Richard Ocejo discusses how the “creative class” produces a new type of elite consumption. He describes this new class of people as those who embodied the social capital and values of the elite; these individuals are all college-educated and market these new businesses as experiences for the elite. Ocejo describes some of these spaces like those of barbershops and brewery more specifically and describes his observations of how these businesses adhere to new standards of legitimacy. For instance, brewery crafters were not only responsible for the manual labor of crafting these drinks, but the success of these businesses equally necessitated giving tours to costumers and educating these about the process of brewing and the unique flavors they were tasting. Ocejo expresses that it is through their means of obtaining legitimacy that the creative class avoids downward assimilation despite taking these traditions working-class positions.
In class, I questioned whether or not these new businesses which appropriate and adapt working-class careers to elite ideals deepen the social and economic barriers for working-class laborers to obtain these jobs with the same level of perceived legitimacy from consumers. From Ocejo’s ethnography as well as the class discussion, it seems that the ways that social capital is used to raise creative class workers to the levels of artisans rather than workers are inherent in constructing this consumerism as exclusive to the elite buyers.
Previously in this class, we have discussed the process of gentrification as the movement of new business into typically lower to middle-class areas followed by the movement of the employees of these businesses into the residential spaces of the region. The appropriation of working-class jobs by the creative class creates a similarly forced relocation of lower-income residents. The appropriation of these jobs by elite workers is an even more violent form of gentrification than the movement of these traditionally elite businesses; the same tactics that are used by the creative-class to gain legitimacy for their businesses simultaneously delegitimizes the value of working-class crafts. The necessity of elite social capital for these positions forces lower-income communities to move into new residential areas, as well as into new positions in the labor industry.
To respond to the first question about deepening social and economic barriers for working class laborers, I would say that this is absolutely the case. As Ocejo and Hyra have explored, in this age of constant communication and growing technology, the focus on consumption has increased dramatically. As a result, as the wealthy become more and more wealthy, they will end up supporting the creative class economically rather than the working class. This has resulted in an increasing wealth gap.
This is taken to an even greater scale when we look at gentrification and how elite businesses are forcing out smaller original businesses. When the entire city is changed and made to be more upscale, the original inhabitants feel like they have lost their sense of place.
You make an interesting point about the appropriation of jobs by the creative class as a more violent form of gentrification. Although I do agree that such appropriation pushes out more traditional businesses that do not align with the tastes of the creative class, I would not argue that such action causes a delegitimizes of the value of working-class crafts. Instead, the rise of the working-class jobs with elite ideals furthers reinforces the division of the lower-income and higher-income communities. There will always be a demand for elite goods and services; this new creative class seeks to produce these amenities themselves than having lower-income workers manufacture them. My concern with the rise of these elite service jobs is that it places another degree of separation between socioeconomically different communities. Elite consumerism allows the creative class to avoid interactions with lower-income workers while ironically experiencing the “authenticity” behind lower-class working ideals.
I think the ideas offered in your post are very thoughtful and interesting. While I do agree that the authenticity and simplicity of these manual labor jobs are threatened by the presence of “creative classers”, I believe that the introduction of the new entrepreneurial like service-work provided by the creative class forms a new elite tier of service-work within the industry rather than displacing existing service workers. As you mentioned above, this new tier of elite service work commodifies knowledge and authentic experience as a marketing strategy to attract consumers. We know that the individuals of the creative class crave cultural consumption and accordingly are drawn to these higher-end services. Therefore, this new tier of service work is attracting the young, educated, and cultural omnivores of the creative class instead of the customers of pre-existing service work. Additionally, this new tier of elite-service work upholds a barrier to entry for most consumers. Because these businesses aim to equip consumers with an “authentic” and knowledge-based experience on-top of the goods they are producing, their prices are considerably higher than most of the goods and services produced in the service industry. I do agree with the two comments above that the elite services provided by the creative class increase the social divisions between the middle/upper and lower classes. With the rise of the new knowledge-based economy I wonder whether or not this division of service work can be mended. Are there certain fields/businesses in service work that are not of interest to the creative class? If so, could these services be the only hope in bringing the two classes together? Are there any businesses outside of the service industry in which these two groups still intermingle?
I completely agree with your characterization of creative class job replacement as more violent than gentrification, as it threatens both residential stability and employment opportunity. While reading your post, it made me think about the phenomenon of hyper-gentrification in certain areas like Seattle and San Fransisco. They have been criticized for losing their culture and authenticity due to an influx of professionals in “non-creative” careers. There are concerns that their strenuous work schedules and technological focus minimize urban social life and spontaneous interaction. It makes me concerned that college-educated and socially connected individuals will take all the “visible” service economy jobs such as barber and barista, whereas less privileged working class people will be increasingly doing “invisible” labor in warehouses or similar places which are common in a globalizing economy. This serves to minimize both their quality of life and political power.