Variant issue 37    back to issue list

Doodley-doo? Doodley don’t!
Life and Sabotage

Gesa Helms

The Doodle Notebook.
How to Waste Time in the Office

Claire Faÿ (2006) Thames & Hudson

Sabotage in the American workplace.
Anecdotes of dissatisfaction, mischief and revenge

Martin Sprouse, ed, (1992) Pressure Drop Press and AK Press

1. Doodling

In early 2008 a series of publications appeared. They were targeted at the creative public, or more precisely, the creative office worker. These publications were treated in media reviews as a bit cheeky, a bit mischievous. The Guardian produced a 20-page supplement1 in conjunction with the publisher, Thames & Hudson, of one of these publications; Claire Faÿ’s The Doodle Notebook. How to Waste Time in the Office. The Doodle Notebook had originally appeared in French in 2006, and its English translation was noted with the usual exoticism of anything from the continent and that peculiar mix of admiration, envy and derision that accompanies British reports on strikes across the Channel and how they impact on British life.
Published in the shape of an A5 sketchbook, in softcover and stapled, The Doodle Notebook is a colouring book for the bored office worker. In fact, it is so much more if we read the back cover:
“Here is a book that will enable you to take on the daily grind of office life armed with nothing more than a sense of humour, a wild imagination and a few bits of stationery. Your inner child will be endlessly entertained. And your co-workers will be envious in the extreme...”
There are two lines of enquiry for this review (of an admittedly rather unimportant book that has already received far more than its fair share of coverage):
a. what kind of practices are proposed “to take on the daily grind”?
b. who can propose such practices and who can engage in them?
Following these two lines, I want to critically engage doodling in a debate over work-place agency, resistance and sabotage; to draw out the limitations constructed for creative office workers; and provide a couple of openings to raise implications for a politics on work, autonomy, subversion if we were to arm ourselves with a bit of stationery.

a. The practices proposed.
These are, in the main, individualised: to be done at one’s (hot)desk, possibly to show off the artwork to colleagues over lunch, always supposing you have lunch at the same time and communally. Doodling is designed to let off steam and to help you progress with your career.
How are we enticed to doodle? Firstly, by filling in our name, age, qualifications, what we wanted to be when we grew up, what we actually do now, and when we started the book. Over the thirty-odd pages, in a retro-style quaint font type accompanied by affected pen-and-ink clip-art, the pages invite you to doodle, to punch holes with a paper punch or knitting needles, to staple the drawings provided. Some invite you to involve your colleagues; they concern your state of mind, your happiness, the office boredom, but also your career prospects. For example:
• “Problem solving made simple: cross it out and turn the page”
• Filling up rows of tea cups “should be just our cup of tea”
• An image of a cow encourages us to “escape to the country and to create our very own cash cow”
• “Appraise and erase: name your team, wield your pen, and perform some strategic downsizing” in a page full of stick people
• “Take your pick. Which direction is your career about to take?”
• “Draw your boss’s boots and lick as often as necessary”
• “Draw your icing on the cake”
• A page full of sugar cubes is to be torn into small pieces, “Then give a little sprinkle to anyone who’s feeling bitter.”
• “Let your life spiral out of control” by completing predrawn spirals
• “How are you feeling? Join the dots and find out.”
Oh, and did I mention its gender politics (on the quiet)?:
• A plate is to be filled “with all the food your heart desires” for “a low-calorie lunch break”
• “Who has the biggest mouth in the office? Draw her and tape her mouth shut.” All we see to start with are a pair of seductive eyes.
How does this involve a “wild imagination” as promised on the back cover? The suggested doodles are terribly restrictive: they are about drawing by numbers, tippexing out and stapling. If they invited readers to develop their own little schemes, fair enough, but as it stands this is rather lame. Lame in the sense that it is a prescriptive, highly regulated activity. And in this, it is well adjusted to the prescriptive and regulated office environment. Boredom rules but not in the way of unproductive timewasting but highly regulated routine tasks which are timed, divided and targeted. The extent to which regulatory surveillance is part and parcel of the contemporary office environment is shown by the “militant enquiry” undertaken by the German libertarian communist group Kolinko in call centres in the Ruhr area.2

