When Online Emotional Labour Meeting Online Affective Labour: Short Video/Live Streaming, Internet Anchor and Digital Labour

LV Peng

PDF(1703 KB)

Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2021, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (12) : 53-76.

When Online Emotional Labour Meeting Online Affective Labour: Short Video/Live Streaming, Internet Anchor and Digital Labour

LV Peng

Author information +

History +

Abstract

With the booming of short video / live streaming, the two different and related theoretical approaches of online emotional labour and online affective labour are increasingly integrated in digital labour. This paper mainly expounds how the cross connection of the two different theories can better serve our understanding of the current digital platform and digital labour. Online emotional labour provides an individual approach for digital labour, emphasizing the subjectivity of labourers; online affective labour provides a collective one, which is more oriented to digital platform. The digital labour of short video / live streaming platform requires online emotional labour based on individual labourers, such as Internet anchor. The collection of all online emotional labour constitutes the online affective labour of the platform, thus constituting the characteristics of the digital platform. Defined by these characteristics, the platform operation logic, which can be recognized as the platform style, also acts on each online emotional labour. The digital labour of short video / live streaming platform represented by Kuaishou shows four main characteristics: emphasizing appearance and body, paying attention to language and speaking, recognizing imitation and copying, emphasizing persona and acting. In terms of future case studies, this research on the integration of online emotional labour and affective labour provides a useful method, perspective and framework. Also, relevant research needs to pay attention to the labour characteristics in the era of short video / live streaming, and place it in the specific online platforms, so as to further understand the Internet anchor and its digital labour in the context of Chinese practice. What also needs to be further expanded is the understanding and reconstructing of the theory of online emotional labor and online affective labour.

Key words

online emotional labour / online affective labour / short video/live streaming / Internet anchor / digital labour / Kuaishou

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

LV Peng. When Online Emotional Labour Meeting Online Affective Labour: Short Video/Live Streaming, Internet Anchor and Digital Labour[J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication. 2021, 43(12): 53-76

References

List( Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within ) Chart analysis

[1]	阿莉·拉塞尔·霍克希尔德(1983/2020). 《心灵的整饰:人类情感的商业化》(成伯清,淡卫军,王佳鹏译). 上海: 上海三联书店. Cited in this article [6]

[2]	安东尼奥·内格里(2006/2016). 《超越帝国》(李琨,陆汉臻译). 北京: 北京大学出版社. Cited in this article [6]

[3]	陈国权(2020). 快手“主流化”之路. 《中国记者》,(8),84-89. Cited in this article [1]

[4]	董金权, 罗鑫宇(2021). “情感”视角下的网络直播——基于30名青年主播和粉丝的深度访谈. 《中国青年研究》,(2),90-96. Cited in this article [1]

[5]	付茜茜(2020). 网络“人设”传播:符号资本的媒介建构. 《天府新论》,(6),135-144. Cited in this article [1]

[6]	郭小安, 李晗(2021). 情绪劳动与情感劳动:概念的误用、辨析及交叉性解释. 《新闻界》,(12),56-68. Cited in this article [1]

[7]	汉斯·贝尔廷(2013/2017). 《脸的历史》(史竟舟译). 北京: 北京大学出版社. Cited in this article [2]

[8]	快手(时间不详). 关于快手.检索于 https://www.kuaishou.com/about/, 2020-8-6. https://www.kuaishou.com/about/ Cited in this article [1]

[9]	吕鹏(2017). 作为假象的自由:用户生成内容时代的个人与媒介. 《国际新闻界》,(11),68-82. Cited in this article [1]

[10]	吕鹏(2021). 线上情感劳动:短视频/直播、网络主播与男性气质——基于快手的数字民族志研究. 《社会科学》,(6),179-192. Cited in this article [2]

[11]	吕鹏, 张昊鹏(未刊稿). 网络模因研究:概念界定、理论实践与价值启示.

