CULTURAL WORK AND PRECARITY
The word ‘precariousness’ was used to describe the working conditions of the working classes as early as the beginning of the industrial revolution. However, the use of the term on a broader scale has become much more prevalent since the late 20th century, and in particular after the 2008 financial crisis. This is also when the notion became common in the field of arts and culture.
When a working condition is described as precarious, it means that it is poorly paid, unstable, insecure, temporary, and/or exploitative. With cultural work becoming more and more characterised by such attributes, precarity is also becoming an important topic of debate for cultural policymakers, researchers, and activists.
The precarity of cultural work, just as precarity in general, is set within a wider social context of ‘late capitalism’, ‘neoliberalism’, and ‘fluid modernity’. It is related to and fostered by several wider trends in technology, politics, and economics.
One of these trends is disaggregation of work. Namely, due to new communication technologies, parts of the production process can be performed in different settings, including outsourcing and automation. This shapes demand for work in the way that jobs are split into smaller, short-term tasks, which are even more prone to outsourcing. As a consequence, working relations are becoming much more flexible, while working contracts are getting shorter, more diverse and less stable.
With more and more short-term contracts, the work of more and more cultural workers resembles freelancing. The latter brings more working choices and often higher initial earnings, but less social benefits, fewer opportunities for unionising and less foreseeable working conditions. This is also a context in which multinational platform corporations thrive and offer a digital labour market under their own supervision. The ‘platformisation’ of creative and cultural work brings new challenges to workers in terms of their own autonomy, socialisation and security. Finally, austerity measures introduced across Europe in the 21st century further aggravate working conditions and reduce any form of labour security.
Precarious working conditions come in many forms and are highly contingent on the sector (whether it is photography, theatre, or dance), the social position of workers (whether they have any kind of security net), and national and local frameworks (with many cities or countries adopting anti-precarity measures). They encompass short-term contracts; working from home and/or frequent changes in the location of living (often romantically depicted as new nomadism); flexible working hours, including working over weekends, evenings, or holidays; and similar. Such working conditions open important questions for workers, employers, and policymakers. One of them is the question of work-life balance and well-being, with more and more workers reporting fatigue, burnout, and loss of free and/or family time.
The lack of social security is another issue that can have a negative effect on well-being and is often related to the increased precarity of work. Finally, socialising and skill transfer within the workplace are also important issues. Namely, the workplace has always been not only a place of production of materials and products but also of social relations as well as the transfer of knowledge and skills. With more people working from home and in constantly changing work relations, the lack of time spent together leads to feelings of isolation and loneliness, as well as difficulties in performing work tasks.
Responses to the increasing precarisation of work have been very diverse. In some cases, workers have embraced new forms of solidarity and collective action by forming collectives, support groups, solidarity funds, and even new workers unions (like Art Workers of Italy). International cultural workers initiatives have also taken shape. In contrast, the policy response has been less vigorous. The EU Commission has commissioned several research projects on the topic. Likewise, round tables and conferences on the precarisation of cultural work are relatively common across Europe. However, the existing frameworks of support for artists (such as social security funds or pensions paid by the city or state) have largely been formed as part of previous welfare or socialist policies. As such, they have not been able to address the rising precarisation of cultural work in the 21st century. (GT, VK)