Skip to main content

Controlling Labor in Makeathons: On the Recuperation of Emancipation in Industrial Labor Processes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Digitalization in Industry

Abstract

This paper discusses the recuperation of emancipatory principles of the maker culture in the context of labor organization. By examining an event for prototyping (the ‘makeathon’), the paper illustrates how emancipatory demands were co-opted in capitalist innovation processes. Makeathons represent the recuperation of emancipation as they provide testing fields for organizing innovation labor differently. They are connected to the maker culture that calls for autonomous physical labor, collaborative communities and personal authority over technological knowledge. Yet, industrial companies have started to adopt such events for changing current innovation processes. The paper argues that the recuperation is mediated by the introduction of organizational control, collective control and self-control. The makeathon can be interpreted as an instance for the manufacturing of consent that might entail new and often conflicting work requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Banks, M. (2010). Craft Labor and Creative Industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630903055885.

  • Bauwens, M., & Vasilis, K. (2014). From the Communism of Capital to Capital for the Commons: Towards an Open Co-operativism. TripleC, 12(1), 356–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons-Based Peer Production and Virtue. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., & Strange, N. (Eds.). (2015). Media Independence: Working with Freedom or Working for Free? New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhmer, A., Beckmann, A., & Lindemann, U. (2015, December). Open Innovation Ecosystem: Makerspaces Within an Agile Innovation Process. Paper Presented at the ISPIM Innovation Summit, Brisbane, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, È. (2007). The New Spirit of Capitalism. London and New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braverman, H. (1998). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (25th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briken, K., Chillas, S., & Krzywdzinski, M. (2017). The New Digital Workplace: How New Technologies Revolutionise Work. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago, IL: University Press of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (1985). The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes Under Capitalism and Socialism. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., & Magnusson, M. G. (2005). Relationships Between Open Source Software Companies and Communities: Observations from Nordic Firms. Research Policy, 34(4), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delfanti, A. (2014). Is Do-It-Yourself Biology Being Co-opted by Institutions? UC Davis Previously Published Works. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4nz3p0hf.

  • Dickel, S., Schneider, C., Thiem, C., & Wenten, K.-A. (2019). Engineering Publics: The Different Modes of Civic Technoscience. Science and Technology Studies, 32(2), 8–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickel, S., & Schrape, J.-F. (2015). Dezentralisierung, Demokratisierung, Emanzipation: Zur Architektur des digitalen Technikutopismus. Leviathan, 43(3), 442–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U., & Schrape, J.-F. (Eds.). (2018). Kollektivität und Macht im Internet: Soziale Bewegungen - Open Source Communities - Internetkonzerne. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (Author) (2011, January). We Are Makers [Television Broadcast]. TED Talk. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/dale_dougherty_we_are_makers.

  • Dougherty, D. (2012). The Maker Movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00135.

  • Drewlani, T., & Seibt, D. (2018). Configuring the Independent Developer. Journal of Peer Production, Issue 12: Makerspaces and Institutions (12). Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/issues/issue-12-makerspaces-and-institutions/peer-reviewed-papers/configuring-the-independent-developer/.

  • Frayssé, O., & O’Neil, M. (Eds.). (2015). Digital Labor and Prosumer Capitalism: The US Matrix. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital Labor and Karl Marx. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making Is Connecting: The Social Meaning of Creativity from DIY and Knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., & Lakhani, K. R. (2016). Revolutionizing Innovation: Users, Communities, and Open Innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M. (2014). The Maker Movement Manifesto: Rules for Innovation in the New World of Crafters, Hackers, and Tinkerers. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hippel, E. V. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/DemocInn.pdf.

  • Hostettler, R., & Böhmer, A. (2018). Experience TAF. Retrieved from https://taf.expert/experience/.

