the con=ADsumer and at the same time =
establish that demand. The fact that immaterial labor produces =
subjectivity and economic value at the same time demonstrates how =
capi=ADtalist production has invaded our lives and has broken down all =
the oppositions among economy, power, and knowledge. The process of =
social communication (and its principal content, the production of =
subjectivity) becomes here directly produc=ADtive because in a certain =
way it "produces" production. The process by which the "social" (and =
what is even more social, that is, language, communication, and so =
forth) becomes "economic" has not yet been sufficiently studied. In =
effect, on the one hand, we are familiar with an analysis of the =
production of subjectivity defined as the constitutive "process" =
specific to a "relation to the self with respect to the forms of =
production particular to knowledge and power (as in a certain vein of =
poststructuralist French philosophy), but this analysis never intersects =
sufficiently with the forms of capitalist valorization. On the other =
hand, in the 1980s a network of economists and sociologists (and before =
them the Italian postworkerist tradition) developed an extensive =
analysis of the "social form of production," but that analy=ADsis does =
not integrate sufficiently the production of subjectivity as the content =
of valorization. Now, the post-Taylorist mode of production is defined =
precisely by putting subjectivity to work both in the activation of =
productive cooperation and in the production of the "cultural" contents =
of commodities."


------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C26FE4.9B0C0CC0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2719.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>But he went on to say about Imaterial =
labour in the=20
classic definition</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">"All the characteristics of the postindustrial =
economy=20
(both in industry and society as a whole) are highly present within the =
classic=20
forms of "immaterial" production: audiovisual production, advertising, =
fashion,=20
the production of software, photography, cultural activities, and so =
forth. The=20
activities of this kind of immaterial labor force us to question the =
classic=20
definitions <I>of work</I> and <I>workforce,</I> because they combine =
the=20
results of various different types of work skill: intellectual skills, =
as=20
regards the cultural-informational content; manual skills for the =
ability to=20
combine creativity, imagination, and technical and manual labor; and=20
entrepreneurial skills in the management of social relations and the =
structuring=20
of that social cooperation of which they are a part. This immaterial =
labor=20
constitutes itself in forms <I>that are immediately</I> collective, and =
we might=20
say that it exists only in the form of networks and flows. The =
organization of=20
the cycle of production of immaterial labor (because this is exactly =
what it is,=20
once we abandon our factoryist prejudices=97a cycle of production) is =
not=20
obviously apparent to the eye, because it is not defined by the four =
walls of a=20
factory. The location in which it operates is outside in the society at =
large,=20
at a territorial level that we could call "the basin of immaterial =
labor." Small=20
and sometimes very small "productive units" (often consisting of only =
one=20
individual) are organized for specific ad hoc projects, and may exist =
only for=20
the duration of those particular jobs. The cycle of production comes =
into=20
operation only when it is required by the capitalist; once the job has =
been=20
done, the cycle dissolves back into the networks and flows that make =
possible=20
the reproduction and enrichment of its productive capacities. =
Precariousness,=20
hyperexploitation, mobility, and hierarchy are the most obvious =
characteristics=20
of metropolitan immaterial labor. Behind the label of the independent=20
"self-employed" worker, what we actually find is an =
intellectual<?xml:namespace=20
prefix =3D o ns =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"=20
/><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 2pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; =
TEXT-ALIGN: left; mso-pagination: widow-orphan"=20
align=3Dleft><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">proletarian, but who is recognized as such only =
by the=20
employers who exploit him or her. It is worth noting that in this kind =
of=20
working existence it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish =
leisure time=20
from work time. In a sense, life becomes inseparable from work.This =
labor form=20
is also characterized by real managerial functions that consist in (1) a =
certain=20
ability to manage its social relations and (2) the eliciting of social=20
cooperation within the structures of the basin of immaterial=20
labor.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 2pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; =
TEXT-ALIGN: left; mso-pagination: widow-orphan"=20
align=3Dleft><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">The quality of this kind of labor power is thus =
defined=20
not only by its professional capacities (which make possible the =
construction of=20
the cultural-informational content of the commodity), but also by its =
ability to=20
"manage" its own activity and act as the coordinator of the immaterial =
labor of=20
others (production and management of the cycle). This immaterial labor =
appears=20
as a real mutation of "living labor." Here we are quite far from the =
Taylorist=20
model of organization.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 2pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; =
TEXT-ALIGN: left; mso-pagination: widow-orphan"=20
align=3Dleft><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Immaterial labor finds itself at the crossroads =
(or=20
rather, it is the interface) of a new relationship between production =
and=20
consumption. The activation of both productive cooperation and the =
social=20
relationship with the consumer is materialized within and by the process =
of=20
communication. The role of immaterial labor is to promote continual =
innovation=20
in the forms and conditions of communication (and thus in work and =
consumption).=20
It gives form to and materializes needs, the imaginary, consumer tastes, =
and so=20
forth, and these products in turn become powerful producers of needs, =
images,=20
and tastes. The particularity of the commodity produced through =
immaterial labor=20
(its essential use value being given by its value as informational and =
cultural=20
content) consists in the fact that it is not destroyed in the act of=20
consumption, but rather it enlarges, transforms, and creates the =
"ideological"=20
and cultural environment of the consumer. This commodity does not =
produce the=20
physical capacity of labor power; instead, it transforms the person who =
uses it.=20
Immaterial labor produces first and foremost a "social relationship" (a=20
relationship of innovation, production, and consumption). Only if it =
succeeds in=20
this production does its activity have an economic value. This activity =
makes=20
immediately apparent something that material production had "hidden," =
namely,=20
that labor produces not only commodities, but first and foremost it =
produces the=20
capital relation.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 17pt 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; =
TEXT-ALIGN: right; mso-pagination: widow-orphan"=20
align=3Dright><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: =
14.0pt">The=20
Autonomy of the Productive Synergies of Immaterial =
Labor<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; =
mso-pagination: widow-orphan"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt"><FONT =

