Week 6: The New International Division of Cultural Labour

The exploitation of Hollywood cultural labour

‘One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it... The division of labour […] occasions, in every art, a proportionable increase of the productive powers of labour.’ – Adam Smith, Of the Division of Labour

Work in the media industries can be perceived from different sides, such as from the perspective of political economy, sociology or Marxism. This blogpost will illustrate not so much what the work in the media industries contains, but more how the cultural labour is divided. An interesting concept within this framework is the New International Division of Cultural Labour (NICL), developed by the scholar Toby Miller. Especially in the case of Hollywood this new division of cultural labour is interesting, because the key roles for media production and work relations have shifted under the influence of conglomeration, liberalization, globalization and new digital technologies (Mayer 2013: 9). These shifts accompany the struggles in media industries in relation to labour, as the case studies Mickey Mouse goes to Haiti and the intro of The Simpsons by Banksy demonstrate. These cultural products show that even though cultural production is understood as deriving from the expressive individual artist, it is often based on a complex division of labour (Hesmondhalgh & Baker 2011: 392) that includes the exploitation of this labour.

The New International Division of Cultural Labour

With the global stage, new forms of labour were institutionalised in empire. Nowadays, life-cycle models of international products suggest that they are first made and consumed in the centre, in a major industrial economy, then exported to the periphery, and finally produced and consumed ‘out there’, once technology is standardised and savings can be made on the labour front (Miller 2001: 113). Hollywood is one of these major industrial economies that relocate a great amount of their production to the periphery. Through runaway productions and outsourcing this film industry aims to keep the costs as low as possible, therefore increasing the profits.

This restructuration of cultural labour is what scholar Toby Miller calls the New International Division of Cultural Labour. He derives this idea from the New International Division of Labour (NIDL), a term that describes the spatial shift of manufacturing industries from advanced capitalist countries to developing countries, as a result of globalisation. Miller states that the same has happened within cultural production, which has led to new work relations within Hollywood (Miller 2001). The core of cultural labour in the NICL can be presented as following:

This figure shows that Hollywood makes a distinction between work involved in the production above-the-line, and work in the production below-the-line (Miller 2001: 119) The former lies within the key sector of budgets, and includes supposedly ‘proactive’ workers (such as writers, producers, stars and directors), while the latter covers ‘reactive’ workers. The first segment sees leading talent transplanted back to the core, while the second is more likely to provide contingent runaway employment under the NICL (Miller 2001: 119). Miller states that the consequence of this NICL is that “work may be subject to the local, national, regional and international fetishisation of each component, matching the way that the labour undertaken is itself largely fetishised away from the final text (Miller 2001: 114).” Therefore, you could say that it is within this distinction that a part of the media work becomes alienated.

Alienation is a concept that Karl Marx developed while he was creating his claim against capitalism. He stated that in the capitalist system the workers have become detached and relatively independent of their work, but not in a good way (Hesmondhalgh & Baker 2011: 383). He describes alienation as ‘the state in which people and societies become estranged from the products of their labour, from the process of production and from their own nature as humans’ (Hesmondhalgh & Baker 2011: 383). A good example of this alienation in relation to the NICL of Hollywood is the documentary Mickey Mouse goes to Haiti.

 

Mickey Mouse goes to Haiti (part 1)

This is a documentary that is made by the National Labor Committee about Haitians that create merchandise products for Disney. It documents the harsh conditions in which this merchandise is manufactured in Haiti, the poorest country in the Western world. Portraits of workers are included describing how they are being intimidated and threatened to be fired if they try to unionize in order to demand a fair living wage. The most striking is that these workers produce merchandise that they are not able to afford themselves. This is exactly what Marx means with alienation. Even though alienation is an old term, and the capitalist work system has undergone many changes, as is also described in Toward a Political Economy of Labor in the Media Industries by Hesmondhalgh and Baker, and Making Media Production Visible by Vicki Mayer, this documentary shows that the exploitation of cultural labour is still present nowadays. It may not happen within the core activities of the work in Hollywood, but through outsourcing their productions Hollywood aims to keep their costs as low as possible and increase their profits.

Intro The Simpsons by Banksy

The intro that Banksy made for The Simpsons makes this exploitation of cultural labour visible as well. The video illustrates the (exaggerated) reality behind The Simpsons: the dehumanizing repetitive work in the factories, combined with child labor, the toxicity of the used materials that leads to pollution, and the mistreatment of (extinct) animals. Both this fragment and the documentary Mickey Mouse goes to Haiti are examples of how the media work relations are becoming more transparent. To explain the notion of transparency, it is useful to first look into the opposite side of transparency: the invisibility of media production. Vicky Mayer claims in her text Making Media Production Visible that media production is the most invisible part of the entire media industries, and that consumers rarely consider where the media messages came from, who made them and what kind of work is put into them (Mayer 2013: 1). This coincides with a much older notion: commodity fetishism by Karl Marx. Both scholars show how we tend to forget or conceal the (cruel) human experience behind the production of a commodity (Hesmondhalgh & Baker 2011: 384). Production becomes ‘a hidden abode’: it denies the fact that we, as part of the capitalist system, are dependent on the work of others (Hesmondhalgh & Baker 2011: 384).

