Blog Post 1 - The projective city, power in networks, and the new learning imperative

If 'the project'— the undertaking which facilitates perpetual (re)connection in the network and is the primary means of productivity within the projective city— "temporarily assembles a very disparate group of people […] but allows for the construction of more enduring links that will be put on hold while remaining available" (Boltanski & Chiapello, 1999, p. 104), then I see Mallon's argument highly emblematic of Boltanski and Chiapello's 'projective city'. Literally or figuratively, Mallon's suggestion that one must learn "…the equivalent of a master's degree every ten years" purports that staying in situ is not practicable in today's workforce/knowledge economy. On one hand, if one is to literally get a master's degree, it is assumed that they will take time off (i.e. disconnect from the network) to fulfill the requirements of the degree. On the other hand, if they are to learn the 'equivalent' of a master's degree, one is supposedly moving from project to project and learning new competencies along the way. Indeed, then, "the costs of social control are increasingly offloaded to employees themselves— who have to constantly prove their worth, and activity deemed in itself 'empowering' as it helps individuals build resources in themselves ('employability')" (Du Gay & Morgan, 2013, p. 16). As such, the notion that one must constantly improve their employability by engaging in contingent tasks also highlights Boltanski and Chiapello's (1999) claim that within the projective city there is a "premium on activity" and that stability is synonymous with inaction (p. 155).

Importantly— if we are to pick apart Mallon's words more precisely— I think we ought to consider what he is implying when he suggests that a master's degree must be earned every ten years "for some". If self-improvement through temporary/precarious project based jobs and continual learning is to become the predominant mechanism by which one adheres to the <Common superior principle> (see Boltanski & Chiapello, 1999, p. 109-111), who has the means to stay atop the labour pool and who gets left behind? Indeed, I would ask Mallon— and other powerful (managerial) actors in tech industries— if they believe that the same learning imperatives apply to them?

In situating Mallon's approach to learning within Castells' typology of network power, I would contend that we should delineate between the two primary types of individual actors within this discussion. It seems to me that, actors such as ordinary workers who take Mallon's suggestions to heart would increase their networked power. That is, if one partakes in a multiplicity of diverse projects and continual learning, they will have greater means to connect into the network and thereby hold 'status' over others in the network (and those outside the network). Those who do not keep up with the learning imperative are simply excluded from the network. Conversely, actors such as Mallon (i.e. executives, 'thought-leaders') would be granted increased network power. Quite simply, by suggesting that (some) individuals must constantly adapt to the changing conditions of capital, Mallon's discourse directly imposes the rules of inclusion in the network. 

In closing, I find it interesting that imbued throughout the press release is an individualization of responsibility on the worker (actor) on behalf of the managers/executives. For instance, Christine Robinson of Manulife Canada suggests, "traditional models of work were about filing full-time jobs with established skill sets whereas today and into the future we're [emphasis mine] going to have to be more interested in adding to our toolkit". Also interesting is Simon Chan's totalizing claim that millennials want "non-traditional work". This sort of boosterish and un-critical sentiment makes it appear that precarious and project-based work is inevitable. Therefore, it is my sense that we ought to remain critical of the changing nature of labour. We ought to ask the question— is labour/"talent" changing because it wants to? Or is it the neoliberal/(info)capitalist ethos that pervades the economy that is driving the change (among other economic and socio-political factors). If we we adopt the latter view, we might want to ask in what ways can those left disadvantaged by the new labour market resist and contest power? How does power operate in the network that is the Waterloo Region tech sector and how does it operate vis-à-vis other networks (nationally, internationally)? Indeed, as Castells posits, counterpower must be assembled through resistance networks that act upon the dominant networks themselves to obstruct the switchers and alter the fundamental principles of the network.