face=3D"Times New Roman">My working hypothesis, then, is that the cycle =
of=20
immaterial labor takes as its starting point a social labor power that =
is=20
independent and able to organize both its own work and its relations =
with=20
business entities. Industry does not form or create this new labor =
power, but=20
simply takes it on board and adapts it. Industry's control over this new =
labor=20
power presupposes the independent organization and "free entrepreneurial =

activity" of the labor power. Advancing further on this terrain brings =
us into=20
the debate on the nature of work in the post-Fordist phase of the =
organization=20
of labor. Among economists, the predominant view of this problematic can =
be=20
expressed in a single statement: immaterial labor operates within the =
forms of=20
organization that the centralization of industry allows. Moving from =
this common=20
basis, there are two differing schools of thought: one is the extension =
of=20
neoclassical analysis; the other is that of systems theory.In the =
former, the=20
attempt to solve the problem comes through a redefinition of the =
problematic of=20
the market. It is suggested that in order to explain the phenomena of=20
communication and the new dimensions of organization one should =
introduce not=20
only cooperation and intensity of labor, but also other analytic =
variables=20
(anthropological variables? immaterial variables?) and that on this =
basis one=20
might introduce other objectives of optimization and so forth. In fact, =
the=20
neoclassical model has considerable difficulty in freeing itself from =
the=20
coherence constraints imposed by the theory of general equilibrium. The =
new=20
phenomenologies of labor, the new dimensions of organization, =
communication, the=20
potentiality of spontaneous synergies, the autonomy of the subjects =
involved,=20
and the independence of the networks were neither foreseen nor =
foreseeable by a=20
general theory that believed that material labor and an industrial =
economy were=20
indispensable.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; =
mso-pagination: widow-orphan"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt"><FONT =