However, the examples I mentioned above, make the reality behind the productions clearly visible, by demonstrating the exploitation of cultural labour that is happening in the production of Disney merchandise or The Simpsons. They show the downside of the New International Division of Cultural Labour without covering up the facts; by breaking through the idea that media production is ‘a hidden abode’. The documentary and the intro are examples of activism that want to expose the atrocities going on in media production, thus pushing organisations like Hollywood to become more transparent and ethical. They imply the ethical importance of raising awareness of the suffering going on in the production below-the-line, and of collective action to alleviate it.

This blogpost first explained how the process of globalisation influenced the New International Division of Cultural Labour, and how the distinction between production above-the-line and below-the-line reinforced the alienation of work in the media industries. Especially in the case of the production of Disney merchandise in Haiti and in the intro of The Simpsons this exploitation of cultural labour is made clearly visible. These examples take on an activistic attitude to bring the atrocities of media production to light. If anything, this blog post shows that the concerns over the division of labour and exploitation need to become more transparent, in order to better understand the conditions of the workers, but also to formulate strategies for action.

AH - SH - MS - GV - MW

Thesis: Is it time for a Renewed International Division of Cultural Labour?

Sources:

- David Hesmondhalgh & Sarah Baker (2011), ‘Toward a Political Economy of Labor in the Media Industries’, in: Janet Wasko, Gragham Murdock & Helena Sousa (eds.), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 381-400.

- Vicki Mayer (2013), ‘Making Media Production Visible’, in: Vicki Mayer (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume II: Media Production. Blackwell Publishing, 2013.

- Mark Deuze (2006) ‘The International Division of Cultural Labor’, Deuzeblog http://deuze.blogspot.nl/2006/11/international-division-of-cultural.html (accessed on October 10th, 2015).

- Mark Deuze (2007), ‘Creative Industries, Convergence Culture and Media Work’, in: Media Work. Cambridge & Malden: polity, pp. 45-83.

- Toby Miller (2001), ‘The New International Division of Cultural Labour’, in: Global Hollywood. British Film Institute: pp 111-172.

- Lecture by Toby Miller (2007) at the University of California: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9LoveanwC8 (accessed on October 10th, 2015).



- Mickey Mouse goes to Haiti. Documentary by the National Labor Committee (1996) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_OXhtgHBxk (part 1) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zcwniS3Es (part 2)

- The Simpsons by Banksy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK-1zT1gBXk

Week 5: The new bill on public television in the Netherlands

No more Boer Zoekt Vrouw, Ranking the Stars and Bananasplit!? How the public broadcast channels in the Netherlands need to adapt to future regulations

Many television personalities and broadcasters like VPRO and NCRV were outraged after secretary Sander Dekker of the department for Education, Culture and Science, announced his new bill on public broadcasting channels (the NPO). The bill is supposed to be in place on January 1st 2016, and states that that the public broadcasters are no longer allowed to make programs solely for the purpose of entertainment. The main aim of the bill is to create more diversity within the Dutch television market by forcing the public broadcasting channels to differentiate themselves from the commercial broadcasters. Another key point Dekker tries to encourage through this new bill is to open up the monopoly of the public broadcast channels by offering creative talents, but also social and cultural institutions, a chance to present their programs.

Creative talents that see opportunities with the new bill (in Dutch)

Whereas before the bill the public broadcasters had a monopoly on making the programs that were aired, after January 1st there must be a whopping 50% of content made by private producers. This is supposed to create competition amongst producers and therefore increase the quality of the programs. The bill tries to establish an ideal market situation, that of diverse competition. Diverse competition is described as a market structure where numerous sellers offer various products from which consumers can choose; in this case, television programs (Croteau & Hoynes 2006: 20). This is supposed to create innovation in and increase the quality of the television programming.

In short the bill is supposed to produce more diversity through state regulation, and at the same time promote more competition by abolishing privileges of monopoly and promoting a free market environment. In their essay Media, markets and the public sphere, Croteau and Hoynes juxtapose these two approaches using the terms ‘market model’ and ‘public sphere model’. The first model promotes exchange based on the dynamics of supply and demand with little regulation. The consumers, instead of the government, will ultimately force companies to behave in a way that best serves the public. The advocates of this model argue that markets promote efficiency, responsiveness (through supply and demand), flexibility and innovation. The main condition to have a healthy market is to have robust competition. (Croteau & Hoynes 2006)

Croteau and Hoynes place the public sphere model on the other side of the spectrum. This model strongly denies the democracy of ‘free’ markets, because markets tend to reproduce the inequality that exists in a society. They also address the amorality of a market and the fact that it doesn’t necessarily meet social or democratic needs. This ties in with the principle of stewardship that Curtin introduces in his article Global Media Capital and Local Media Policy (2011). This principle presumes that markets will provide limited diversity and therefore seek to protect resources and render them productive in ways that the market cannot imagine. He emphasizes the public purpose of modern media, which like parks, libraries, and childcare centres are resources that make places worth living. Interesting is that she sees the public media as an ecosystem, characterized by tension and antagonism, interdependence and symbiosis (Curtin 2011: 555). How does tie in with the NPO?

