The human society is ever changing, and new societal organizations emerge to replace the old ones. One of the most rapidly changing aspects on the human existence is technology. Technological advancements affect the life of a person in a variety of ways, both in the public and private spheres. New media technologies have brought forth what is commonly being referred to as the knowledge era. This technological revolution has revolutionized the workplace, labor market, human interactions and ultimately every aspect of life.
The economy and the labor market are experiencing a continuous process of transformation, and new terms such as the ‘virtual economy, digital labor’ are increasingly being used to refer to the changing circumstances. The workplace has changed. The strict definition hitherto attached to the word has changed, and now one cannot define it with precision without running the risk or leaving out other situations that would appropriately fit the description (Valenduc & Vendramin 2000).
Recent technological developments in media technology have created an almost seamless relationship among the various aspects of one’s life. The use of information gadgets such as phones, laptops, the internet, among other media tools has made it difficult to place a line separating what is to be considered as work or play (McDowella & Christopherson 2009). The line disconnecting production and consumption, personal and professional life, work and non-work activities is now blurred.
Traditional industrial labor or salaried labor had a tendency to make work a central part of life. Formerly dominated by males, these laborers lived for their work, and treating leisure or play activities as unnecessary distractions from their ‘mission’ to provide for their families. This does not necessarily mean that interaction with family and friends was completely left out of these men’s life, but it occupied a significantly lesser position as compared to their work. The traditional workplace meant a designated place of work from where one’s duties were performed within regulated hours. The cyberspace, home offices, social networks and like concepts did not conjure the image of a workplace in people’s minds.
The emergence of the digital economy, which has led to the evolution of labor into forms now referred to as ‘digital’ and ‘immaterial labor’, has changed the understanding of the concept of ‘work’. Whereas in the past one would report to a designated place of work; (this is still the case in the majority of places), workers are now able while at home, travelling, and even when on vacation or anywhere else in the world. This has inevitably led to the blurring of the separation between what is and what is not part of one’s job description. In other words, a person may carry out certain tasks that are part of the job, but are not clearly defined as work. It is a fact that many people sort and reply to their work-related emails from home, at a time beyond regular office hours. Whether this can be described as ‘work’ for which he/she should be remunerated is still debatable.
The digital economy is oiled by and runs on a huge cyber presence and activity. What once used to be a pastime or an idyllic activity now translates into billions of shillings and the capitalists are not about to let them slip through their fingers. A person’s participation and presence in social media such as facebook will mean handsome earnings for certain individuals and companies. The uncertainty lies in determining whether socializing with friends on social networks is an activity for which a person should be paid. This is because in a strictly financial and economic sense, this individual is actually engaged in the production of revenue.
Worman & Somek (2011), mince no words when talking about what capitalists have turned the digital evolution into. They argue that the shift in the economy and labor from industrialized to digital is exploited to get free labor from digital workers by capitalists (Terranova 2012). Though free labor may not always amount to exploitation, there are others who view it differently. Former volunteers of America Online are reported to demand compensation for work done for the company, though they did it as volunteers. The argument is that technology is being used to exploit, but not as a tool to benefit the workman and improve his conditions in life. Worman and Somek (2011) refer to these workers as net slaves, or immaterial workers whose efforts are not valued for money.
The traditional position that work occupied in salaried individuals’ lives has been cemented by the emerging trends in media technology. Work has taken a very central position for most people, and the only difference is that the situation is more pronounced, and there is an increased female presence. The workplace has left the office, even for those with designated places of work. Many employees carry office work to their homes, and work on it from there beyond working hours. For some, it is about convenience, or the need to ‘keep things moving’. Whereas this may actually achieve the desired objective of clearing a backlog at the office, it undeniably affects other aspects of a person’s life negatively.
Human beings are social animals and, therefore, cannot exist in isolation and separation from others. Most social relationships are created and maintained through informal interactions. This is to mean that man will relate with others at a personal level when he is not working, otherwise, this would amount to a professional relationship. This statement is not meant to disregard social networks created from professional interactions.
The permeation of work into the private sphere of people’s lives has made the maintenance of social relationships and family ties a herculean task. Most people are always on their computers or phones trying to tie a loose end somewhere in a matter connected with their work. The time set aside for family and friends has become more and more diminished. Almost each activity is tied to work. Many people attend social events and functions such as parties and lunches with the hope of making important and valuable additions to their professional network.
When discussing the role that work plays in people’s lives, McDowella & Christopherson (2009) say that digital labor has replaced most of the goods and services that hitherto were provided as a result of love and other human feelings. Such goods and services include; homemade meals, cleaning, taking care of others, among other human activities. The situation has been worsened by the involvement of females in the labor market. Women are traditionally viewed as care givers and since more of them are working even at home, performing simple tasks such as cooking has become difficult. Many families as a result, eat food bought from restaurants and even this is not eaten at the dinner table. More often than not, food is consumed while typing away on the computer.
The new media technology advancements have robbed human relationships of their personal and warm touch. Research findings show that most acquaintances keep in touch via social networks and digital media. Gregg, (2011) while discussing the subject refers to the couple who keep in touch via email. This is not a surreal situation. It is common for family members to discuss issues affecting them and even solve family disputes over the social media. Many people chat online in the course of the day and discuss things that they would otherwise have discussed at home at the end of the day. Communicating via email while at home after work may be taking it to unreasonable levels, but the situation described by Gregg (2011) is very real in today’s family setting.
