CALL FOR PAPER - SEZIONE MONOGRAFICA N. 171(1)/2025

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The public debate surrounding the Great Resignation – the alleged widespread phenomenon of voluntary resignations that began in 2021 in the USA and subsequently spread to Europe – epitomizes a renewed attention to the role of work in individual biographies. Many observers have emphasized that an aversion to the centrality of work in people’s lives is likely to grow up in the current scenario. Within this context, the concept of Antiwork has gained traction. Antiwork represents a multifaceted topic that can be approached from various perspectives. It encompasses attitudes of disaffection and detachment from one’s own work, such as seeking to avoid what has been termed the “passion trap” (Murgia and Poggio, 2012), as recently highlighted by Sarah Jaffe in her book Work Won’t Love You Back: How Devotion to Our Jobs Keeps Us Exploited, Exhausted, and Alone (2022). Additionally, this concept includes efforts to limit the intrusion of work into life through resistance practices, exemplified by the idea of quiet quitting, wherein individuals strictly adhere to the tasks outlined in their employment contracts and refuse to accomplish more (Scheyett, 2023). Furthermore, it encompasses a comprehensive reconsideration of one’s life trajectory in relation to work, including voluntarily relinquishing a career and adopting a downshift in lifestyle (Kennedy et al., 2013). There is nothing new under the sun; we are not dealing with entirely novel topics. However, these topics have gained particular relevance with the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic has reshaped the values and priorities of individuals and constituted an unprecedented shock to the global production system and the labor market underpinning it, thereby yielding unequal outcomes for individuals, working groups, and territories. For instance, consider the disparities experienced by workers based on whether their sector of activity was deemed essential during lockdowns, the diverse pathways to entering the labor market, and the imbalanced gender burdens of care. The scope of the Antiwork phenomena mentioned are challenging to grasp. The substantial media attention given to certain striking yet possibly secondary aspects does not aid in forming a clear understanding. One such aspect is the purported proliferation of new professions aimed at facilitating work downsizing, commonly referred to as escape coaches. However, the topic of Antiwork and its multiple aspects is prompting scholars to study it. In the Italian context, notable contributions include Francesca Coin’s work (2023), titled Le grandi dimissioni. Il nuovo rifiuto del lavoro e il tempo di riprenderci la vita (The Great Resignations: The New Refusal of Work and the Time to Take Back Our Lives) and the insightful book by Sandro Busso (2023) Lavorare meno. Se otto ore vi sembrano poche (Working Less: If Eight Hours Seems Too Few). On one hand, studies focus on the supply side of labor, exploring workers’ willingness to accept and sustain employment and the emerging ‘social legitimacy’ for individuals to reduce the time devoted to work in their daily routines. On the other hand, attention is drawn to the features of labor demand and the structural conditions that, in certain sectors more than others, foster disaffection: low wages, extended and unpredictable work hours, contractual ambiguities, lack of recognition, limited avenues for career progression, discrimination, harassment, and mobbing. These features – whether real or perceived – are influenced by the characteristics of the labor market at the national or local level. In Italy, for example, recent data on dynamics in dependent and semi-dependent work warrant further investigation. The data indicate that in 2022 there was an increase in terminations of employment relationships compared to the previous year. Furthermore, the majority of workers who terminated their employment fall within the age group of 35-54 years. However, it should be noted that more than 82% of terminations involve contracts with a duration of less than one year, and terminations requested by the workers account for 18.9% of the total, a higher percentage than in 2020 but lower than in 2021. During that period, terminations initiated by employers also increased, mainly due to a rise in layoffs. From a territorial perspective, there is a high regional heterogeneity in the relationship between resignations and total terminations of employment relationships: in the economically more dynamic areas of Northern Italy, the percentage of those voluntarily leaving their jobs is three times higher than in the less productive areas of Southern Italy (Rapporto Annuale sulle Comunicazioni Obbligatorie, 2023). Finally, considering a broader time frame, it can be observed that voluntary resignations in Italy might not be entirely novel: there was already a peak in 2007 that subsequently declined (Armillei, 2023). Therefore, we are facing a complex scenario that requires a thorough analysis. It is also important to acknowledge the ‘paradox’ of the Italian labor market, where high youth unemployment coexists with a shortage of available workforce in certain areas and sectors, such as seasonal and tourist activities, social and healthcare assistance, and the lower tertiary sector. The discrepancy between the available job opportunities, the rising costs of living, and individuals’ aspirations regarding work and an equal work-life balance (Blossfeld et al., 2012; Fullin and Reyneri, 2015; Bertolini and Poggio, 2022) suggests the presence of workers who reject certain jobs, thereby challenging the notion that ‘any job is better than no job.’ This complex scenario also fuels a political debate concerning issues such as the labor productivity, the definition of a minimum wage and basic income, as well as other measures addressing poverty alleviation or the phenomenon of working poor, and supporting active labor market policies (see Filandri, 2022). This debate raises broader topics. The proliferation of atypical employment contracts has increased the differentiation of working conditions. This has made it more challenging for unions to achieve unified representation of workers and has also eroded collective dynamics, such as collective identification (i.e., the transformation of segments of the workforce from class in itself to class for itself) and collective opposition (i.e., conflicts related to the capital/labor divide) (Supiot, 2020). Moreover, technological and organizational changes, combined with the governance strategies of large corporations, have undermined established modes of interaction between workers and their perceptions of the physical and social spaces associated with work activities. These latter processes have further challenged the connection between work and social recognition (Honneth, 2020; Pizzorno, 2007; Dordoni, 2020). The divergence between work and social recognition prompts individuals to alter the meaning that work assumes in the construction of their biographies and reduces its centrality in processes of social integration. Needless to say, these dynamics are widespread but also vary in relation to various sectors of the labor market and organizational hierarchies. Therefore, the social and economic outcomes of these dynamics are differentiated; sometimes they open up new opportunities for agency, while other times they diminish the chances of self-realization.

