This is a first of an interview series with researchers of Future of Work(ers) in the global South, an international project funded by the University of the Witwatersrand (South Africa). DigiLabour collaborated with the Click Farm Platforms in Brazil and Colombia: work conditions and worker organizing project.
Our first interviewee is Sai Amulya Komarraju, a postdoctoral researcher in the Centre for Development Management & Communication at Mudra Institute of Communications (MICA). In May, she will join Indian Institute Of Management-Ahmedabad as an Assistant Professor in Communication.
In her PhD, she focused especially on gendered micropolitics of everyday life. In this interview, we discuss the particularity about current work conditions in her country, the future of work – and workers, platform labor, and other topics about her research.
DIGILABOUR: Can you present your research?
Sai Amulya Komarraju: My doctoral research focused on the gendered micropolitics of everyday life. It drew on young femininities, critical masculinities, and feminist mothering. In hindsight, it is these diverse areas of scholarship that prepared me for the work I have been doing after my PhD. I have been able to build on that to study the future of work, digitalisation, and algorithmic cultures. Currently, I am involved in three projects — I am the project lead coordinator of ‘Digital Creativity’ (India), a project funded by Erasmus University and headed by Prof. Payal Arora; I am the research lead for salon services at FemLab, a feminist future of work initiative funded by IDRC; I am also the Principal Investigator of a Future of Work(ers) project funded by the Southern Centre for Inequality Studies and is titled ‘When feminization reaches the platform: Men in care work. This project builds on the work I do at FemLab. The initial plan was to hire a research assistant but given the pandemic and the fairly tight timeline, I did the data collection myself. This whole process has been incredibly meaningful to me.
Most scholarship on platform economy tends to either examine the challenges male workers face in public and visible work such as ride-hailing or food delivery or issues of women workers engaged in care-work that happens in the ‘private’ spaces of customers’ homes involving ‘invisible’ bodily care. As a feminist, I was most interested in challenging this dichotomy. Admittedly, more women than men are involved in such care work, but the fact remains that men from marginalized castes and classes have always been involved in care-work in India that I felt warranted a closer examination– how are men coping with the feminization and platformization of care-work– specifically salon and house cleaning, what work opportunities these men gain through digital technologies and what this means for women in their families in terms of their access to both digital technologies and work, and finally, what are the experiences of men engaged in care-work, does such work result in a different model of masculinity? I must state in unequivocal terms that this project does not advocate a ‘Men-too’ approach. Both FemLab and SCIS projects together are aimed at understanding the gendered dynamics of the future of work(ers).
I have been in conversations with male workers involved in salon work and house cleaning work in Hyderabad, India. Not all workers I spoke with are a part of the platform economy. Some of them work in brick-and-mortar salons and some others depend on word of mouth to get hired for house-cleaning services.
DIGILABOUR: What were your main findings and contributions to the project?
Sai Amulya Komarraju: In India, Nais (typically men, belonging to the nai or mangali caste) traditionally performed and continue to perform bodily care work’– from hair cuts to shaving to body massages. According to the salon workers I have spoken with, the profession is still dominated by people from the Nai caste. Even if those who own salons may belong to other castes, the workers they hire, more often than not, continue to belong to the Nai caste. Ironically, these services are considered to be ritually purifying activities, but the ones who perform this work, their bodies and their very presence is considered to be ritually polluting. Interestingly, even amongst Muslims, it is those from the ‘Salmani’ caste who do this work.
There is a historical continuity in terms of who does the actual work.
Preliminary findings suggest that relocating beauty work from a salon to a customer’s home brings back memories of caste-based discrimination for those from the Nai caste. Even until a few decades ago, Nais were supposed to be at the ‘beck and call’ of people belonging to upper classes and castes. They were forced to go from one house to another offering skilled services, only to be abused and discriminated against based on caste. However, the caste- community struggled to change this practice. They started to operate from a designated spot in the village, typically under a tree, and customers would have to wait for their turn. From there, Nais were able to establish something called “malgi” or shops with shutters. To be clear, this work was typically performed by men. So, Nai men would run Malgis. Later, those who were rich were able to set up “saloon” as Nais like to call it. What distinguishes a shop from a salon is the environment, salons cater to the middle to upper-middle-class tastes, so the infrastructure is more in keeping with the clientele. Some of the customers I spoke with also flag the transformation that workers undergo when they work at high-end salons. Workers, customers say, are professionalized—they go from being ‘rough’ to ‘polished’, in terms of dressing, looks, language, and even in terms of skill, they learn new techniques and offer a wider variety of haircuts for instance. This professionalization is inextricably linked to their soft skills as well.