b. Authors and workers.
The Doodle Notebook’s author is present through her absence, as she only surfaces in an endorsement on the backcover:
“Claire Faÿ is a successful author and graphic designer in her native France.”
Faÿ joins the increasing number of freelance creative folk who turn their hand to anything and anything turns to added value in the process. There are visionary artists who have rediscovered car boots sales as a way of beating the recession3 and there are young fashion designers who design out of an outbuilding on their parents’ farm4. Alongside this value production goes the promotion and making of personality by CV, statement and press release, with a key ingredient being the proclamation how all of this is done for oneself. The desperation in attached CVs, redundant press releases and the demonstration of creative frugality remains silent and so obvious in omission. Because: These authors, artists, designers are successful in what they do. For Faÿ, being “successful” is the condition sine qua non for publishing her book. She can promote mischief precisely because she is not on the dole, she is not a benefit scrounger. Instead, she puts it succinctly herself in the Guardian supplement:
“The 30-year-old graphic designer insists her mission is constructive: she is not to knock the business world or incite mutiny among office workers. ‘The basic principle is to doodle to evacuate your stress , your dark thoughts, your boredom, whatever riles you, and to transform it into positive energy,’ she says. ‘When we evacuate stress we become more efficient at work, because we managed to release what’s been blocking us’.” 5
The notebook is dedicated: “To Véronique, who needs a job, and to Violette, who needs a more exciting job.” It closes with: “THE END Véronique has a new job, and Violette isn’t bored at work any more. How about you?” The author remains invisible other than as a designer for the doodle pages and for this dedication and closing statement. The dedication and its conclusion at the end of the notebook are full of implication. Their implication is one of progression and development: just as much as Faÿ is successful and well integrated with her (now freelance) work, doodling will also help you and me to become a better and more productive worker.

2. Labour process and wilfulness (i)

Faÿ’s mischievous doodling briefly opens the door towards labour process studies and social history, by seemingly acknowledging subversiveness in the workplace, but really only to wave through the business consultants to promote more ‘creative’ self-management to boost performance. Let’s not let the consultants in, and instead consider how labour process and social history have pinpointed a whole field of precisely what constitutes work/place/struggles?
For this, I would like to draw on the work of German-speaking everyday historians and their studies into factory, home and state control/routines and practices.6 At the centre of Alf Lüdtke’s and his colleagues’ work7 resides the concept of Eigen-Sinn:
“... wilfulness, spontaneous self-will, a kind of self-affirmation, an act of (re)appropriating alienated social relations on and off the shop floor by self-assertive prankishness, demarcating a space of one’s own. There is a disjunction between formalized politics and the prankish, stylized, misanthropic distancing from all constraints or incentive present in the everyday politics of Eigen-Sinn ... It is semantically linked to aneignen (appropriate, reappropriate, reclaim).”8
Eigen-Sinn as wilfulness and distanciation is employed to study the continuous struggle over workplace practices, such as the measurement and definition of what constitutes worktime: both the extension of worktime and attempts to limit or to ‘rationalise’ breaks and maintenance routines. These struggles are traced through workplace regulations and archival material, following Lüdtke’s9 acute observation that the multitude of worktime-related warnings and regulations, frequently issued by factory owners, signal a constant need to keep controlling worktime to increase productivity.
Along with E P Thompson’s work10, it sheds doubt on those approaches to industrial relations that regard the implementation of a mechanical discipline of time as a given fact of industrialisation.11 Important to Lüdtke are those acts of re-appropriation of time by the workers. In historical diary entries and observational records of the time, he finds those practices by which time was appropriated for sociality and recreation within the working day. To a large extent of a practical, embodied nature, these practices were not primarily supporting political discussions and debates but arose out of individuals working together on a daily basis and a resulting intimacy that expressed itself in good-humoured practical jokes:
“Above all, (whenever you could) you enjoyed a joke, a tease or pulling someone’s leg. Among close colleagues, who understood such teasing, everyone tried to play a trick on someone else. One hid and threw clay at unsuspecting passers-by, another secretly pulled apron strings, or pulled out seats from underneath during a break, or suddenly stood in someone’s way, or they just made fun of each other.”12
Here we have a whole series of practices that workers engage in which are about self-expression, about stealing and making time out of the routine of factory work. Many of them are individual attempts to “take on the daily grind” but in contrast to doodling they are not about being a more productive worker at the end of it.