face=3D"Times New Roman">Today, with the new data available, we find the =

microeconomy in revolt against the macroeconomy, and the classical model =
is=20
corroded by a new and irreducible anthropological=20
reality.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; =
mso-pagination: widow-orphan"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">Systems theory, by=20
eliminating the constraint of the market and giving pride of place to=20
organization, is more open to the new phenomenology of labor and in =
particular=20
to the emergence of immaterial labor. In more developed systemic =
theories,=20
organization is conceived as an ensemble of factors, both material and=20
immaterial, both individual and collective, that can permit a given =
group to=20
reach objectives. The success of this organizational process requires=20
instruments of regulation, either voluntary or automatic. It becomes =
possible to=20
look at things from the point of view of social synergies, and =
immaterial labor=20
can be taken on board by virtue of its global efficacy. These =
viewpoints,=20
however, are still tied to an image of the organization of work and its =
social=20
territory within which effective activity from an economic viewpoint (in =
other=20
words, the activity conforming to </SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt">the objective) =
must=20
inevitably be considered as a surplus in relation to collective =
cognitive=20
mechanisms. Sociology and labor economics, being systemic disciplines, =
are both=20
incapable of detaching themselves from this=20
position.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">I believe that an analysis of immaterial labor =
and a=20
description of its organization can lead us beyond the presuppositions =
of=20
business theory=97 whether in its neoclassical school or its systems =
theory=20
school. It can lead us to define, at a territorial level, a space for a =
radical=20
autonomy of the productive syner&shy;gies of immaterial labor. We can =
thus move=20
against the old schools of thought to establish, decisively, the =
viewpoint of an=20
"anthropo-sociology" that is constitutive.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Once this viewpoint comes to dominate within =
social=20
produc&shy;tion, we find that we have an interruption in the continuity =
of=20
models of produc&shy;tion. By this I mean that, unlike the position held =
by many=20
theoreticians of post-Fordism, I do not believe that this new labor =
power is=20
merely functional to a new historical phase of capitalism and its =
processes of=20
accumulation and reproduction. This labor power is the product of a =
"silent=20
revolution" taking place within the anthropological realities of work =
and within=20
the reconfiguration of its meanings. Waged labor and direct subjugation =
(to=20
organization) no longer constitute the prin&shy;cipal form of the =
contractual=20
relationship between capitalist and worker. A poly&shy;morphous =
self-employed=20
autonomous work has emerged as the dominant form, a kind of =
"intellectual=20
worker" who is him or herself an entrepreneur, inserted within a market =
that is=20
constantly shifting and within networks that are changeable in time and=20
space."<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<H1 style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</H1>
<H1 style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">So Lazarrato talks of the cycle of immaterial =
labour=20
thus</FONT></SPAN></H1>
<H1 style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</H1>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 14pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">"Up to this point I have been analyzing and =
constructing=20
the concept of immaterial labor from a point of view that could be =
defined, so=20
to speak, as "microeconomic." If now we consider immaterial labor within =
the=20
globality of the production cycle, of which it is the strategic stage, =
we will=20
be able to see a series of characteristics of post-Taylorist production =
that=20
have not yet been taken into consideration.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 14pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">I want to demonstrate in particular how the =
process of=20
valoriza&shy;tion tends to be identified with the process of the =
production of=20
social communica&shy;tion and how the two stages (valorization and=20
communication) immediately have a social and territorial dimension. The =
concept=20
of immaterial labor presupposes and results in an enlargement of =
productive=20
cooperation that even includes the produc&shy;tion and reproduction of=20
communication and hence of its most important contents: subjectivity.=20
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 4pt; TEXT-INDENT: 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">If Fordism integrated consumption into the =
cycle of the=20
reproduc&shy;tion of capital, post-Fordism integrates communication into =
it.=20
>From a strictly eco&shy;nomic point of <I>view,</I> the cycle of =
reproduction of=20
immaterial labor dislocates the production-consumption relationship as =
it is=20
defined as much by the "virtuous Keynesian circle" as by the Marxist=20
reproduction schemes of the second volume of<I> Capital.</I> Now, rather =
than=20
speaking of the toppling of "supply and demand," we should speak about a =

