| At the end of the last century, a promising mode of economy emerged. Resting on developments in information and communication technologies, it became known as the New Economy. It offered a liberating ethos of work, claiming to value such traits as autonomy, flexibility, inventiveness and entrepreneurial spirit. Replacing the aloofness of mechanist Taylorism and the alienation of Fordist mass production, it succeeded in recruiting a young, educated and enthusiastic workforce that was willing to work long days in pursuit of success.;This study integrates in-depth interviews with hi-tech white-collar Western workers with several theoretical and disciplinary approaches to the study of work, including those of cultural studies, management studies, and communication studies. It examines the history of technological revolutions and work cultures, the evolution of the white-collar class, the post-Fordist work ethic and the influence of economic liberalism, in order to study the integration of the workforce within the New Economy and to understand the rationales that justify this integration.;By exposing the manipulative techniques that create a positive ethos of work, we can increase understanding of the consequences of the new global information economy. This study provides both scholars and employees operating in this economy an active channel into fomenting change towards a more balanced, humane and sane work ethic and culture.;This study investigates the commitment of the white-collar workforce to the New Economy. It examines the persuasive practices these employees use in order to contribute, consciously or not, to this economic enterprise. The theory of reflexive modernism is used to examine whether this new system actually represents an increase in autonomy at work, or if it is another form of neo-liberal manipulation that uses the exciting aura of technology and youth to gloss over the grim realities of work. The value placed on individualization by the New Economy work culture illustrates this dichotomy, pitting the illusion of autonomy (self-management) against a dangerous kind of individualism (self-fulfillment). This is arguably one of the triumphs of the neo-liberal ethos of individualization: transforming collective responsibility into self-responsibility, thus neglecting the industry's accountability towards its workers and the social sphere. |