3. Sabotage at work

The second book in this review is very much concerned with “taking on the daily grind”, and does so explicitly in opposition to becoming a more productive worker. It is Martin Sprouse’s edited collection of Sabotage in the American workplace. Anecdotes of dissatisfaction, mischief and revenge, published jointly by Pressure Drop Press and AK Press in 1992, nearly two decades earlier (and now out of print).
The book contains a short introduction by the editor and more than 130 individual stories, written in the first person as told by the saboteurs themselves. The stories are structured by industry sector, including, for example, transportation, food processing, catering, office work, creative industries, military, sex work, and manufacturing. Each story is a few paragraphs long and is accompanied by varied additional material such as excerpts from newspaper articles, employment manuals, poetry and statistics.
In the introduction, Sprouse explains how he developed the publication when he took employment in a mail room at the bottom of the pecking order in a San Francisco financial magazine in the late 1980s. To him it was clear that he had to take this poorly paid and uninspiring job. Not only in the mail room but right across the company he realised that his co-workers shared his attitude of minimal commitment:
“Dissatisfaction started with us in the basement [where the mail room was located] and rose all the way up to the desk where the CEO’s secretary worked. Discontent was matched by an equal amount of sabotage. The company postage machine, long distance telephone lines and expense accounts were considered public domain... There I was in a typical American office, witnessing sabotage done by almost every level of staff. It was a clear reflection of how they felt toward the company and it made their jobs more tolerable. Sabotage was part of most employees’ daily routines, and so widespread that it was barely noticeable. I doubt that even the most observant of managers had a clue about what was going on.” (p. 2)
Following this work, he began to search for stories of sabotage, which he defines loosely as “anything that you do at work that you’re not supposed to do” (p. 3). For the book, Sprouse started by approaching (with little success) financial workers during lunch hours but quickly changed to recruiting through friends and colleagues. Once people knew about his project they approached him. He also followed up stories that he read in newspapers. One of the motivations for the project arose from the almost exclusive focus of (US) labour history on strikes and walkouts in the early 20th century, while sabotage was given little attention. Here, his motivation resonates with the everyday historians’ interest in workplace practices such as those over work time. With the project, Sprouse discovered the wide range of reasons and choice of means for different types of sabotage; he saw as such, the practice as reflection of personal characters and particular jobs. The motivation ranged from altruism to revenge. Some of his interviewees barely survived on meagre wages, others were earning significant amounts of money. Some acts of sabotage were highly dramatic, others very quiet. Take for example:
• Lazlo, computer programmer. He was employed to improve what he saw as ‘one of the worst designed systems’ for a large bank payroll software. He was angry that he was only allowed to patch things up for a waste of a programme and for that he wasn’t given the time he needed yet had to take the blame for shortcomings of the main software. The dispute escalated to the point that he decided to replace the old payroll programme with a new one which would delete the software entirely. ‘Once it started failing, all the other programs started deleting themselves. The logic bomb had a chain reaction effect. It started out small, but then all of a sudden the entire system was corrupted.’ (p. 24). While nobody got paid on pay day on the Northern California network and workers were out of pocket, Lazlo sees the resulting damage to the bank’s respectability far more significant as well as the fact that some supervisors were fired. While everyone knew he did it, he legally didn’t commit an offence as deleting data wasn’t a punishable act at the time.
