Sign in or register
for additional privileges

Latino/a Mobility in California History

Genevieve Carpio, Javier Cienfuegos, Ivonne Gonzalez, Karen Lazcano, Katherine Lee Berry, Joshua Mandell, Christofer Rodelo, Alfonso Toro, Authors

This comment was written by Ivonne Gonzalez on 8 Oct 2014.

You appear to be using an older verion of Internet Explorer. For the best experience please upgrade your IE version or switch to a another web browser.

Security as Estranged Labor

In Lie of the Land, Mitchell applies a Marxian analysis to the relationship between the laborer and the landscape that he/she produces. As long as the landscape itself is stabilized, Mitchell claims, then the worker will continue to be oppressed. As long as capital is being reproduced through the underpaid and exploited labor of marginalized bodies, then the landscape is oppressive in and of itself. This is relatively easy to conceptualize in terms of manual labor, but in thinking of the NPR piece and low-tier occupations at corporations, how does the relationship between labor and capital operate? Does this economic relationship require materiality? Can we think of Google as a virtual landscape that perpetuates a dialectic of inequality between capital and laborer? How is this relationship complicated if it does not involve physical "nature", such as agriculture? Mitchell prompts us to think of landscape as both material and ideological (pg. 34). But when the evident materiality is removed (we don't think of Google as a physical space), it is harder for us to think about how labor operates in relation to capital. The NPR piece is important because it proves that capitalism can be damning even if the labor isn't producing materiality.
This page comments on:
Landscapes and Labor in California By: Joshua Mandell (8 October 2014)
Comment on this page

Discussion of "Security as Estranged Labor"

Add your voice to this discussion.

Checking your signed in status ...