Peterson & González, (2004) and McDowella, (2009) opine that satisfaction with work is one way of measuring a person’s satisfaction with life. The argument advanced is that since work occupies such a central part in people’s lives, it flows automatically from this that satisfaction with work means satisfaction in life. The opinions of Peterson & González, (2004) and Brinkley, Fauth, Mahdon &Theodoropoulou, (2010) differ slightly. They argue that though satisfaction at work may greatly affect a person’s satisfaction with his/her life, the relationship between the two is not so direct. That human beings are able to separate the two and the effect of one over the other can be minimized.
The likely conclusion from that discussion is that someone can be dissatisfied with work, but satisfied in their personal lives. In my opinion, the link between satisfaction at work and personal contentment is very strong. It is even more pronounced now that the workplace has greatly permeated the personal space of individuals. White (1991) greatly supports the assertions of the ‘spillover hypothesis’ with which I agree. The hypothesis asserts that satisfaction from work spills over into someone’s life. That the more or less one is satisfied with work, this will be reflected proportionately into personal life. That the two are so closely intertwined, they cannot be completely separated.
Digital labor requires a certain level of computer literacy. In the recent past, there was a mistaken belief that digital labor only applied to the information sector Worman & Samek (2011). This has been disproved as it is evident that this concept is present in all sectors and job markets. The level of skill required has, however, changed. In the past, employers did not place so much emphasis and weight on computer literacy. These days, it is a fundamental competence required for most jobs (Borghans & Weel 2000). Employers recognize that it is almost impossible perform tasks assigned if one does not possess computer skills. This realization has greatly contributed to the inclusion of computer training in most institutions of learning.
Does the discussion above, therefore, mean that digital workers earn more? Has this evolution of the labor force created a new class of highly paid employees? Hudson (1989) argues that the outcome is not always presented. The increase in competency requirements is only reflective of skills required to get the job done. The factual situation is that most of the work done and effort put in by digital workers often goes uncompensated. One reason for this is the fact that some of the tasks performed do not fall squarely under the definition of ‘work’. The employees themselves are not sure whether what they do should be paid for by the employer, as it seems to be outside the scope of their work, but all the same incidental to it.
Changes in the knowledge economy have brought about flexibility in the workplace. This flexibility is reflected in terms of the place of the work, working hours and scheduling among others. For some writers such as Hudson (1989) and Pollert (1991), this flexibility has both positive and negative implications in people’s lives. The ability to schedule one’s work according to his/her convenience is one such advantage. Workers are able to do their work when it is convenient for them, in order to give it maximum attention, in the absence of the usual interruptions characteristic of a regular workplace.
Additionally, there is the accompanying convenience of working from wherever one is, without having to go to the office. There are people who have argued that this may be good for the family and friends, as one can comfortably schedule time to spend with them. While these developments are good, the negative implications may outweigh the benefits. Most of this work is done at home or in other places, often during the time set aside for the family and not for work. This may end up having a disruptive effect in family relations.
New media technologies have completely revolutionized the work place and the economy. These changes have, however, not been reflected in the form of changes in the way work affects people’s lives. The effects have only been crystallized. As a result, people are more involved in their work than before, at the expense of social relationships and activities that give them pleasure. It is not uncommon to see people being asked to solve problems at the office from their homes while on leave or vacation.
References
Borghans, L & Weel, B 2000, ‘How Computerization changes the UK Labour Market: The Facts viewed from a new Perspective’, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market, Maastricht. Web.
Brinkley, I, Fauth, R, Mahdon, M, &Theodoropoulou, S. 2010. ‘Is Knowledge Work Better For Us? Knowledge Workers, Good Work and Wellbeing’, The Work Foundation. Web.
Gregg, M 2011, Work’s Intimacy, Polity Press.
Hudson, R 1989, ‘Labor-Market Changes and New Forms of Work in Old Industrial Regions: Maybe Flexibility for Some but Not Flexible Accumulation’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp 5 – 30.
McDowella, L & Christopherson, S 2009, ‘Transforming Work: New Forms of Employment and Their Regulation’ Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp. 335-342.
McDowella, L 2009, Working Bodies: Interactive Service Employment and Workplace Identities, Blackwell, Oxford.
Peterson, N & González, R C 2004, The Role of Work in People’s Lives: Applied Career Counseling and Vocational Psychology, Brooks Cole.
Pollert, A 1991, Farewell to flexibility? Blackwell, Oxford.
Terranova, T 2012, ‘Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy’. Web.
Valenduc, G & Vendramin, P 2000, ‘New Work Forms and Challenges for Public Policies’, Foundation Travail-Université (FTU). Web.
White, T H 1991, ‘The Relative Importance of Work as a Factor in Life Satisfaction’, Industrial Relations, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 179-191.
Worman, A & Samek, T 2011, ‘Digital Labor Shortage: A New Divide in Library & Information Technology Studies?’, Information, Society and Justice,Vol. 4, No. 2. pp 71-82.