• Harvey, mural painter. His bosses don’t like painting people in their commercial projects neither do they like anything conceptual. All the while, they want to be seen as artists. So, while Harvey tries to focus on the upsides of his job such as little monotony, he nonetheless gets very wound up by the pretend nature of his bosses’ art. His outlet is to introduce Francis Bacon portraits and a SS stormtrooper into a mural funded by Walt Disney Corporation to provide a social commentary on the world elsewhere. Yet, he says that “it’s really hard to get away with anything more. I’ve been told to repaint fruit in still lifes because they were too suggestive. I didn’t do it on purpose, but once they called my attention to it, I started to figure out ways that I could do it and get away with it” (p. 30).
• Christian, executive assistant. After some progression at work in a large retail corporation, Christian saw not much chance for further career advancement since no women were in any senior management positions in the company. For three years, she published a magazine out of her main job: by photocopying around 8,000 sheets of papers for each issue. She would do this in early morning shifts before her co-workers arrived and smuggle the paper out little by little, worried the security guards would catch her but they never approached her. Besides, she “stole anything [she] could get [her] hands on and sold it at yard sales…It didn’t even have to be anything I needed or wanted” (p.61). Her rationale? “They could have paid me thirty times more for my work and it still wouldn’t have come close to how much they profited from me… I think good mischief is well worth the personal effort, especially when people are so incredibly underpaid for their efforts” (ibid).
Sabotage in the American workplace is a fascinating account of US workplace practices across a restructuring economy towards the end of the 20th century. With this, Sprouse and the wider project has provided an important contribution as well as a corrective to some of the conventional stories of labour history. It also provides a reference point in the late-20th century to the Industrial Workers of the World, the only major union to advocate sabotage as a means of struggle. The project is firmly situated within (albeit non-syndicalist) anarchist traditions. Its self organisation (rather than on the back of a funded academic research project) is visible throughout the publication, its framing and its construction. It is able to trace and make visible practices of sabotage as wide-ranging and wide-spread as letting an unsafe bus run out of oil (Preacher), deleting out-dated software (Lazlo), or ignoring the ‘Oh, Miss’ calls from passengers by flight attendant Rita. The publication provides evidence for its starting point that:
“[a]s long as people feel cheated, bored, harassed, endangered, or betrayed at work, sabotage will be used as a direct method of achieving job satisfaction--the kind that never has to get the bosses’ approval.” (p. 7)
However, the project’s origins and its presentation of well over one hundred individual accounts is also part of the book’s problem: we are provided with a multitude of rationales, practices and contexts for individuals’ acts of dramatic or quiet sabotage. The interviewees provide accounts of how, of course, many of their practices result from social and collective experiences. I would have liked to have seen this being developed further within the publication – and I am making this point while being aware of the constraints of self-organising such a large project. Here, Kolinko’s enquiry into the working conditions, contemporary class composition and scope for resistance expands on the scope of Sabotage in the American workplace13.
Sprouse’s central argument is that sabotage is commonplace and widespread in the labour process and the social relations of the office, factory and other work places.14 Here, Faÿ’s proposition to seek a new job, and if possible go freelance, profoundly affects workplace practices of “all [the] things one does at work and is not supposed to do”, as Sprouse defined sabotage. It calls into question the processes of responsibilisation, self-management and discipline that take place when (creative and other) workers turn into the embodiment of capitalist and worker in one person as a freelancer or soletrader. The extent to which this is complicated is visible in a contemporary project about skiving, which invites people to submit accounts of their skiving practice, which seems to include a lot of shopping, reading Hello magazine, or indeed researching and learning for other and new jobs while at work.15

