In spite of the record voter turnout in the last US presidential election and high voter turnouts in Europe, Americans’ and Europeans’ trust in their public institutions hovers around 35 percent, with more than 60 percent wanting to fundamentally change the system. Yet only 15 percent of Americans and 22 percent of Europeans participate in politics. This phenomenon is the building block of the emergent Post-Democracy in which citizens and political institutions lack the decision-making power to shape policies. But, without a politically active electorate, a fundamental political change that could alter the course of Post-Democracy cannot occur. My recent empirical research examined the breeding grounds for the working class political passivity, mainly by analysing two major societal trends of today’s leading individualisation of workers –– diminishing social leisure and increasing work demands.
The results of the study, carried out on a representative American and European sample, demonstrated how influential real social interactions and group memberships are in our leisure time. This statistically significant result, carrying a medium effect with a significant mediating effect of participatory efficacy, explains one third of the whole political participation phenomenon. The results obtained by the principal component analysis, a tool used in political psychology, showed that the lack of offline social leisure activities reduces the ability to engage in political activities, also because of the inability to grasp the possibility of bringing about change through one’s own, but socially bounded, actions. Put another way, the results translate directly into a reduction in participatory political activities such as protesting, petitioning, donating, and contacting media outlets. In this respect, social leisure is more predictive than an individual’s education or socio-economic status –– values that are mostly used in the current political psychology discourse when analysing political participation. Therein, the results imply that group identities in leisure time are essential for active political participation –– more so than education and socio-economic status. These findings are generalisable across the Western world, as the study results were cross-examined with both American and European representative samples.
As for the second societal trend coming from the findings, perceived work-related stress does not affect political participation. I equate these findings with the widespread belief in the American Dream, as 70 percent of Americans believe in the ideological underpinnings of the post-war American identity. Therefore, workers, also those residing in Europe who grow up in an increasingly privatised society, must remain motivated to pursue the idyllic but impossible meritocratic vision of endless prosperity to remain functional members of the capitalist society. Americans and Europeans must embrace suffering to achieve their true soon to be exploited potential. Thus, most of us should undermine our workplace stressors to strengthen our occupational position in line with politics, securing global value chains, and thereby improve our chances of social mobility towards the fulfilment of the American Dream.
From Labourer to Entrepreneur
Besides the empirical evidence backing the observations of Adorno and Horkheimer, the study synthesised the current insights into the position of workers providing a further context for explaining the decline in political participation underpinning the current model of government in America and Europe, particularly through the reduction of social leisure activities. The answer provided by the research lies in the transformation of workers’ identities which began about 70 years ago. In today’s globalised working climate, we need to become ‘entrepreneurs’ who embrace the market’s unpredictability by constantly innovating ourselves. Entrepreneurs who trust in the validity of their starting positions and are not afraid to seek improvement through marketised means that promise success.
We as ‘entrepreneurs’ are assured: this endeavour will provide us with freedom and satisfaction as we will pursue our true passions by contributing to the transformation of global capital. If you have a job that does not have these qualities, you are responsibilised for it ⎯ either stuck in a constant search for meaning or deeply dissatisfied. Both outcomes push towards individualised, systematically promoted ventures that focus on filling the endless void with infinite desires that every human being has. Rather than filling the void with social connections, ‘entrepreneurs’ should believe in their atomised, cutting-edge vision of capital transformation that will successfully bring comfort to their desires. Those who go along the path denoted by global capital lose a sense of common identity, and with a non-existent common identity, political participation loses its meaning.
Work undoubtedly remains a building block for meaning-making and thus instrument for emancipation. Yet today, the employment contract ⎯ justifying the codified relations of exploitation ⎯ is much more fragile than ever before, hindering the possible emancipation of human labour. As workers lose their bargaining power due to increasing demands, the pressures of globalised labour, or the obsolescence of their jobs, employers increasingly dictate employment contracts. In the loose network of workers, they are seen as ‘entrepreneurs’ who have to embrace market uncertainty through their flexibility and constant improvement. Within this shift in identity, workers lose a sense of shared identity in the midst of meaningful pursuit. Although implicit, the entrepreneurial pursuit offers abstract ways to satisfy the endless desire to achieve the same level of riches as the most televised entrepreneurs ⎯ leaving the American self in an identity running wheel. When the common identification is lost, so is the social force ready to change politics.
Two Types of Entrepreneurs
Consequently, when ‘entrepreneurs’ compete for pre-determined employment contracts, hourly wages stagnate and equality diverges. Rising inequality increasingly clusters the labour spectrum. At one end of the labour continuum are ‘always-improving entrepreneurs’, who are highly mobile and enjoy secure contracts. At the other end are ‘failed entrepreneurs’: those working in precarious positions, unprotected by their contracts and subject to ruthless globalised labour competition.
For ‘failed entrepreneurs’, the precariousness of their occupations and the inability to change their employment lead them to accept their subordinate position, even though these social spaces perpetuate feelings of guilt for possessing such occupations. This social position does not alleviate the stress caused by the existential insecurities generated by growing inequalities. As a result, they do not have opportunities for social mobility or satisfactory working conditions, which ultimately translates into less energy being devoted to childcare and eldercare, thus affecting the chances of social mobility of entire communities.