MAIN AIMS OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE

The aim of this Special Issue is twofold. Firstly, it seeks to systematize the differentiated phenomena that are often simplistically labeled as Antiwork. We believe that scientific investigations are necessary to better delineate the boundaries between these phenomena, specify their analogies and differences, and clarify whether and to what extent it is possible – and appropriate – to investigate them using a unified theoretical framework and analytical tools. Secondly, the Special Issue aims to collect contributions that empirically map and delineate these phenomena. These contributions will focus on specific sectors or segments of the labor market, or national cases, and utilize comparative analysis to understand their real extent beyond simplistic narratives and media representations. Furthermore, through intensive empirical studies, we expect to: i) reconstruct the emerging ‘social practices’ that promote resistance by workers to the mere market allocation process; ii) understand whether and how these individual practices coalesce into a collective dimension, introducing new forms of workers’ self-representation, innovative dynamics of interaction between workers and employers, and original and horizontal ways of organizing production processes.

MAIN TOPIC

In this context, we welcome papers addressing, but not limited to, the following topics:
i. Sectoral, local, national, and international scenarios, either individually or comparatively, concerning mass resignations and other forms of downsizing or withdrawal from the labor market.

ii. Individual practices aimed at redefining the space and significance of work in one’s life, including quiet quitting, downshifting, and voluntary exit (sensu Hirschman, 1970) from the labor market (such as horizontal job-to-job transfers or attempts to permanently distance oneself from active work life).

iii. Forms of interaction, exchange, and conflict that arise within and beyond work environments among individuals (colleagues, family members, peer groups) in the presence of practices mentioned in the previous point. How does the ‘social context’ react to attempts to redefine priorities and aspirations that involve reducing the space occupied by work activities?

iv. Innovative and participatory approaches to reorganizing productive activities in a heterarchical and horizontal manner, challenging traditional notions of vertical chains of duties, hierarchical relationships, and career dynamics.

v. Resistance practices to work, which may initially manifest as individual acts of rebellion or retreatism (sensu Merton, 1968) but transform into phenomena giving rise to new collective actors.

vi. Innovative forms of workers’ representation that tackle the issue of reducing the significance of work in people’s lives.

vii. Existing or proposed policy measures aimed at shielding individuals from undesirable work and facilitating the avoidance of unwanted jobs, such as universal basic income.