With platformization, work that is supposed to take place in shops or saloons is being relocated to customers’ homes once again, bringing back memories of caste-based oppression. This kind of historical injury is difficult to recover from, even though the workers say that urban India is changing and customers don’t discriminate based on caste, the leaders of the Nai association I spoke with feel platformization of the kind that lets customers avail these services at home drags them back by centuries.
This caste community does not take kindly to their work being mediated by either platforms or salon owners who are not Nais themselves but hire workers from the Nai community. They claim first right to this work and question why they are being forced to become ‘workers’ from entrepreneurs running their shops. There is also no love lost between this community and migrants, who they argue, work for less money, contributing to an overall dip in workers’ earnings.
Since I also look at alternative models of masculinities as against the hegemonic and toxic masculinities, the data so far suggests that masculinities of the working class and marginalized castes are different from dominant/hegemonic masculinities of the upper castes/classes, in the sense that the latter tend to be aggressive, highly competitive, isolated and is marked by the neo-liberal ‘I-can-do’ attitude.
The masculinities performed by working-class males tend to be more supportive, with a ‘we can do if we collectivise’ attitude. They share work and tips, help others from the same field/caste get work so that they can all earn their livelihoods. The intra-caste or intra-community dynamics are layered with care amongst the men. However, when it comes to the gendered dynamics, there is a tendency or a desire to regulate women’s behaviour, a very paternalistic protective attitude that makes them say women should not take up platform work that forces them to go to customers’ homes. Who can ensure their safety, the leaders of the Nai association ask. They frame it in terms of safety and protection. The leaders of the Nai Sangham are vehemently opposed to platformization and cite the platform or society’s inability to protect women from harm and harassment as one of the reasons to delegitimize platformization of this profession. Women workers, however, feel differently. They like the flexibility that platformaization offers. There is also another side to this whole “protecting women” and the desire to deny them this sort of work—they would rather the women in their lives take up other kinds of entrepreneurial activities—own a boutique, set up a food business that would ensure dignity and respect. The gender dynamic is certainly interesting— they feel that it is the husband’s responsibility to earn a livelihood, but they are also aware of the demands of maintaining a family, ensuring good education for their children, and therefore don’t mind if women take up work, as long as it is her choice. They are very particular about how they word it, emphasizing the word ‘choice’.
DIGILABOUR: Is there any particularity in your country about current work conditions?
Sai Amulya Komarraju: Lack of any comprehensive law that can safeguard the interests of platform workers. The Code on Social Security (2020) is still in the works and has been the subject of much critique, rightfully so. Some laws are supposed to be implemented by individual states, some states enforce regulations, some don’t, so that is problematic as well. It is being said that the Four Labour Codes will ensure social security benefits to gig workers as well but we don’t know when it will be rolled out for sure.
Some platform intermediaries like Urban Company have transformed from being a platform aggregator model to a ‘full-stack model’, building a self-contained ecosystem, standardizing all its operations— supply of products, building agility of the partner to standardize the time spent on a particular service, upskilling of workers, financing. This is their way of disciplining workers—dictating which products to choose, how many products to buy, how many services are to be rendered, discounts offered to consumers. Since Urban Company is a market giant in the on-demand, home-based services sector, and as more partners get registered on the platform (labour surplus), the platform can now afford to say to its workers that they are welcome to leave the platform without addressing issues of commission, expansion of hubs (the radius within which workers are expected to operate) or offer discounts to customers without consulting its “partners”.
I’d also say that the culture of servitude, caste-based discrimination, and public apathy for the challenges workers face is a triple whammy for workers in these professions.
We need to design a robust customer/public conscientisation campaign so workers can truly experience dignity of work. The idea that workers who perform care work– whether it is cleaning homes or bodily care are one’s ‘slaves’ or ‘servants’ needs to change.
There is work that needs to be done by the State, platform intermediaries, and also customers. Codification and social-norms based change, both are necessary for workers to live a life of dignity.
DIGILABOUR: What are the main workers’ tactics to deal with the future of work?
Sai Amulya Komarraju: The male workers I have spoken with, particularly those belonging to the Nai community, joined platform work because their businesses took a hit during the pandemic. For these workers, it seems like platform work is a stop-gap measure, one they would ideally like to quit as soon as customers feel secure enough to visit salons or ‘saloons’ as they like to call it.