Compared to ‘failed entrepreneurs’ working in the precarious conditions, ‘always-improving entrepreneurs’ are also exposed to increasing work demands. The employment landscape has become a loose web of oddly defined positions, as they are subject to the instantaneous movements of global capital. This is manifested in a new social phenomenon called the fear of missing out, where ‘always-improving entrepreneurs’ are willing to lose their social or financial assets just not to be left out of the opportunities given by the global free market.
‘Always-improving entrepreneurs’ need to advance or maintain their position, as higher occupational status retains a fair degree of social mobility against the inevitable shocks of the libidinal desire for endless consumption –– exemplified by the workings of global capital market –– which can only be periodically satisfied in times of surplus. The neoliberal economic ideal therefore precedes their motivations for pursuing a career. Of course, some of them would want to change the way their government works; and because of their top positions on the corporate ladder, they would successfully push for change. But precisely because they are so tied to the global capitalist system, they cannot bring about the political change they desire because any challenge to the status quo makes their social positions fragile.
The self-identity crisis resulting from the need to derive meaning from their ever-changing occupations persists among highly skilled workers as they have to strip away traditions, communal identities and local interests to hold on to their fragile occupational positions, which bear fewer future uncertainties. Although ‘entrepreneurs’ are not punished when they do not or cannot follow the neoliberal ideal, they are stripped from the access to highly regarded amenities of the present time. Thus, to still retain a tangible identity, be seen as authentic, and belong to the imagined group of highly skilled workers, the ‘always-improving entrepreneurs’ have to reject belonging to any specific group. Instead, they pursue short-term relationships displaying personal complexity, occupational motivation and devaluing social support. Continuously re-marketing themselves and mimicking the style of multiple social groups to remain the trendsetters –– being able to shape-shift whenever new influences alter the dominant ideology to maintain their social positions.
Similar social processes of individualisation leading to political passivity are visible in the class of ‘failed entrepreneurs’. Their social position bears the label of an inferior group that, in the worst case, lives on state support. To avoid being seen as an inferior group in times of reduced social mobility, members of this strata mask their status by consuming high-end goods. Besides flashy purchases, they must cut ties with other stigmatised members. They contribute less to the community at hand, mimicking the individualised habits of the ‘always-improving entrepreneurs’ and supporting policies that favour the neoliberal winners. All this is done with the intention of improving one’s position, allowing better social mobility within the deprived group, resulting in the loss of intimate ties within the ‘failed entrepreneurs’ communities. Their professional status still allows ‘failed entrepreneurs’ to rebuild their self-esteem, in contrast to the unemployment status. However, as they cannot change their increasingly harsh working conditions or improve the position of their families, ‘failed entrepreneurs’ become self-alienated from society. And as a result, they lose their faith in structural change.
When both ends of the labour force are driven into competition, other activities that require high cognitive motivation, such as political activity, are sidelined. ‘Always-improving entrepreneurs’ use their spare time to endlessly curate themselves for the labour market, using work stress as an opportunity for growth. And ‘failed entrepreneurs’ recognise the insurmountability of escaping their precarious jobs, thereby inducing inaction or alienation from involvement in social affairs. Increased competition and the consequent demand for productivity means that 60 percent of the American and 45 percent of the European Union workforce is under chronic stress. When external demands become unbearable, workers do not have enough cognitive resources to devote their efforts to checking those in power or even to becoming politically active. Voting becomes an ephemeral chore –– choosing pre-approved representatives based on a few statements that advance individual interests rather than communal concerns, as shared benefits become harder to conceive in an over-individualised society.
Entrepreneurial Free Time
Atomised employment, leading to over-individualisation, diminishes the collective identity of workers, directly affecting the choice of leisure activities, which are the next crucial periods of socialisation. To commodify and control other aspects of American life, capitalist ideology has also hijacked the time after work. These historical processes were described by Adorno and Horkheimer, who observed the rise of the entertainment industry and marketised products designed to dictate post-work time, but just until now no empirical research has tested their rightful claims. Leisure products mimic capitalist ideas. In the terminology of Guy Debord: leisure goods only refer to the capitalist ideal, producing the notion of no alternative. When all the parts point to the same conclusion, people cannot use their critical thinking, thereby perpetuating in mindless consumption.
Today, we can see the manifestations of capitalist ideals proliferating without substantial critical thought throughout Americanised culture in its leisure time. I find them in self-help books, exercise programs, alcohol ads, dating apps, freemium games, or prime-time talk shows. All products mimic the desired end goal of the American Dream. However, with one notable difference, they are played out in fictional worlds. All these products are coping mechanisms that dramatise the capitalist desire for promised limitless success. Alongside the employment contract, leisure is becoming a new –– less overt –– means of employee domination. Although we have more time than ever, we are still caught in the web of leisure commodities that convey the ideology of the American capitalist state.
