[iDC] Hyperemployed or Feminized Labor?

[Ian Bogost]

On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Mark Andrejevic <markbandrejevic at gmail.com> wrote:

> Having said that, I'd be interested in seeing more argument/evidence backing up the claim that the notion of hyperemployment might be more likely to gain critical purchase than that of exploitation (because the latter sounds so retro-Marxist?) or hyperexploitation (retro-Baudrillardian?). Is this because of the way the term fits into the chain of associations with "unemployment, underemployment and overemployment"? Because the notion of employment carries with it associations of "being used"? Because it taps into a sense of fatigue and overwork rather than with threateningly radical political claims? 

I don't know either, yet, but my short answer to your hopefully-not-rhetorical questions is "yes."

That said, I've given some further thought to Karen and Trebor's shared comment:

> What I am curious about, however, is the use of the term “hyperemployment.” As Trebor suggested, the term is contradictory for workers who are refused the designation of “employee.” 

… and I just don't see the problem. By this logic, "unemployment" is contradictory for workers who are not employed. Thus the modification offered by a prefix, which refers to the *domain* of employment. 

Ian