Male workers definitely value collectivization efforts and exhortation to collectivization based on caste is also something that is happening in this space. The situation is dynamic and one has to wait and watch if caste-based mobilization against platformization of salon work by Nais in Hyderabad will escalate into a state-wide and nation-wide phenomenon.
Using digital technologies, in particular, WhatsApp, to collectivize and protest against Urban Company, collaborate, share knowledge and tips in the face of information asymmetries are some of the main tactics. Another tactic that Nais use is to invoke caste identity, remind the community of the legacy of historical figures who belonged to the Nai community, remind them that the community was once skilled in diverse fields – music, alternative medicine like Ayurveda, midwifery. Since they are now only associated with ‘mangali’ work or work that involves bodily care, they struggle to create dignity for such work, and in the process attempt to bring the caste community together more effectively.
DIGILABOUR: Do you really think platforms are the future of work?
Sai Amulya Komarraju: India is a diverse country, so something that is true of one State may not be true of another. For instance, in Delhi and Gurgaon, men accompany women beauty gig workers to their workplace to ensure their safety. You would be hard-pressed to find something like that happening in Hyderabad. Both are metropolitan cities, but there is a widely held view that Hyderabad is relatively safer than other cities. Delhi and nearby areas are considered to be highly unsafe for women.
Are platforms the future of work? The leaders of the Nai community don’t want it to be if it forces them to go to people’s homes to offer services– that kind of historical trauma is not something one easily recovers from—memories of oppression are now a part of the collective memory passed down from one generation to another in the form of stories and songs. So platformization of this work might face resistance from workers of this caste community, and given that most workers belong to this caste community, it would certainly be something to watch out for. Add migrant workers from other religions to the mix and things get more complicated.
The leaders are also not interested in platform cooperativism, anything that requires them to go to a customer’s home to offer services is not looked upon kindly by the community. Interestingly, the community is okay with high-end, brick and mortar salon chains in urban areas where “elite” people live, since malgis/shops are a rarity in such areas. They are not as opposed to high-end salons as they are against platforms.
Having said that, platforms are here to stay since most people, whether they are educated or not, whether they lack other opportunities or not, find platform work attractive primarily due to its flexibility. Women, migrants, those who may find it difficult to get jobs elsewhere do find platforms attractive, there is no denying it. But is this the only future of work? No. The future is blended. For instance, despite Urban Company’s growing presence, you don’t see brick and mortar parlours disappearing.
The rise of the creator economy is also an interesting example. For instance, one of the house cleaning workers I spoke with lives in a low-income neighbourhood. He told me that some of his friends monetise their skills in editing pictures and videos. They charge Rs. 15-100 to edit pictures, videos or create reels for their friends and others in their neighbourhood who are interested in posting good content online but lack the necessary digital skills to do so.
DIGILABOUR: What can we expect for the future of work beyond platforms?
Sai Amulya Komarraju: Specific to salon work and the Nai community, leaders of this particular caste community want the State to take affirmative action, something that will ensure a significant percentage of this work is reserved for the members of this community. They invoke the precedent set by the fishermen (Gangaputras- another caste) community to argue why they must be given primary rights to salon work. They also question the intentions of platform founders as to why they want to make slaves out of those who were once salon-owning entrepreneurs. We can expect more and more caste communities to claim the first right to work. As categories dissolve, as more and more people engage in work that they perceive has not been ordained to them by their caste, there will be an effort to hold on to these identities and associated work rigidly. It will be interesting to see how this will have a bearing on the future of work beyond the platform.
(Micro) entrepreneurship, as I said, is highly desirable and very attractive to low-income groups.
The creator economy is also attractive to low-income, marginalized, Gen Z groups.
To draw on Sunder Sarukkai, the pandemic has pushed India (and beyond) into becoming a service society. The increasing feminization of labour—and by that, I mean creating a class of workers who are valued for their “soft skills”, “people-pleasing” attitude, in other words, qualities that are regarded as “feminine” to cater to the needs and desires of the privileged is worrying but the alternatives to such work such as those cited above and the State’s efforts to encourage entrepreneurship through MUDRA loans, mobilization of workers themselves with the help of digital technologies will have significant implications for how ‘labour’ will also (re)shape the market, labour conditions, and future of work.
—
Interview conducted by Caroline Govari