4. Labour process and wilfulness (ii)

The instruction to doodle in order to “evacuate stress” at the workplace constructs a particular kind of agency. It is one that is not dissimilar to some of the debates over resistance as has figured in cultural studies writing. The human geographer Tim Cresswell observed that “any act that is not clearly the result of dominant structures has been described as resistance. Simply choosing to do something is resistance.” While this view does not construct people as passive consumers, it is in danger of placing them in a simplistic chain reaction, as “making choices, consuming, resisting. These will be seen as evidence for everyday heroism and the analysis will stop here.”16 Cresswell provides an interesting and astute reason for this fashion. He argues that as a shift away from structuralist explanations occurs, many academics are keen to demonstrate their disapproval of structuralist explanations. Thus they focus in on agency and what is perceived to be its most pronounced form (as pitched against structure as domination), namely resistance. In so doing, resistance and agency become synonymous and any analytical value of either concept is lost. This argument is further developed in Cindi Katz’s research on the everyday lives of children amidst global economic restructuring. She proposes to:
“… delineate between the admittedly overlapping material social practices that are loosely considered ‘resistance’ to distinguish those whose primary effect is autonomous initiative, recuperation, or resilience; those that are attempts to rework oppressive and unequal circumstances; and those that are intended to resist, subvert, or disrupt these conditions of exploitation and oppression.”17
Thereby, Katz’s proposition provides a closely nuanced and strongly focused perspective of agency and actual social practices. Such actual praxis allows for those undetermined, creative moments of practical knowledge, while holding on to some of the more reflexive capacities of agency. It is praxis (and agency) made and produced in particular social and historical processes. E P Thompson’s Making of the English Working-Class investigated the making of class to be a complex process of subjectification. It is premised upon a thoroughly relational understanding of class not as a “ ‘structure’, nor even as a ‘category’, but as something which in fact happens (and can be shown to have happened) in human relationships”.18
With Thompson’s definition of class as the way how people live their own histories,19 particular experiences therein are “experiences that are singled out by attention”20 and build up profiles of one’s own needs and those of others. Raymond Williams’21 structures of feeling pointed towards the specific modes of experiencing (and subject formation) as specific for groups sharing the attributes of gender or common workplace, household, or neighbourhood. Such shared experience:
“…was not only overt expressions which ‘played upon’ the forms of communication that were current (or at least intelligible) in the various reference groups. Even communicative silences and the often richly nuanced forms of complaisance, distancing and wilful Eigen-Sinn … never reflected needs that were merely individual. It is always a question of the organization of social relations - a matter of politics.”22
Eigen-Sinn provides, too, such a nuanced and focused position of agency which is closely tied to the everyday and its routinised practices upon which agents only partially reflect. It is constituted through shared experiences and as such the result cannot be reduced to individualised activity – be it doodling, cross-dressing and repackaging Barbie dolls in a toy store or filling army generators with diesel instead of petrol. Such Eigen-Sinn reflects the historical materialist statement that “[c]onsciousness [das Bewusstsein] can never be anything else than conscious existence [das bewusste Sein], and the existence of men [sic] is their actual life-process.”23 With consciousness and being not relating to each but instead are each other, there is no such thing as unconscious being. This argument has two significant implications. Firstly, it radically closes down the possibility for a humanism that reifies character traits, needs and fixity as human nature; or indeed reinvents itself as barely masked moral authoritarianism that calls on common decency or aspiration.24 Life and the life process do not call upon ontology but reside in social praxis, nowhere else.
“This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.”25
Secondly, it is not only exchange value that is socially produced but so is use value and the form of its production socialised. Detlef Hartmann’s Leben als Sabotage [Life as Sabotage]26 develops these two arguments in tandem to prise open the extent to which the social factory not only appropriates our concrete labour but also life as such. His arguments were developed in the context of 1980s West Germany but are worth revisiting in the light of doodling. His arguments, resonating with the Italian Operaismo, shed light on the extent to which labour divests and relinquishes itself [entaeussert] in the ‘social’, or indeed increasingly ‘diffuse’, factory. The ‘social factory’ was used in Italy in the 1960s to understand the extent to which workplace struggles extend into and in fact are constituted by the social relations in which they are produced. The ‘diffuse factory’ points beyond the factory-based struggles to signify labour that is premised increasingly, across skills and sectors, on immaterial labour. With precarity, flexibility and informality being one signifier of this immaterial labour, Maurizio Lazaratto27 develops its significance in relation to sabotage. The call to ‘become a subject’ (at the workplace), as proclaimed by management in the wake of post-fordist restructuring, itself was highly authoritarian. It was less an offer but more a demand: to express oneself, to take responsibility and to be understood (by assuming a simplistic model of communication). New cycles of production premised on such subjectivity take place right across society, not being confined to the factory. They draw on a variety of work skills from manual skills to entrepreneurial ones to manage social relations and elicit co-operation. Often project-based, immaterial labour is marked by precarity and production of contemporary subjectivities where:
“[b]ehind the label of the independent ‘self-employed’ worker, what we actually find is an intellectual proletarian, but is recognized as such only be the employers who exploit him or her.” (p. 137f)
“It is worth mentioning that in this kind of working existence it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish leisure time from work time. In a sense, life becomes inseparable from work.” (ibid)
Lazaratto’s aesthetic model of the production of communication (by immaterial labour), which in itself presents valorization, is expressed in those constructions of self-achieved and aspired lives with Faÿ as successful author encourages through doodling. Yet, the opening for sabotage or radical change – for Lazaratto, similar to Hartmann – lies in the fact that in the context of immaterial labour the whole of the social relation is productive. This type of production changes the relationship between production and consumption but more importantly,
“it also poses a problem of legitimacy for the capitalist appropriation of this process. This co-operation [between capital and immaterial labour] can in no case be predetermined by economics, because it deals with the very life of society.” (ibid, p. 145)

