I don't mean to disparage this kind of work - or the more theoretical stuff on studies of affect, though the latter gets reeeealy esoteric. I agree that there was a moment when this was certainly outside the mainstream and I think people working on it today are even more important to this debate...
> I don't get the impression that any of these folks are uninterested in labor
> unions, though they are largely uninterested in conventional economic
> analysis (of the non-heterodox kind that is), being sociologists and, worse
> (!), ethnographers, they are interested in people, affect, feelings,
> emotions, and the identities shaped by doing certain kinds of work day in
> and day out.
>
> what impact their finding shave on this concept of "immaterial labor"... I
> don't know.
I fully agree this is important to study and that we are dealing with a unique kind of labor: having to care outwardly about your job and be happy in your interactions is a fantastic demand. I am reading Mark Ames' /Going Postal/ and he has a fantastic passage where he talks about this demand in more concrete terms - but he's certainly not alone. However, in my experience, the more ethnographic work on this topic has found very little evidence for one of H&N's key propositions, which is that this kind of labor is somehow inherently productive of a radical viewpoint in relation to the system. People like Carrie Lane (who I think Doug interviewed a while back) David Hesmondhalgh, Sarah Baker, and Angela McRobbie have all done ethnographic work
Hesmondhalgh and Baker: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/25/7-8/97.short McRobbie: cite http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rcus/2002/00000016/00000004/art00003 pdf http://www.variant.org.uk/events/art+labour/Clubs%20to%20Companies.pdf
(as have many others, I'm sure) that in one way or another shows none of the radicalization H&N predict should naturally be there. Only desperation, forced entrepreneurship, and, yes, precariousness. But here they just join all workers rather than being unique (making Zizek's piece a few days ago somewhat striking: http://www.lrb.co.uk/2012/01/11/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-bourgeoisie/print .)
I tried reading Empire. no joy. I tried reading Commonwealth.
> Couldn't get past the extreme abstraction. This tendency people have to
> speak of this or that thing happening, this or that idea that someone else
> holds, without giving any concrete examples, quotes, etc which seems common
> in the world of political theorists of this persuasion, is offputting.
>
> However, since it appears that they are reviled for their association with
> OWS, Iwill give it another go!
Seriously, don't waste your time. Any credit they are getting is unwarranted, despite their association with the protests. A much better choice would be Graeber's "Direct Action: An Ethnography." It is a vivid account of the enormous amount of actual organizing (yes, on anarchist principles, but in a very concrete way.) I've been working my way through it and it is fascinating. But, of course, suit yourself. I just don't think there is any payoff to reading H&N which basically spends 95% of its time trying to prove, theoretically, how the common will mostly arise through the natural interaction of the common - rather than through the organization and practice which careful, thoughtful practitioners like Graeber and others have undertaken for the better part of two decades. I am sure the people Doug has had on over the last few months would also be good (can't remember the name of the A/K Press guy - but he published Graeber's book and had a lot of amazing things to say on the program.) H&N are Lit Crit and Philosophy, which means a lot of the draw is feeling good about understanding the complex ideas unfolding before you, regardless of their concrete value down the line. They may have superficially tapped into a trend or two, and they are certainly influential in certain circles, but overall I don't think they are all that helpful - especially the last book, which is almost comically disconnected from events on the ground.