redefinition of the production-consumption relationship. As we saw =
earlier, the=20
consumer is inscribed in the manufacturing of the product from its =
conception.=20
The consumer is no longer limited to consuming commodities =
(de&shy;stroying them=20
in the act of consumption). On the contrary, his or her consumption =
should be=20
productive in accordance to the necessary conditions and the new =
prod&shy;ucts.=20
Consumption is then first of all a consumption of information. =
Consumption is no=20
longer only the "realization" of a product, but a real and proper social =
process=20
that for the moment is defined with the term=20
<I>communication."</I></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 4pt; TEXT-INDENT: 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =
9.0pt"></SPAN>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 4pt; TEXT-INDENT: 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><EM>And =
</EM></SPAN><B><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =
9.0pt">Large-Scale=20
Industry and Services thus</SPAN></B></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 10pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 10pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">"To recognize the new characteristics of the =
production=20
cycle of immaterial labor, we should compare it with the production of=20
large-scale industry and services. If the cycle of immaterial production =

immediately demonstrates to us the secret of post-Taylorist production =
(that is=20
to say, that social communication and the social relation&shy;ship that=20
constitutes it become productive), then it would be interesting to =
examine how=20
these new social relationships innervate even industry and services, and =
how=20
they oblige us to reformulate and reorganize even the classical forms of =

"production."<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<H1 style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</H1>
<H1 style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</H1>
<H1 style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">and Large-Scale Industry=20
thus<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></H1>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">The postindustrial enterprise and economy are =
founded on=20
the manipulation of information. Rather than ensuring (as =
nineteenth-century=20
enter&shy;prises did) the surveillance of the inner workings of the =
production=20
process and the supervision of the markets of raw materials (labor =
included),=20
business is focused on the terrain outside of the production process: =
sales and=20
the relationship with the consumer. It always leans more toward=20
commercialization and financing than toward production. Prior to being=20
manufactured, a product must be sold, even in "heavy" industries such as =

automobile manufacturing; a car is put into production only after the =
sales=20
network orders it. This strategy is based on the production and =
consump&shy;tion=20
of information. It mobilizes important communication and marketing=20
strate&shy;gies in order to gather information (recognizing the =
tendencies of=20
the market) and circulate it (constructing a market). In the Taylorist =
and=20
Fordist systems of pro&shy;duction, by introducing the mass consumption =
of=20
standardized commodities, Ford could still say that the consumer has the =
choice=20
between one black model T5 and another black model T5. "Today the =
standard=20
commodity is no longer the recipe to success, and the automobile =
industry=20
itself, which used to be the champion of the great 'low price' series, =
would=20
want to boast about having become a neoindustry of =
singularization"=97and=20
quality.<SUP>1</SUP> For the majority of businesses, survival involves =
the=20
permanent search for new commercial openings that lead to the =
identification of=20
always more ample or differentiated product lines. Innovation is no =
longer=20
sub&shy;ordinated only to the rationalization of labor, but also to =
commercial=20
imperatives. It seems, then, that the postindustrial commodity is the =
result of=20
a creative process that involves both the producer and the=20
consumer.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<H1 style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Services<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></H1>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">If from industry proper we move on to the =
"services"=20
sector (large banking services, insurance, and so forth), the =
characteristics of=20
the process I have described appear even more clearly. We are witnessing =
today=20
not really a growth of services, but rather a development of the =
"relations of=20
service." The move beyond the Taylorist organization of services is=20
characterized by the integration of the rela&shy;tionship between =
production and=20
consumption, where in fact the consumer inter&shy;venes in an active way =
in the=20
composition of the product. The product "service" becomes a social =
construction=20
and a social process of "conception" and innovation. In service =
industries, the=20
"back-office" tasks (the classic work of services) have dimin&shy;ished =
and the=20
tasks of the "front office" (the relationship with clients) have grown. =
There=20
has been thus a shift of human resources toward the outer part of =
business. As=20
recent sociological analyses tell us, the more a product handled by the =
service=20
sector is characterized as an immaterial product, the more it distances =
itself=20
from the model of industrial organization of the relationship between =
production=20
and consumption. The change in this relationship between production and=20
consump&shy;tion has direct consequences for the organization of the =
Taylorist=20
labor of produc&shy;tion of services, because it draws into question =
both the=20
contents of labor and the division of labor (and thus the relationship =
between=20
conception and execution loses its unilateral character). If the product =
is=20
defined through the intervention of the consumer, and is therefore in =
permanent=20
evolution, it becomes always more diffi&shy;cult to define the norms of =
the=20
production of services and establish an "objective" measure of =
productivity.=20
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<H1 style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</H1>
<H1 style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-US=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">He goes on to talk about Immaterial Labor like=20
this</FONT></SPAN></H1>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 14pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 14pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">"All of these characteristics of postindustrial =
economics=20
(present both in large-scale industry and the tertiary sector) are =
accentuated=20
in the form of properly "immaterial" production. Audiovisual production, =