5. Openings

The divestment and in this process the realisation of (abstract) life as (abstract) labour in the diffuse factory continues to move on, as exemplified by Faÿ’s ‘creative’ proposition of doodling yourself to a happier worklife. Her future is one not marked by boring offices that replaced boring factories (boring as fragmented, mind-numbing though often very stressful, demanding work routines to meet targets on the back of numbness) but by freelancing. The promotion of flexible work patterns and portfolio working among creative workers, crafty homeknitters and visionary artists has implications: the experiences made and shared as the workplace changes and power relations of boss and workers are simultaneously internalised (as soletrader I manage my own labour) and externalised in a working and funding environment that thrives on precariousness, disinvestment and privatisation. As Angela McRobbie argues:
“The promotion of creative work has … become a depoliticising strategy, a way of removing politics from work and replacing it instead with notions of self-gratification, reward and self-expression.”28
The Doodle Notebook was published in Spring 2008. It would have not been published a year later, just as the unfolding of recession was gathering ever more speed, the news full of people being made redundant and people being grateful to have negotiated a 0% pay rise or a reduced working week for reduced pay. All the while they pay for a financial sector they do not want nor need; for services that need more investment while service providers (public and private) divest themselves of much of what is left in social-economic infrastructure. In all this, however, sabotage as life or on the quiet is as important as ever if not more so: the reasons for poorly paid, exploitative working conditions and one’s ability to navigate these are not one’s skills set, aspirations or creative self-management but the power relations that are made in social praxis. Contemporary subject formations too are the making of such social praxis. Discovering the basis for happiness and contentment among frugality is not an individual endeavour, even less so when it is part of the contemporary assault on concrete life. Sabotage for immaterial labour deserves careful attention.

