Kuleva_summary in english (Труд творческих работников России структурные условия, профессиональные идентичности и карьеры)

National Research UniversityHigher School of EconomicsAs a manuscriptMargarita KulevaCreative Labour in Russia: Structural Conditions,Professional Identities and CareersThesis Summary for the purpose of obtaining academic degreePhD in Sociology HSEAcademic Supervisor:PhD in SociologyElena OmelchenkoMoscow, 20192RelevanceIn recent decades, the structural position of the sphere of culture and creativity in the globalcontext is changing.

Firstly, when moving to a post-industrial society, knowledge-based industriessuch as culture and art, science and education, information technologies, come to the forefront inglobal and local economies (Bell 19761, Leadbeater 20002, Florida 20073, Featherstone 19944,Castells 20115). Thus, global cultural events redirect tourist flows (Roche 19946, Carmichael20027, Vogel 20108), cultural practices around the world are used as means for revitalizing urbanareas (Bianchini, Parkinson 19939; Landry 201210; Degen, Garcia 201211), and the degree ofdevelopment of cultural infrastructure is one of the key indicators of the quality of life in cities(including the criteria associated with the cultural offer, used in the calculation of the largestratings of cities - Global Liveability Ranking, by The Economist, Mercer Quality of LivingSurvey).

Secondly, creativity was recognized as a full-fledged industry both at the level of nationalpolicies (at first, in Britain, then in other countries, ministries of creative industries were opened)and in the global context, including the latest edition of the International Standard of IndustrialClassification12. As a result, simultaneously with the growing prestige, the resources of attentionand the volume of investments as well as with the following growth of the sector, the sphere ofculture and creativity faces new challenges.

They include the industrialization of culture, leadingto the commodification of the creative labour results and the transition to market criteria ofevaluating the success of artworks, their creators and cultural organizations.1Bell D. The coming of the post-industrial society //The Educational Forum. – Taylor & Francis Group, 1976. – Т.40. – №. 4. – С. 574-579.2Leadbeater C. Living on thin air: The new economy. – Penguin, 2000.3Florida R. Kreativny klass: liudi, kotorije meniaut budushchee = The Rise of The Creative Class and How It'sTransforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. — Klassika-XXI, 2005.4Featherstone M. City Cultures and Post-Modern Lifestyles //Post-fordism: a reader.

– 1994. – С. 387-408.5Castells M. The rise of the network society. – John Wiley & Sons, 2011. – Т. 12.6Roche M. Mega-events and urban policy //Annals of Tourism research. – 1994. – Т. 21. – №. 1. – С. 1-19.7Carmichael B. A. Global competitiveness and special events in cultural tourism: the example of the Barnes Exhibitat the Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto //The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien. – 2002. – Т. 46. – №.

4.– С. 310-324.8Vogel S. B. Biennials-art on a global scale. – Springer Verlag, 2010.9Bianchini F., Parkinson M. (ed.). Cultural policy and urban regeneration: the West European experience. –Manchester University Press, 1993.10Landry C. The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. – Earthscan, 2012.11Degen M., García M. The transformation of the ‘Barcelona model’: an analysis of culture, urban regeneration andgovernance //International journal of urban and regional research. – 2012. – Т. 36. – №. 5. – С.

1022-1038.12UNSD Classifications https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesm/seriesm_4rev4e.pdf3The above-mentioned processes raise a timely question on how the sphere of culture andcreativity as an employment sector transforms due to its industrialization: how do (and whether)the working conditions of creative workers, their professional identities and career paths changein response to the above-described challenges. This problem was covered by the research strandknown as critical creative labour studies, formed during the second half of the 1990s and 2000s(A. McRobbie, R.

Gill, D. Hesmondhalgh, B.Conor, S. Taylor, M. Banks, M. Deuze, K. Oakleyand others). These studies quite fully cover the theme of creative work, however, leave some gaps:1) present a rather specific experience of creative sectors in large cities of Western Europe andNorth America (the so-called “cultural capitals”) as the universal one; 2) focus on the individualexperience of creative workers as atomized free agents of the New Economy.