DEADLINE AND FURTHER INFORMATION

Article proposals in Italian or English should be submitted via email to the Journal web page: http://ojs.francoangeli.it/_ojs/index.php/sl/about/submissions no later than September 15th, 2024

Authors should follow the instructions to upload the complete articles. Articles should be no longer than 8,000 words, and must adhere to the journal’s style and editorial standards: https://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/NR/Sl-norme_EN.pdf

Any article that does not comply with the word limit or the style and editorial standards indicated in this call for papers will not be accepted. Correctly formatted articles submitted via the journal’s online platform shall be subject to a process of double-blind peer review.

MAIN REFERENCES
Armillei F. (2023). Le grandi dimissioni hanno precedenti. In: lavoce.info, 07/02/2023.
Bertolini S. and Poggio B., (eds.) (2022). Research handbook on work–life balance: Emerging issues and methodological challenges. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Blossfeld H.P., Buchholz S., Hofäcker D. and Bertolini S. (2012). Selective flexibilization and deregulation of the labor market. The answer of continental and Southern Europe. Stato e mercato, 32(3): 363-390.
Busso S. (2023). Lavorare meno. Se otto ore vi sembrano poche. Torino: Edizioni Gruppo Abele.
Coin F. (2023). Le grandi dimissioni. Il nuovo rifiuto del lavoro e il tempo di riprenderci la vita. Torino: Einaudi.
Dordoni A. (2020). Introduzione. In: Honneth A., Sennet R. e Supiot A., (eds.), Perché lavoro? Narrative e diritti per lavoratrici e lavoratori del XXI secolo, pp. 7-19. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Filandri M. (2022). Lavorare non basta. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Fullin G. and Reyneri E. (2015). Mezzo secolo di primi lavori dei giovani. Per una storia del mercato del lavoro italiano. Stato e mercato, 35(3): 419-468.
Hirschman A.O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge Ma.: Harvard University Press.
Honneth A. (2020). Democrazia e divisione sociale del lavoro. In: Honneth A., Sennet R. e Supiot A., (eds.), Perché lavoro? Narrative e diritti per lavoratrici e lavoratori del XXI secolo, pp. 81-114. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Jaffe S. (2022). Il lavoro non ti ama. O di come la devozione per il nostro lavoro ci rende esausti, sfruttati e soli. Roma: Minimum Fax.
Kennedy E.H., Krahn H. and Krogman N.T. (2013). Downshifting: An exploration of motivations, quality of life, and environmental practices. Sociological Forum, 28(4): 764- 783.
Merton R.K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Simon and Schuster. Murgia A. and Poggio B. (2012). La trappola della passione. Esperienze di precarietà dei giovani highly skilled in Italia, Spagna e Regno Unito. In: Cordella G. e Masi S.E., (eds.), Condizione giovanile e nuovi rischi sociali. Quali politiche?, pp. 82-99. Roma: Carocci.
Pizzorno A. (2007). Il velo della diversità: studi su razionalità e riconoscimento. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Scheyett A. (2023). Quiet quitting. Social Work, 68(1): 5-7. Supiot A. (2020). Homo faber: continuità e rotture, in Perché lavoro? In: Honneth A., Sennet R. e Supiot A., (eds.), Perché lavoro? Narrative e diritti per lavoratrici e lavoratori del XXI secolo, pp. 21-55. Milano: Feltrinelli.

SOURCES
Rapporto Annuale sulle Comunicazioni Obbligatorie. Le dinamiche del lavoro subordinato e parasubordinato. Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali, 2023.