1. ‘Get doodling! How to waste time at work’, The Guardian, 8 March 2008.
2. The concept of militant enquiry, and its particular focus on critique, enquiry and class composition is used in the German-speaking world by Wildcat <> and others to signify what Kolinko express as having:
“decided to start working in call centres in order to meet people who work there and to understand what’s going on. We wanted to combine our rage against the daily exploitation with the desire and search for the struggles that can overcome it. Therefore, we had to understand the class reality at this point, be part of the conflicts and intervene.”
Kolinko, 2002, Hotline - Call centre inquiry communism,, accessed 14 March 2010.
3. ‘The Artist, The Recession, The Secret Shop & The Car Boot Sale!’, press release 16 November 2009,, accessed 12 March 2010.
4. ‘From Manure to Couture’, The Herald, 14 November 2009.
5. Sandford, ‘A The doodling philosophy’, The Guardian, 8 March 2008, ‘Get doodling’, p2.
6. In doing so this review treads in close proximity, with various cross-overs, alongside Karen Elliott’s call to ‘Never Work’ a couple of issues earlier; Elliott, K (2009) ‘Never Work!’ Variant 35,, accessed 12 March 2010.
7. Lüdtke, A (Ed.) (1995) The history of everyday life. Reconstructing historical experience and ways of life, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
8. Lüdtke, A 1995, op. cit, p 314.
9. Lüdtke, A 1986, ‘Cash, coffee-breaks, horseplay: Eigensinn and politics among factory workers in Germany circa 1900 in Hanagan’, M & Stephenson, C eds Confrontation, class consciousness, and the labour process. Greenwood Press, Westport, pp65-95.
10. Thompson, E P 1967, Time, work discipline and industrial capitalism. Past and Present, p38, pp56-97.
11. Rather than studies that are strongly influenced by Foucauldian governmentality, assuming panoptic views to produce disciplined bodies and selves, the everyday historians emphasise that the existence of numerous regulations, ordinances and rules point to the fact that these were contested, incomplete and, while clearly indicative of attempts to govern or rule, their imposition demonstrates failure to achieve such rule.
12. Göhre, P, 1891, Drei Monate Fabrikarbeiter und Handwerksbursche, F W Grunow, Leipzig, p 77, cited in Lüdtke, A, 1993, Eigen-Sinn. Fabrikalltag, Arbeitererfahrungen und Politik vom Kaisserreich bis in den Faschismus Ergebnisse, Hamburg. p 137.
13. Kolinko 2002, op. cit.
14. Kolinko also found in their study that forms of refusal to work to order were evident in all the call centres in which they worked: “Many workers who are usually not very rebellious use them. Most of the time they happen on an individual basis. They make it easier to survive, but they don’t shake the regime of exploitation. Rather, they are a part of the process of exploitation because they make sure we don’t collapse under the workload.” Kolinko, 2002, Hotline - Call centre inquiry communism,, accessed 14 March 2010.
15. Schoneboom, A Project Skive, accessed 12 March 2010.
16. Cresswell, T, 1996, In place, out of place. Geography, ideology, and transgression, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, p 260.
17. Katz, C 2004, Growing up global, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, p 242.
18. Thompson, E P, 1963, The making of the English working class, G. R. Elton, London [1991 edition], p 8.
19. Ibid, p 10.
20. Schütz, A & Luckmann, T, 1989, The structures of the life-world, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, p 3f.
21. Williams, R, 1961, The long revolution. Chatto and Windus, London.
22. Lüdtke, A 1995, op. cit, p 18f.
23. Marx, K & Engels, F, (1845), The German Ideology, Chapter 1a,, accessed 12 March 2010.
24. Mooney, G 2007, ‘Reframing the poverty debate’ the New Labour way’. Variant, issue 29, pp11-13.
25. ibid.
26. Hartmann, D, 1988, Leben als Sabotage. Zur Krise der technologischen Gewalt, Rote Strasse/Kleine Freiheit/Schwarze Risse, Göttingen et al., 2nd edition.
27. Lazaratto, M, 1996, ‘Immaterial labour in Virno’, P & Hardt, M (eds) Radical thought in Italy. A potential politics, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 132-146.
28. McRobbie, A, 2009, ‘Reflections on precarious work in the cultural sector’, in Lange, B et al. (Eds.) Governance der Kreativwirtschaft: Diagnosen und Handlungsoptionen, Transcript, Bielefeld, pp. 123-138, p 124