[12]	林磊, 冯应谦(2019). 情动劳动(Affective labor)生产下的感性乌托邦——以《临高启明》的众创为例. 《新闻界》,(9),51-60. Cited in this article [2]

[13]	林怡洁, 单蔓婷(2021). 中国大陆女性社交直播主的数位劳动与性别政治. 《新闻学研究》,(146),53-95. Cited in this article [1]

[14]	刘娜(2020). 人设:作为一种风格的想象. 《符号与传媒》,(21),166-176. Cited in this article [1]

[15]	刘怡(2020). 论网感化语境下青少年受众对影视明星人设的期待结构. 《现代传播》,(7),103-108. Cited in this article [1]

[16]	罗伯特·V·库兹奈特(2010/2016). 《如何研究网络人群和社区:网络民族志方法实践指导》(叶韦明译). 重庆: 重庆大学出版社. Cited in this article [2]

[17]	栾轶玫, 张雅琪(2020). 人设奴役与数字劳工——异化理论视角下的直播带货. 《传媒观察》,(10),19-26. Cited in this article [1]

[18]	迈克尔·哈特, 安东尼奥·奈格里(2000/2008). 《帝国——全球化的政治秩序》(杨建国,范一亭译). 南京: 江苏人民出版社. Cited in this article [10]

[19]	毛里齐奥·拉扎拉托(1996/2006). 《非物质劳动》(霍炬译). 载许纪霖主编,《帝国、都市与现代性》(第139-152页). 南京: 江苏人民出版社. Cited in this article [2]

[20]	彭兰(2020). 视频化生存:移动时代日常生活的媒介化. 《中国编辑》,(4),34-40+53. Cited in this article [1]

[21]	皮埃尔·布尔迪厄(1979/2015). 《区分:判断力的社会批判》(刘晖译). 北京: 商务印书馆. Cited in this article [2]

[22]	托尼·内格里(2002/2007). 什么是大众?(冉隆森译). 《国外理论动态》,(8),65-69. Cited in this article [2]

[23]	徐强, 胡婵(2021). 从人格到人设:数字化时代人格面临的新挑战. 《南通大学学报·社会科学版》,(1),16-23. Cited in this article [1]

[24]	姚建华, 徐偲骕(2019). 劳动的“媒介化”与媒介化的劳动:数位劳动研究的内涵、现状与未来. 《新闻学研究》,(141),181-214. Cited in this article [1]

[25]	约书亚·梅罗维茨(1985/2002). 《消失的地域:电子媒介对社会行为的影响》(肖志军译). 北京: 清华大学出版社. Cited in this article [2]

[26]	詹明信(1997). 《晚期资本主义的文化逻辑》(陈清侨等译). 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店. Cited in this article [1]

[27]	赵磊, 闫俊文(2020). 快手快不过抖音?.检索于澎湃新闻·澎湃号·燃财经. https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_9197295, 2020-9-16. https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_9197295 Cited in this article [1]

[28]	赵旭东(2020). 视频直播的民族志书写——一种信息传输由微信而及快手的文化转型人类学. 《中原文化研究》,(2),58-66+73. Cited in this article [1]

[29]	张一璇(2021). 劳动空间在延伸——女性网络主播的身份、情感与劳动过程. 《社会学评论》,(5),236-256. Cited in this article [1]

[30]	战迪(2020). 论“看脸时代”的青年审美迷失. 《现代传播》,(10),101-106. Cited in this article [1]

[31]	Ahmed S. (2004). Affective Economies. Social Text, 22, 117-139. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-22-2_79-117 https://read.dukeupress.edu/social-text/article/22/2%20(79)/117/32675/Affective-Economies Cited in this article [1]

[32]	Anderson B. (2009). Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society, 2 (2), 77-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2009.08.005 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1755458609000589 Cited in this article [1]