The NPO is in fact an ecosystem. It still represents, though not as strongly as in the past, the pillars of the Dutch society. A striking example of this old notion of pilarisation that is still present in contemporary dutch television is the EO or the KRO. The tensions and symbioses that characterize this ecosystem can be found in the merging broadcasters, like AVRO-TROS. The bill will change this traditional system. However, the public media should be ‘protean institutions that change over time but nevertheless are guided by a long-term ambition to foster a diversity of cultural resources at a variety of spatial scales, as Curtin so eloquently pointed out.’ (Curtin 2011: 555) In other words: change may not be such a bad thing in the case of the Dutch public television. This makes us wonder, does the bill apply only for the first type of programs or is the existing infotainment also too entertaining in Dekkers opinion?

Much like secretary Dekker, Croteau and Hoynes stress that the media are resources for citizens with important informational, educational and integrative functions. These functions should be highlighted through the regulation of content. Croteau and Hoynes argue that the media industries are not like any other industries, and therefore blindly using the market model would be inappropriate (Croteau and Hoynes 2006: 26-27). According to the public sphere model, media should promote diversity and avoid homogeneity by artificially regulating the content that is broadcasted. The government should play a useful and necessary role in ensuring that the media meet the need of citizens, not just of the consumers. This should offer citizens a wide range of options in content and format. This is exactly what the bill is attempting to realise. By obliging the broadcasters to only transmit shows that are in some way linked to education, information or culture, the state is keeping tabs on the ‘free market’ which might promote mostly commercial amusement. By making a clear distinction between the public broadcasting channels, who now have to produce either educational, informational or cultural programs, and the commercial broadcasting channels who mainly produce amusement, the state is forcing the Dutch television to have a more diversified programming. However, when we examine the current programs that are aired on the public broadcast channels, we find that they broadcast much more infotainment as opposed to entertainment. Programs such as Ranking the Stars and Bananasplit (the programs Dekker had the most difficulty with) are a mere exception amongst the more popular ‘informative’ programs like De Wereld Draait Door, Tussen Kunst en Kitsch and Brandpunt.

Finally we can ask ourselves whether or not the juxtaposition Croteau and Hoynes create in their argument is in fact a juxtaposition at all. Their plea that the public sphere model is preferred over the market model suggests that the two are irreconcilably different, but when we take a close look at the new Dutch bill this proves to be untrue. The bill carries both sides of the argument: on the one hand it creates diversity through regulation, on the other hand it also promotes more competition and is anti-monopolistic. Does the bill have the best of both worlds or does this ambiguous character only create more pitfalls? Only the future will tell. That is, IF the bill ever gets approved.

Besides television presenters and broadcasters, politicians have obviously taken an interest in this new proposal and they are not positive at all (of course not, they are politicians). Multiple members of parliament have reacted cynically, stating that it is likely that nothing will change after the passing of the bill. They argue that, given the right argumentation, everything can be labelled to be informative, educational or cultural. Indeed, forms of media that we classify as entertainment can play an important role in public life through the stories that they circulate, as Croteau and Hoynes so eloquently pointed out. Another possible downside of regulation is the constant luring of elitism. Who will decide where to draw the line between what is interesting enough to be labelled educational and what not? Who will decide what is culture and what is not? And most importantly, will this mean that there will be no more Boer Zoekt Vrouw on the Dutch television? Let’s all pray that it won’t get that far.

AH - SH - MS - GV - MW

Thesis: Do the public broadcast channels also (like most commercial channels) respond to their advertisers or do they mainly focus on their public (as citizens)?

Bibliography
Croteau, D.R. & Hoynes, W.D. (2006) Media/Society: Industries, Images and Audiences. 3rd Edition. Routledge. Curtin, M (2011) The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications. Global media capital and local media policy. Blackwell publishing Ltd.

Digital sources
Nu.NL: 
http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3936453/cruciale-opdracht-publieke-omroep-bedreigd.html (Consulted 04-10-15)
Rijksoverheid: 
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/media-en-publieke-omroep/inhoud/publieke-omroep (Consulted 04-10-15)
Televisier: 
http://www.televizier.nl/nieuws/amusement/jan-slagter-woest-door-kabinetsplannen.4342090.lynkx (Consulted 04-10-15)
http://www.televizier.nl/nieuws/actualiteiten/worden-ranking-the-stars-en-bananasplit-geschrapt.4341653.lynkx (Consulted 04-10-15)