advertising, fashion, soft&shy;ware, the management of territory, and so =
forth=20
are all defined by means of the par&shy;ticular relationship between =
production=20
and its market or consumers. Here we are at the furthest point from the=20
Taylorist model. Immaterial labor continually cre&shy;ates and modifies =
the=20
forms and conditions of communication, which in turn acts as the =
interface that=20
negotiates the relationship between production and consump&shy;tion. As =
I noted=20
earlier, immaterial labor produces first and foremost a social =
rela&shy;tion=97it=20
produces not only commodities, but also the capital=20
relation.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 6pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
normal"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-US style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">If production today is directly the production =
of a=20
social rela&shy;tion, then the "raw material" of immaterial labor is=20
subjectivity and the "ideologi&shy;cal" environment in which this =
subjectivity=20
lives and reproduces. The production of subjectivity ceases to be only =
an=20
instrument of social control (for the reproduc&shy;tion of mercantile=20
relationships) and becomes directly productive, because the goal of our=20
postindustrial society is to construct the consumer/communicator=97and =
to=20
construct it as "active." Immaterial workers (those who work in =
advertising,=20
fash&shy;ion, marketing, television, cybernetics, and so forth) satisfy =
a demand=20
by the con&shy;sumer and at the same time establish that demand. The =
fact that=20
immaterial labor produces subjectivity and economic value at the same =
time=20
demonstrates how capi&shy;talist production has invaded our lives and =
has broken=20
down all the oppositions among economy, power, and knowledge. The =
process of=20
social communication (and its principal content, the production of =
subjectivity)=20
becomes here directly produc&shy;tive because in a certain way it =
"produces"=20
production. The process by which the "social" (and what is even more =
social,=20
that is, language, communication, and so forth) becomes "economic" has =
not yet=20
been sufficiently studied. In effect, on the one hand, we are familiar =
with an=20
analysis of the production of subjectivity defined as the constitutive =
"process"=20
specific to a "relation to the self with respect to the forms of =
production=20
particular to knowledge and power (as in a certain vein of =
poststructuralist=20
French philosophy), but this analysis never intersects sufficiently with =
the=20
forms of capitalist valorization. On the other hand, in the 1980s a =
network of=20
economists and sociologists (and before them the Italian postworkerist=20
tradition) developed an extensive analysis of the "social form of =
production,"=20
but that analy&shy;sis does not integrate sufficiently the production of =

subjectivity as the content of valorization. Now, the post-Taylorist =
mode of=20
production is defined precisely by putting subjectivity to work both in =
the=20
activation of productive cooperation and in the production of the =
"cultural"=20
contents of=20
commodities."<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C26FE4.9B0C0CC0--