Labour-process-related Racism in Transnational European Production: Fragmenting Work meets Xenophobic Culturalisation among Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses labour-process-related racism and xenophobia among workers. It uses empirical findings from different projects to argue that, to a large extent, actual racism and xenophobia refer to experiences of objectification/reification, namely by harsh social competition in contemporary fragmented and transnationalised production. Racism and xenophobia are discussed as specific forms of subjectification which reproduce and stabilise these competitive social relations among workers, within and beyond countries. Racism thus is part of a “restrictive agency” developed by workers – that is, their orientation towards the subordination under objectifying, seemingly non-changeable structures. As a consequence, the article concludes, the repressive structures have to be questioned, and for this purpose the intense debate on racism and right-wing populism among workers is one-sided; there must be more attention paid to progressive labour-process-related, universalistic orientations that exist, despite already long-lasting neo-liberalism. KEY WORDS: racism; Labour Process Theory; transnational production networks; fragmentation; Europeanisation; Critical Psychology
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".