In the Americanised leisure time, the atomisation of the public has been fuelled by the entertainment industry, transmitted through its symbiotic relationship with technology. Robert Putman has documented this change. When faced with an unprecedented number of tailored choices accessible through a personal device, it becomes a hassle to actively find someone who enjoys the same preferred activity. People are therefore more likely to sit alone and enjoy the increasingly personalised range of products on their own. Furthermore, the rise of social media connectivity has accelerated the decline of long-term relationships that build strong common identities, as the platform environment provides low entry and exit costs for accessing and maintaining social connections, leaving Americans and Europeans even more atomised than ever before.
Statisticians around the world are now witnessing these forces. Sixty-one percent of Americans report daily feelings of loneliness and Europeans across all the age groups have the highest prevalence of loneliness feelings. Correspondingly, Lee and Lee or Brian Elliot documented social trends within the employee’s leisure time allocation. The ‘always-improving entrepreneurs’ prefer the type of leisure activity that enhances their competitive edge. They curate their leisure time around knowledge building, skill acquisition or physical exercise. On the other hand, ‘failed entrepreneurs’ are most likely to seek out leisure activities enabling them to relieve work stress through entertainment, relaxation and intoxication. Both groups at the ends of the work spectrum do not engage in social leisure activities. Leisure time becomes predominantly singular. It becomes either an extension of work or a passive consumerist endeavour. In a climate of high demands and atomised leisure choices, the opportunity to maintain lasting relationships is shrinking and so is the ability for collective political change.
Therefore, when leisure becomes a singular activity, an essential aspect –– shared identity –– vanishes. This becomes problematic because collective identity helps citizens to identify shared opinions and judge others in terms of their willingness to act on those shared beliefs. These two aspects of shared identity are key drivers of any successful organised social movement. Once the salience of group membership is replaced by personalised individual goals sustained by atomised leisure choices, attributes such as kinship, trust, reciprocity and even belief in one’s ability to effect change disappear. Unfortunately, these evaporated capacities are the necessary qualities driving the competencies of individuals in pushing for grassroots political change.
Life after Entrepreneurism
At both ends of the employment spectrum, the weakening of the deep relationships affecting political participation is striking. Erosion of shared identity is very threatening, because history shows us that the tightly knit identity of industrial workers, distinct from the scattered identification of the agricultural peasantry, was essential to the democratisation processes across Europe. But once the decision-making power of the tightly knit workers’ identities that have shaped democratic institutions disappears, Post-Democracy emerges.
Moreover, the loss of tightly knit group identities and the consequent lack of decision-making power creates a longing for politics. Atomised citizens project their yearning onto everything. Everything is politics, but no one can successfully engage in an organised exchange. At best, citizens opt for voluntary anti-political organisations. Welcome to the era of hyper-politics; everything is politicised, but nothing changes. Media becomes the most influential discursive medium, with outlets capitalising on the hyper-political paradigm. The most radical ideas proliferate around the atomised majority, as citizens cannot affirm whether the statement belongs to mainstream opinion or to the extreme fringes. A captivated audience sells the most. In hyper-politics, popular accountability is lost, and disillusionment with democratic polity persists to the point where new opportunist forces emerge from the neoliberal disarray satisfying the political longings of citizens with idle assurances.
The erosion of common identity brought about by the entrepreneurial personification of current occupations is a concerning factor in contemporary neoliberalism. And with the deterioration of employment contracts and automation knocking at the door, a transformation of work as we know it must emerge from the common interest of workers.
I believe that the post-(work)employment paradigm should not strive for work’s abolition. It should, however, push for a circumvention of the neoliberal solutions promoting more precarious jobs to create a surplus of marketised products ready to be sold back to the same overworked, disenfranchised workers as add-ons for their subordination. Using entrepreneurial terminology, the post-(work)employment transformation must seek to abolish the prevailing legally protected employment contracts; to awaken entrepreneurial freedom. Not in the form of servitude to the current ideology, seeking to monopolise natural and social interactions, and rather by allowing other interests to be expressed through human labour. In that way, work becomes a real transformative process, harnessing human effort for collective benefit while minimising its negative externalities. Questions such as “What do you do and who do you work for?” or “What sector of the market are you currently exploiting?” should not be on the table. Only then will cities, families, technology and even an individual’s life purpose cease to be bound by empty extraction practices; thus freeing one’s judgement and labour.
Current employment contracts reinforce servitude towards a person or organisation whose actions are neither accountable nor assuring the employees’ best interests. It prevails as disguised serfdom. Companies over-marketise professional captivities with slogans like “Here you will finally find what you are really made for” or “I am sure you will fall in love with our company’s mission”. Advantageously, with the abolition of current employment contracts, education will no longer be dictated by the demands of pre-defined job roles. It can develop into a fluid art, defending emancipatory notions embedded in critical thinking, humanity and freedom. That way workers do not have to find refuge in their leisure time or seek work that is disguised as fun (as promoted by tech companies) or as freedom (as advocated by gig economy companies). After all, if they fall for this occupational prey, they alienate themselves from the rest; and by not knowing what others want, they cannot change their disguised serf-like status.