The latter not onlydoes not contribute to the dewesternisation and decolonization of research on the production ofculture and new forms of labor, but, more importantly, shapes the following research problem:how do the features of the cultural production system determine the conditions of creative work?The study of creative employment in Russia, as a country included in the global processesof culture and creativity transformation and occupying competitive positions in the world's creativemarkets, but significantly different in the way cultural production is organised, thus it will broadenthe agenda of this sphere of research, contribute to the review of the legitimacy of conclusionsmade in previous studies, and will also raise new questions that can expand the heuristic horizonsof the subject area.Conceptual frameworkTo solve this problem, the following conceptual and methodological framework has beenproposed (see Figure 1).

Creative work is viewed in the broad context of the transformation oflabor relations in a post-industrial society (U. Beck, Z.Bauman, R. Sennett, D. Harvey). For theconceptualization of creative work CCLS (critical studies of creative work) (A. McRobbie, D.Hesmondhalsg, R. Gill, M. Banks, etc.), supplemented with the tools of the cultural-productionparadigm, are used as a basic approach (R. Peterson, H. Becker, N. Heinich, P.

Bourdieu), whichallowed the researcher to conceptualize a wider context of national systems of cultural production.The proposed integrated approach allows us to see individual job experiences of creative workers(micro level) in their connection with individual features of the organizations with which they areassociated (middle level) and the national system of cultural production (macro level).4Figure 1. Conceptual FrameworkThe Degree of Elaboration of the ProblemThe section includes a brief overview of the main theoretical directions of the study ofcreativity as labour and employment, which constitute the theoretical and methodologicalframework of this study: (a) a culture-production paradigm; (b) international and Russian studiesof a New work; (c) critical research on creative work (CCLS)13.A systematic study of the sphere of creativity and culture as an employment sector datesback to the end of the 20th century. Nevertheless, the theorizing of culture and creativity as aspecific production / industry occurred much earlier.

Despite the fact that for classical sociologythe discussion about culture and values was more significant (Durkheim 200814, Weber 201315),Karl Marx already introduced the concept of spiritual production (the production of ideas, artisticvalues) at a fairly early stage, relating it to the sphere of non-productive labour 16. The question ofthe industrialization of art was widely posed within the framework of the neo-Marxist tradition: in1947, the representatives of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, T.V.

Adorno and M.Horkheimer developed the term "cultural industry"17. In Dialectic of Enlightenment, Adorno andHorkheimer talk about a new system of organizing culture, primarily focused on the production ofuniform, "stamped" products, designed for mass demand and rapid profit-making. Adorno and13As the Russian debate on the creative work is in the making, this section is mainly based on an analysis ofEnglish-language literature.14Durkheim E., The elementary forms of the religious life. – Courier Corporation, 2008.15Weber M. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. – Routledge, 2013.16Marx K.

Teoria pribavochnoi stoimosti (volume IV of «Capital»). Gospolitizdat, МM 1954//Quoted from LifshitsM. K. Marx i F. Engels ob iskusstve. – Iskusstvo, 1957.17Horkheimer M., Adorno T. Dialektika prosveshenia: filosofvkie fragmenti // Adorno. Adorno T.–M.: Medium. –1997.5Horkheimer point out the dependence of the cultural industry workers, who do not have the meansfor artistic search, from the dominant system, ("Talents are the property of the industry" 18), butmostly focus on the consumption of the cultural industry products by the masses as ideologicalmanipulations of the capitalist system. H.

Becker insists, via the concept of "art worlds" heintroduced in 1974, on the collective nature of creativity, where the result of the creative processis not determined individually by the artist, but by the collective image of the cultural products byart-world agents (conventions)1920. The culture-production paradigm, proposed by R. Peterson afew years later, also focuses on the "milieu" of cultural producers and the processes of "creating,producing, marketing, distributing, exhibiting, teaching, evaluating and consuming" (Peterson1976:670)21. P.

Bourdieu describes the markets of symbolic production as specific social fields 22,having a different degree of autonomy from the field of power (in particular, the field of mass andrestricted production)23, in each of which agents are fighting for the amount of capital.