[33]	Boellstorff T., Nardi B., Pearce C., Taylor T. L.(2012). Ethnography and Virtual Worlds:A handbook of Method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cited in this article [1]

[34]

Beck

(2018). Arlie Hochschild: Housework isn’t emotional labor. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/11/arlie-hochschild-housework-isnt-emotional-labor/576637/, 2020-11-20.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/11/arlie-hochschild-housework-isnt-emotional-labor/576637/

Cited in this article [1]

[35]

Connell

, & Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19 (6), 829-859.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0891243205278639

Cited in this article [1] Abstract

The concept of hegemonic masculinity has influenced gender studies across many academic fields but has also attracted serious criticism. The authors trace the origin of the concept in a convergence of ideas in the early 1980s and map the ways it was applied when research on men and masculinities expanded. Evaluating the principal criticisms, the authors defend the underlying concept of masculinity, which in most research use is neither reified nor essentialist. However, the criticism of trait models of gender and rigid typologies is sound. The treatment of the subject in research on hegemonic masculinity can be improved with the aid of recent psychological models, although limits to discursive flexibility must be recognized. The concept of hegemonic masculinity does not equate to a model of social reproduction; we need to recognize social struggles in which subordinated masculinities influence dominant forms. Finally, the authors review what has been confirmed from early formulations (the idea of multiple masculinities, the concept of hegemony, and the emphasis on change) and what needs to be discarded (onedimensional treatment of hierarchy and trait conceptions of gender). The authors suggest reformulation of the concept in four areas: a more complex model of gender hierarchy, emphasizing the agency of women; explicit recognition of the geography of masculinities, emphasizing the interplay among local, regional, and global levels; a more specific treatment of embodiment in contexts of privilege and power; and a stronger emphasis on the dynamics of hegemonic masculinity, recognizing internal contradictions and the possibilities of movement toward gender democracy.

[36]	Connell R. (2005). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cited in this article [1]

[37]	Clough, P. T. & Halley J. (Eds.).(2007). The Affective Turn:Theorizing the Social. Durham and London, UK: Duke University Press. Cited in this article [1]

[38]	Fuchs C., Sandoval M. (2014). Digital workers of the world unite! a framework for critically theorising and analysing digital labour. TripleC: Capitalism, Communication & Critique, 12(2), 486-563. Cited in this article [1]

[39]	Fuchs C. (2014). Digital Labour and Karl Marx. New York, NY: Routledge. Cited in this article [1]

[40]	Hochschild A. R.(1983). The Managed Heart:Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley·Los Angeles·London, UK: University of California Press. Cited in this article [1]

[41]	Hardt M. (1999). Affective labor. Boundary 2, 26(2), 89-100. Cited in this article [2]

[42]	Hardt M. & Negri A. (2004). Multitude:War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York, NY: The Penguin Press. Cited in this article [2]

[43]	Hardt M. & Negri A. (1994). Labor of Dionysus:A Critique of the State-Form (p.9). Minneapolis & London, UK: University of Minnesota Press. Cited in this article [1]

[44]	Hardt M. & Negri A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cited in this article [1]

[45]	Hardt M. & Negri A. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cited in this article [1]

[46]	Hine C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London, UK: Sage Publications. Cited in this article [2]

[47]	Hine C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded. Embodied and Everyday. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Cited in this article [1]

[48]	Imose A. R. & Finkelstein M. L.(2018). A multilevel theoretical framework integrating diversity and emotional labor. Group & Organization Management, 43(5), 718-751. Cited in this article [1]

[49]	Michele K., Colin L. (2007). Online memes, affinities and cultural production. In: Michele K., Colin, L. (Eds.). A New Literacies Sampler (p.202). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers Inc. Cited in this article [1]

[50]	Mulvey L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6 https://academic.oup.com/screen/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/screen/16.3.6 Cited in this article [1]

[51]	Smythe D. W. (1977). Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1(3), 1-27. Cited in this article [1]