  • Huws, U. (2010). Schöpfung und Enteignung: Die Dialektik von Autonomie und Kontrolle in der kreativen Arbeit. Standpunkte, 38(38), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huws, U. (2014). Labor in the Global Digital Economy: The Cybertariat Comes of Age. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irani, L. (2015). Hackathons and the Making of Entrepreneurial Citizenship. Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(5), 799–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalff, Y. (2018). Organisierendes Arbeiten. Bielefeld: transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kröger, M. (2018, February 15). Mobileye, Nvidia und Co. Diese Start-ups erfinden die Zukunft des Autos. Spiegel Online. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/autoindustrie-so-treiben-start-ups-daimler-bmw-und-co-vor-sich-her-a-1193319.html.

  • Lee, D. (2013). Creative Labor in the Cultural Industries. Sociopedia.Isa, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindtner, S., & Avle, S. (2017). Tinkering with Governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(CSCW), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134705.

  • Lindtner, S., Hertz, G. D., & Dourish, P. (2014). Emerging Sites of HCI Innovation: Hackerspaces, Hardware Startups & Incubators. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 439–448). New York, NY: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, P. (2015). Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxigas. (2017). Hackers Against Technology: Critique and Recuperation in Technological Cycles. Social Studies of Science, 47(6), 841–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717736387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (11., aktual. u. überarb. Aufl). Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menichinelli, M., Bianchini, M., Carosi, A., & Maffei, S. (2017). Makers as a New Work Condition Between Self-Employment and Community Peer-Production: Insights from a Survey on Makers in Italy. Journal of Peer Production (10). Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-10-peer-production-and-work/peer-reviewed-papers/makers-as-a-new-work-condition-between-self-employment-and-community-peer-production-insights-from-a-survey-on-makers-in-italy/.

  • Mota, C. (2011). The Rise of Personal Fabrication. In C&C ‘11 Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition. New York, NY: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • P2P Foundation. (2012). Synthetic Overview of the Collaborative Economy. Amsterdam: P2P Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, S., Schütt, P., & Wühr, D. (Eds.). (2012). Smarte Innovation: Ergebnisse und neue Ansätze im Maschinen- und Anlagenbau. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M. (2016). Pre-hacked: Open Design and the Democratisation of Product Development. New Media & Society, 18(4), 653–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816629476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., Hielscher, S., Dickel, S., Söderberg, J., & van Oost, E. (2013). Grassroots Digital Fabrication and Makerspaces: Reconfiguring, Relocating and Recalibrating Innovation? (SPRU Working Paper Series; No. 2013–02). Brighton: SPRU, Science and Technology Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Söderberg, J., & Delfanti, A. (2015a). Hacking Hacked!: The Life Cycles of Digital Innovation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(5), 793–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderberg, J., & Delfanti, A. (2015b). Repurposing the Hacker: Three Temporalities of Recuperation. UC Davis Previsouly Published Works, 1–22. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9c86493g.

  • Stangler, D., & Maxwell, K. (2012). DIY Producer Society. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00134.

  • Troxler, P., & Maxigas. (2014). We Now Have the Means of Production, But Where Is My Revolution? Journal of Peer Production (5). Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/editorial-section/editorial-note-we-now-have-the-means-of-production-but-where-is-my-revolution/.

  • Turner, F. (2006). From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wark, M. (2004). A Hacker Manifesto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open Innovation: The Next Decade. Research Policy, 43(5), 805–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zukin, S., & Papadantonakis, M. (2017). Hackathons as Co-optation Ritual: Socializing Workers and Institutionalizing Innovation in the “New” Economy. In A. Kalleberg & S. Vallas (Eds.), Precarious Work: Research in the Sociology of Work (31st ed., pp. 157–181). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klara-Aylin Wenten .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wenten, KA. (2019). Controlling Labor in Makeathons: On the Recuperation of Emancipation in Industrial Labor Processes. In: Meyer, U., Schaupp, S., Seibt, D. (eds) Digitalization in Industry. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28258-5_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics