1This thematic feature asks how geography tackles the question of making. In a period of rapid and combined transformations in the economy and the environment, resulting in changes to how societies maintain relationships with spaces that are undergoing transformation themselves, understanding the relationships between making and space emerges as a fundamental issue. In this debate around which multiple thematic and disciplinary perspectives converge, we want to insist on the contribution of geography, taking reflection beyond the currents and branches that constitute it, as it focuses on the reconfigurations of relationships with labour and nature in the context of the Anthropocene. The aim is to shed light on the links between contemporary reconfigurations of making and manufacturing, and spatial change at different scales.
2This focus naturally places our discourse within a “geography of making” (Carr and Gibson, 2016), while taking a step back from the acceptance proposed by C. Carr and C. Gibson, in order to specifically consider the context of the Anthropocene. Invoking this concept focuses reflection on materiality and material, along with the ways it is handled and worked, meaning the practices and know-how used in a world and at a time when the social and productive rationales underpinning them are increasingly called into question, and challenged about their alignment with environmental issues, like the limits, rarity and degradation of resources, along with their individual and social effects.
3As a sign of the growing resonance of these diverse changes and the issues they raise in academic, civic and political circles, several recent thematic issues of journals, in geography other related disciplines, have raised similar questions, particularly in relation to the issue of labour: the first (Tracés) addresses the redefinition of labour borders and the plasticity of the limits of this category in an era of industrial capitalism (Albert et al., 2017); the second (La nouvelle revue du travail) focuses on the links between labour and emancipation (Jacquot et al., 2019); the third and most recent, published in Les Carnets de Géographes (Chapuis et al., 2023), questions the geography of labour, drawing on the experience of those doing this “labour geography” (Herod and Ripoll, 2023), i.e. the workers. These journal issues help fill the gaps in a checkered history of the geography of labour, with phases of emergence and invisibility (Ripoll, 2023). Following on from these collective initiatives and drawing on recent work that informs our readings and questions these “political everyday lives” (Pruvost, 2021), illustrated by contemporary ways of making and working, this feature seeks to question making, in its intent, action and productions (particularly spatial), while showing that the context of the Anthropocene necessarily induces a transformation of meaning, and even the very terms of what we commonly understand by labour.
4Our assumption when issuing a call for articles was that the changing economic and environmental context raises questions about the origin of new forms of labour and production, resulting both from adaptations to constraints and crisis situations, such as forced or alienating labour, but also from projections and individual or collective choices associated with new relationships with the world, ecology and making. The major transformations facing nature, accompanied by the structural crises that result from or prefigure them, like the increased rarity of resources and the effects of models based on extractive systems, are considered triggers of these changes in the relationship to making and in the very act of producing. Indeed, the Anthropocene is said to act like a “major narrative” (Y. Calbérac in the On the Job section in this issue) that necessarily reconfigures “ways of making” through the relationship between labour and the environment or resources. As stated by C. Carr and C. Gibson, “the ability to work with materials, and to make, repair or repurpose physical things are vital skills, for a future where such resources become increasingly limited, and extreme events related to a shifting climate are more common” (Carr and Gibson, 2016). These manufacturing or making operations are inherent to all economic activity, but are especially visible in the light of environmental disruptions, which this issue intends to question, by also analysing their materialities and spatial expressions, along with the underlying socio-political rationales.
5This feature includes six articles, four written by geographers and two written by anthropologists and sociologists. Despite their different disciplinary backgrounds, they share many of the same concerns, not really because they address spaces considered backdrops to practices, but instead because of the central nature of the space of making and in the inherent challenge relating to resources, and their management and uses, whether social or environmental resources, or that this space itself, in its configurations and locations, provides a set of resources that support the act of making.
6“Making” is a concept borrowed from anthropology and philosophy, primarily discussed within the context of material studies, and is rarely tackled by geography. However, we consider it central, especially because it relates to the “manufacturing of material things”, which “remains a fundamental component in the labour process that shapes the material sites and the relationships between capitalists and workers” (Gough, 2003, quoted by Bautès, 2022) and because it is therefore fully concerned with relationships with space.
7Indeed, the explicit use of this concept holds an integral place in the articles within this feature. In some articles (A. Kaba, S. Fanchette), it is at the centre of discourse, implicit but underpinning the study objects, crafts, industry, sectors and processes described. In others, the authors (V. Asselain, G. de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc) employ the concept to qualify activities more linked to natural resources (gathering, self-sufficiency in eco-districts). Does this mean that making and labour do not apply to the same activities, with the former referring more to the traditional trades or practices (crafts, industry, agriculture) that exploit these resources? While geographers seem uninclined to address the concept of making, might it be because it blurs the lines between paid and volunteer work, forced and chosen labour, even though both may provide a livelihood?
8Using the verb “making” is also a way of addressing common and classic issues in geography, at the intersection between distinct theoretical interpretations and thematic approaches, in the sub-fields of industrial geography (Beckouche, 1999; Vanier and Perrat, 1993; Veltz, 1993), economic geography (Benko, 1996 and 2008; Chabot, 1947), and also, more rarely, social geography (Rochefort, 1961). Much geographical research considers the territorial dynamics of productive systems (Benko, et al., 1996; Benko and Lipietz, 1993 and 2000; Storper, 1991 and 2010), particularly questioning the links between industrial location and urbanisation (Scott, 1986), the role of industry in territories, the specifics of small industry in urban environments (Souchaud, 2014) and their role in the production of the city (Froment, 2015). Reasoning in terms of “making” leads to considering practices that tend to transform ways of making, gestures and techniques, and producing, thereby questioning the concept of “living labour” (Marx, [1859] 1972, pp. 287-88), which would be interesting to reconsider in the light of current conditions of existence.
9Through this concept of living labour, it is the emancipatory dimension of labour for individuals that is at stake, and also the material, social and relational dimension of the act of labour that is questioned. It is therefore in dialogue with social anthropology and a field of North-American industrial geography (Scott, 1986, 1988; Storper, 1991 and 2010) and, specifically, “relational” economic geography, focusing on the social dimension rooted and expressed in the act of economic production (Bathelt and Gluckler, 2003), that the articles consider the articulation of materials labour and living labour with the social dimension, and the ways in which this articulation is expressed or lived out within a space.
10What can we learn from the geographical exploration of making in the Anthropocene? We believe that studying these kinds of ongoing dynamics is a way of confirming the role of geography in discussions about the type of society we want to become, about the way we can make and make again in the midst of the environmental crisis, and therefore about how humans relate to the material world in its broadest sense, transforming it and being transformed by it. As stated by C. Carr and C. Gibson, “makers – within and across craft and large-scale manufacturing – must secure a key voice in these debates” (Carr and Gibson, 2016). More specifically, the geographical approach to making, expressed in the articles in this issue, more or less explicitly addresses the link between making and territories at different scales. These articles also shed light on what making does to a territory, meaning the transformative scope of making across a territory.
11While action may involve different registers of labour studied here (gathering, industrial crafts, waste recycling), it refers to methods that almost always fall within the register of “care”. This is as much a field of action for and by the territory as it is a perspective on the world. Indeed, the practices place most of the activities studied within a rationale consisting of the necessary co-existence between humans, and between humans and the living world, as required by the Anthropocene. In the Anthropocene, care extends beyond ethics to become a motif that shapes new spatialities and new links to space (Y. Calbérac in the On the Job section in this issue). Care structures the everyday practices of residents in eco-districts (G. de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc in this feature), through the care given to food supply, building materials used to limit pollutants, and drinking water, etc. Industrial or craft activities may appear further removed from these concerns, but still contribute to a rationale of care. The waste recycling sector, although perceived by its protagonists as a livelihood and a strategy to access urban resources, contributes to an economy of re-use within a widespread context of the failure of public services.
12Placing activities within the ethics of care is more broadly based on the embedding of human activities within the social space. This is a new way of studying the links between economic sectors (or smaller industries) and the materialities and structure of environments, the relational systems they draw upon and the configurations and intertwined systems they structure in and with multiple spaces (Tsing, 2015).
13The contributions therefore use three fields of analysis to shed light on the reconfigurations of making, its methods and its territorial roots.
14Questioning the meaning of work (Crawford, 2010) was long the prerogative of high-income Western societies, but is now tending to intersect a large number of professional spheres right across the planet. The dependency on global capital and fossil fuels, and increasing social inequalities, are leading to a loss of meaning for many individuals who are struggling to implement alternatives to once again find meaning in their activities, their involvement in the world and their everyday gestures (Sennett, 2010). These new methods of making, whether or not they directly involve an act of manufacturing, seek to bring together two conceptions of labour that tend to oppose one another - one is considered a factor of production, while the other is perceived as vital need and self-expression (Wojda, 2021). To this end, they transform the relationship of labour with time and space, as work is as much a means of economic survival and meeting one’s needs as it is a means of obtaining a certain lifestyle. In this way, is labour becoming a way of achieving well-being and happiness, just some of the characteristics that constitute forms of emancipation?
15The articles begin with reflection about the profile and nature of “making”. Making refers to manufacturing, crafts and creation, like glass-making or the creation of a product in an artistic sense. In this manufacturing process, know-how is essential, particularly in terms of the gestures that can always be perfected, perceived as part of a broader work. These are often passed down in an empirical manner, “on the job”, between peers. The case of the Christmas bauble factory in Pays du Bitche (A. Kaba in this feature), whose spatial organisation was previously structured around the glass-making industry, shows that the objective of the resurgence of the crafts industry is not glass production in itself, but the conservation of local know-how, established as local heritage. Moving from the production of a consumer good to heritage-protected decorative goods raises the question of the value of know-how. Similarly, the know-how of gatherers includes knowledge based on on-the-ground experience along with scientific knowledge supported by very diverse sources drawing on botany, ethno-botany, geology and history (V. Asselain in this feature).
16Many of the authors in this feature emphasise the importance of experimentation, sometimes referred to as “tinkering”, which is specific to making. Labour thereby becomes living (Dejours, 2013), as it is based on forms of creativity likening the end product to a work of art. It is utopian in that it involves an activity that is designed for the sake of the gesture and the craft itself. (A. Kaba in this feature). The craft sectors associated with waste recycling in Hanoi, gathering, collective action, and even the heritage glass-making industry in Lorraine, all are based on tacit knowledge (Gertler, 2003), and non-formalised know-how, partially based on family traditions or oral communication, along with intuition and the senses. What’s more, these methods of knowledge transfer can be problematic, in that the depreciation of artisanal know-how by new generations can weaken the long-term future of these sectors. For example, S. Fanchette illustrates how young people in families of recyclers in Hanoi no longer want to work in a job considered dirty.
17However, in another context, looking for meaning draws on a renewed appreciation for manual labour, with its strong connection to both the senses and intellect. The article about professional gatherers (V. Asselain in this feature) insists on the sensory dimension of this activity, which goes beyond traditional frameworks of rationality, in a relationship to plants characterised by forms of spirituality and proximity. It requires simultaneous use of the body and intellect, techniques and senses, to identify and process plants, or to look for sites. Labour, in the sense of gesture or work (Arendt, 1958), constitutes the intermediary between the individual and the world. In this, it both expresses, and is shaped by, a sensory relationship with the world.
18These characteristics place the locations, activities and sectors described in the articles within the field of living labour, considered a process of learning or passing on knowledge and know-how, a space for practice and even bodily experimentation, which requires commitment from the worker and is a source of emancipation, well-being, happiness and pleasure. The concept, developed by K. Marx and then by C. Dejours, argues for a recognition of the subjective and affective dimension of work, “where subjectivity freely plays a role in productive tasks” (Cukier, 2017).
19Through this, this field re-establishes the centrality of the issue of the meaning and value of labour. The articles shed light on how the changes caused by transformations in ways of making, manufacturing and producing are shifting the moral meaning of labour.
20The initiatives and activities described in the articles underline the fact that making introduces new relationships with labour, which identify new acceptances of the question of value (Graeber, 2022). They use a register of meaning and justification that places at its heart the value “of work, resources and the goods produced, along with that of their own social relationships and political practices” (Bautès, 2022, p. 245). Meaning also resides in working with materials, and mastering gestures and especially one’s working hours, as opposed to earning a wage. The article about life in an eco-district clearly shows that making, rather than working, is a means of obtaining a lifestyle as well as earning a living (Gabrielle de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc). The article by V. Asselain focuses on the way living labour can describe the reality of contemporary gatherers in France, in a conception that is both optimistic and critical of labour – it is a pivot between the criticism of alienation at work, and seeking emancipation through work. Two characteristics of making identified by the authors further explore the question of the meaning and value of living labour.
21First, making something oneself, instead of having someone else make it, represents a voluntary detachment from the capitalist system. It is a way of taking back ownership of one’s livelihood. For example, life in an eco-district is based on practices that create distance from a certain consumerist and individualist lifestyle. This includes taking back control of one’s own conditions of existence, like building one’s own home, growing vegetables and making preserves, and managing one’s own dry toilets to limit water consumption, etc. (G. de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc in this feature). Making something oneself is a way of detaching from the consumerist society.
22The value of work is also said to reside more in social relationships than in commercial terms. It is not only about being rooted in a web of social relationships, but also in the creation of these relationships, considered to be a true source of wealth, giving full meaning to living labour. Indeed, G. de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc show that communal living within eco-districts requires collective labour to maintain the location, which is done on a voluntary basis, alongside other forms of individual labour, whether paid or unpaid. The collective dimension does not generate paid labour shared by all residents, but produces a collective livelihood, particularly through the shared completion of various household tasks. The example of the production of Christmas baubles in Lorraine, developed by A. Kaba, shows how transforming a traditional industrial activity (glass-making) into a heritage activity led to a change in the production rationale, which is now more focused on a collection rationale. This gives a manufactured product commercial value, but also a value of memory, as heritage of the industrial past, and finally, an aesthetic value. The Christmas baubles are established as real “objects of memory”.
23These ways of making are therefore motivated by the values of freedom and autonomy, which are embodied in a different relationship with time and ownership compared with salaried work. Making is characterised by a less normalised and standardised relationship with time. As well as following the rhythms of nature, which can lead to the seasonality of activities, the purpose of making is to regain control over time management. This can express itself through a slow-down in the pace of work, enabled through forms of detachment from consumerist society. The practices of residents of eco-districts, described by G. de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc, demonstrate the desire to “have more freedom over their working hours and the refusal to submit to certain constraints linked to the world of work”. Reduced weekly working hours, employment in non-profits or associations, and flexible working hours are all safeguards that enable people to take control of their time. Living labour is also a means for individuals to emancipate themselves from ownership. The example of gathering shows that gatherers have a different relationship to land ownership and the living world, compared to crop and livestock farmers (V. Asselain). As they do not own the land on which they gather, they have to reconcile communal goods such as plants, with private land ownership.
24While some cases present examples of living labour that emancipates individuals, such as self-builds in eco-districts, they operate in specific niches far from representative of most relationships with labour. These appear to consist of brutality, difficulty and precariousness, as shown by much research on labour in the gathering sectors, particularly from a geographical perspective (Zeinedi, 2013).
25At this stage, it appears important to mention how such detachment and distance from the dominant capitalist labour and consumer and ownership models are specific situations that may be exclusive and hide a large number of economic, social or even racial barriers, and therefore structural inequalities, making these examples particularities. They question situations of professional and social precarity, particularly regarding the spaces where simply being there to work is challenged by the transformations of spaces, as shown by the example of Vietnamese recyclers, who are trying to find gaps still permitted by the city and its excluding production rationales, even if it is only temporary (S. Fanchette in this feature).
26It also seems important to underline the fact that these examples, far from being metaphors, are experienced by some as rapidly changing situations due to the transformation of spaces and possibilities, whereas for others, they are emancipating and viable practices to which they hope to bring attention as they help “renew our understanding of the economy” (Tsing, 2015, p. 205). The articles in this feature show that this renewal also lies in the transformations of the link to the living world in the context of the Anthropocene. Qualifying this link as being “intertwined with nature” (Tsing et al., 2017) is a way of shedding light on the new ways that making is rooted in ecosystems at different scales.
27Rather than too quickly associating these ways of making with spatial reconfigurations that will necessarily move towards a socio-ecological transition, this feature sheds light on the ways in which targeted initiatives work in specific locations, depending on the dynamics impacting on ways of manufacturing and making with, by and for existing resources, while also generating livelihoods that are less predatory towards the environment.
28The articles start by shedding light on the reconfigurations of labour in its relationships to material and materiality. This is a way of exploring the concept of being intertwined “with nature”, as envisaged by A. Tsing (2017), meaning a series of unstable elements characteristic of “practices implemented with the space” (Y. Calbérac in the On the Job section in this issue), caused by the Anthropocene, as it reconfigures the relationship with ecosystems within a rationale of adaptation.
29The activities described in the articles in this feature are characterised by practices for the adaptation of activities in line with resources, with the dual objective of preserving them while also ensuring the future of the activity. Gatherers are therefore opposing, at their own scale, the extractivist rationale of wild raw materials at the global scale, by adapting their practices. The diversification of gathering sites, sizes to promote regrowth, or the decision not to return to the same site every year so that plants can regenerate are examples of practices that aim to protect habitats and resources (V. Asselain in this feature). Similarly, self-build practices in eco-districts are based on a choice of materials that considers the reasonable use of resources, especially water. Other activities have a more ambiguous relationship with resources. This is true for the glass-making industry, which is dependent on forestry, through a dual relationship of attachment and predation (A. Kaba in this feature).
30These practices reflect relationships with and forms of organising labour that are at odds with capitalist labour organisation, which is based on the predatory “accumulation by capturing” (Tsing, 2015) rents and resources. Demands for resource sustainability are even at the origins of one of the two professional gathering segments described by V. Asselain. This more recent segment brings together both “small” and “large” industrial gatherers, who claim to be “guardians of nature”.
31Living labour is therefore “linked to the living world”, which is necessarily dynamic and connected to the rhythms of nature. Moreover, living labour is constantly moving and requires adjustment. In the activities described in these articles, it is expressed through the desire to build a sustainable relationship with the world of objects and the world of nature (Pruvost, 2013).
32Making that is intertwined with nature is also expressed through relationships with space transformed by the context of the Anthropocene. All the articles shed light on other (new) relationships between making and space at different scales, regarding both the forms of individual engagement and the social interactions produced in the experience of materiality. The resulting changes in the relationship with space are considered more or less directly by the authors, through reflection on the territorialities of making at different scales. Are the “territories of making” in living labour necessarily at a local scale? In which spaces and locations are these transformations occurring? Do they arise from stable economic contexts or do they occur in situations of structural instability, precariousness or vulnerability?
33At first glance, the spaces and locations of transformations brought about by making are generally at a local scale, within a community (eco-district, G. de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc), neighbourhood (S. Fanchette), or village (S. Girard, A. Kaba). The local area may be defined by the scope of the resources used by the activity, such as the example of the territories covered by gatherers, who work within a “local radius”, without an order of magnitude being given for the relevant geographical area (V. Asselain). These local roots help intertwine the living space, workplace and environment. Similarly, while the waste recycling sectors in Hanoi operate within a geographical network that can extend beyond the metropolitan boundaries, they are rooted in a local territory as they work to recycle local waste from worksites regenerating specific neighbourhoods (S. Fanchette). However, as well as constituting a scope of resources, the local territory is also a powerful motif of action. Eco-districts help root their residents within a local space, through a process involving “making with”, “making for” and “making in” the territory (G. de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc). It is this same rationale that governs the “democracy of making”, discussed by S. Girard in the example of the village of Saillans in the Drôme, where it is about making for the local population, with local resources. This mode of governance is highly dependent on the context and the moment in time. It is built through interconnections and learnings that are necessarily localised. Territoriality, in the sense of attachment to a territory or a feeling of belonging to a community, is a powerful factor and driver of engagement in action, especially as it is reinforced by making.
34In theory, the spaces of making described in the articles are clearly defined, which raises the question of the duplication of initiatives based on living labour. Is not a territory built by the democracy of making now a sort of bubble, rooted in the territory, but whose dynamics are difficult to reproduce (S. Girard)? This question is also raised by G. de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc regarding eco-districts. To counter the perception that they are spaces “outside of”, the author analyses a series of resident practices working towards a process for the territorial rootedness of residents (see below). Nevertheless, the initiatives presented often include a transformative goal at a more global level. The article by S. Girard shows how making seeks to use the local (welcoming migrants, cleaning the River Drôme) to respond to global issues, such as migration or climate change.
35The transformative goal of the initiatives at the heart of these articles, along with the methods used by actors to establish the act of making within a local territory in response to global problems, draw on a profoundly political process of formulation and storytelling.
36This feature sheds lights on the socio-political rationales that underpin ways of making. The articles question politics, which is contained in and produced by these initiatives and their approaches. Do the ways of making mentioned in the articles lead to specific political practices? If so, how do they influence politics, as well as being an integral part of it?
37Firstly, the articles address the question of the politics of making by describing the actors behind it, by building narratives and action. Is making accessible to anyone? Do all the actors of making hold the same place in the initiatives?
38The actors identified in the articles paint a nuanced response to this question. Indeed, making in the Anthropocene is often the result of “new” actors, or at least new residents. S. Girard shows that the list of citizen representatives in the municipal elections in Saillons, implementing what she refers to as a “democracy of making”, is mainly composed of new arrivals, as taking part in project groups (GAPs) is a way of integrating into village life, while affirming their political involvement. Similarly, residents of the eco-districts mentioned by G. de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc follow relatively typical settlement patterns for “neos”, who, by definition, are outsiders to both the host territory and the activities practised there.
39These new residents bring a new perspective to the host territory, which is considered both a space of refuge and also a “space of opportunity, and a means of achieving one’s life goal(s).” A. Kaba also explains that glass-makers, participating in the revival of industrial activity through design and heritage projects, are external people who have studied elsewhere in France. This “young generation” is trained outside of local and family structures, and questions the relationships of domination and gender that are especially present in the region, demanding of the plant management a de-hierarchisation of professional relationships within the plant and a feminisation of the sector. More unexpectedly, S. Fanchette shows that some actors in the waste recycling sector, particularly collectors (the least noble part of the sector), come from the rural agricultural areas surrounding Hanoi. Recycling is a rooted activity that opens doors to new career opportunities and potentially a return to the village after accumulating capital. For seasonal migrants, waste collection is an extra source of income during the agricultural low-season. Once the social capital has been accumulated, some rural residents move up the sector’s hierarchy to become warehouse managers. It is clear that “migration feeds into the system” while also introducing ambiguities, meaning that the recycling activity is perceived as both a means of survival maintaining its actors in a menial, precarious position, but also as “a small fragile capitalism that can be the instrument of socio-economic elevation and a tool for affirming some marginalised groups” (Zérah, 2020, quoted by Fanchette).
40The rootedness of “neos” lies in the political demands of their action, positioned towards the “commons” of a territory, articulating both local and global interests. The concept of rootedness, in the sense of individuals feeling like they belong to a space, is at the heart of the analysis carried out by G. de Chevron Villette and M. Pouzenc. This shows that rationales of “making with”, “making in” and “making for” a host territory are a means for residents to establish their roots in eco-districts. These residents invest in activities “that serve the territory”, such as running non-profit cafés or local grocery stores, working on communal construction sites, getting involved in local volunteering projects or local food consumption practices. “Making for” and “making together” (S. Girard) are especially important in establishing local roots, insofar as they presume bringing together “a life goal within a given territory”. “Making for” is therefore a real strategy to appease the reluctancy of other village residents regarding their presence, and to promote acceptance of their lifestyle. It helps one to integrate into the neighbourhood social circle while also adding claim or legitimacy to one’s place in the local social sphere (S. Girard). The democratic ideal generated by making produces “territorial commons” and “common means of action” (S. Girard) that aim to improve the everyday experience of residents. Making therefore become a collective action that seeks to promote “living well together” and “living well” in and with one’s ecosystem.
41Reflection on rootedness through making opens up a field of study into the relationship with the politics of initiatives of making: resistances, alternatives, inside or outside the system?
42The rootedness of initiatives tends to oppose the idea of utopias disconnected from the territory: the different forms of “regaining control over the materialities of existence” are a way of being in the territory, while also claiming to be outside of neoliberal values. This otherness results from a geography of making that shapes the new norms and values underpinning and expressed through action. This reflection is addressed in the articles through the question of the institutionalisation of initiatives in the rationale of making. What duplications are possible?
43First, duplication consists of formalising a vocational activity into a profession. V. Asselain describes the options for the professional structuring of gatherers. This requires collective forms of organisation that are built more or less “against” (the traditional world of work or the pharmaceutical sector), in the aim of challenging the rationales of global industries.
44Second, the articles question what the process of institutionalisation does to the otherness of initiatives of making: how can one institutionalise and experience labour without compromising on the initial ideologies (freedom, enjoyment of work and well-being)? A. Kaba shows that, despite the hopes of the young generation of glass-makers, their new way of making does not fully overthrow the relationships of domination and gender in the factory. While the creation of the centre was accompanied by the desire to not reproduce the conditions of exploitation that prevailed in everyday practice in the factory, by experimenting with new forms of labour and new social relations in the workshop, the real practices reveal forms of precarious labour (such as fixed-term contracts or internships), unattractive salary conditions and instances of harassment of female workers.
45The relationship between the activities of making and local politics is another way of questioning their otherness. It can manifest itself as opposition, in forms of political appropriation, or even as dissonance with the image that local politicians want to project of their territory. The article by S. Fanchette shows all the contradictions between recycling activities and the modernisation of the city of Hanoi. In the context of an orderly city seeking cleanliness and beautification, there is a desire from the public to eradicate the recycling sector and eliminate street traders, despite these economies being fuelled by urban renewal operations. This shows the ambiguity of the attitude of the local authorities, and the limits of their tendency to exclude what contributes, even unintentionally, to the urban fabric. Such contradictions are demonstrated in the example developed by A. Kaba, where placing the Christmas baubles factory on a heritage list is both a promise for maintaining living labour and also a source of pressure or even the alienation of workers.
46These debates echo one often raised by sociologist, S. Bulle, about political autonomy as a regime of action. Is this irreducible and can it (must it) withstand the process of institutionalisation? While the initiatives presented in the articles do not have the radicality of some movements demanding political autonomy (e.g. Zones to Defend or “ZAD”s), their political structure is still marked by forms of conflict and antagonism revealing both internal and external conflicts. For example, antisocial behaviour (garden thefts, degradation of compost bins), targeting neo-rurals who are credited with promoting sustainable practices in Saillans, Ardèche (S. Girard), demonstrates the domineering nature of calls for the ecological transition. These are not compatible with all lifestyles, especially for those working outside the village (need for a car, parking spaces, etc.). This situation recalls that political autonomy and ecology do not always go hand in hand, and, according to S. Bulle, we therefore adopt a critical stance towards the fabric of democracy, especially when it makes nature or the living world a “government issue” (Bulle, 2020). The example given by S. Girard shows that the democratic forms considered alternative and ecological tend, despite themselves, to “normalise lives” (Bulle, 2020) by imposing new social norms. The rationale of institutionalisation in the name of the ecological transition leads to a loss of political autonomy.
47Finally, the various articles raise the question of the need to adopt specific methods of organisation and action to guarantee living labour. This confirms the position of D. Brachet, who considers that emancipation involves a reworking of the means of producing and redistributing wealth, which is conservative, energy-efficient and aligned with nature, and that this reworking serves as the foundation of empowerment that engages the collective capacity of individuals to self-organise democratically and to effectively control the production and distribution of goods and services (Jacquot et al., 2019).
48In this sense, the contributions collected lay the groundwork for future debate, especially around the issue of “considering the relationship between labour and democracy” (Dejours, 2021). Indeed, the tensions and conflicts, violence and domination that mark the world of work, along with the forms of political appropriation of the initiatives involved in making, show that, unlike movements in support of political autonomy and living labour, we are far from “establishing a new political framework in the ruins of the neoliberal and ‘authoritarian’ state” (Chamayou, 2018).