Where and why do anthropologists studying the post-pandemic world locate workers and how do they frame them as ideological and (a)political subjects? How does the massive transformation of work/labor in the post-pandemic world affect the self-understandings and agency of workers? What are its effects on labor and immigration regimes in different national economies and on a global scale? What role do images and ideological constructs of “the worker” play in contemporary political-economic projects? What kind of new thinking, if not dreaming, about the way economy and society are organized and how future work and labor may look like, do these new developments inspire?

This Hot Spots series tackles these questions by zooming in on the images and re-evaluations of work/labor and changing position of workers in the aftermath of the pandemic. It does so by bringing together scholars from various anthropological subfields and research foci: economic anthropology, anthropology of labor, political anthropology, anthropology of migration, anthropology of gender, and digital anthropology. Thinking across themes and subfields is particularly pertinent since re-evaluations of work/labor—new labor mobility trajectories, digitalization, changing perceptions of education and job qualifications, role of unions, rising inequalities—are entangled processes the COVID-19 pandemic has both laid bare and enhanced. Furthermore, this series adopts a global perspective by bringing together insights from several European contexts, the United States, India, China, Latin America, West Africa, and the Middle East. In so doing, it addresses the diverse, dis/connected, and sometimes radically different developments across political economies and ideological struggles to stimulate novel, comparative perspectives.

The question “Where have all the workers gone?” figures as an entry point in a twofold sense. First, it is an empirical question that ethnographers often encounter in the field—for example, when working on companies recruiting migrant workers, informal workers switching to the digital economy, or workers framing new forms of (digital) agency beyond the organized “visible” protest. In this sense the question “Where have all the workers gone?” represents an entry point to address some crucial aspects of the on-going political-economic transformations of work/labor in the post-pandemic world. One of those aspects are (post)-pandemic labor shortages, which manifested already during the pandemic in the ambiguous location of the (scarce) “essential labor” (see, for example, Folz and Smith 2024) since the initial public respect for often racialized and gendered (migrant) labor did not translate into structural improvement of their position. Furthermore, labor shortages have an impact on labor migration regimes, marked by the simultaneous differential liberalization of immigration policies (and related legalization claims), and further precarization, invisibility, and irregularization of migrant workers. Finally, the pandemic has exposed the problem of aging and “vanishing” workforces and related effects on social reproduction.

Digitalization of work is yet another crucial aspect of the relocation of workers to new work sectors and the “emptying” of others (such as service sector and manual labor). Two trends are noticeable here. On the one hand, the fast expanding of digitalization of work/labor relates to new forms of digital governance and control of workers as well as the blurred boundary between work and home. On the other hand, new forms of online work are developing also in response to reevaluations of the meaning of “good” work, the value of “work” as such, heightened discussions on work-life balance, as well as an enhanced concern for environmental issues. Put differently, it is important to recognize that grappling with the question “where have workers gone?” (and the related one: “why have they gone?”) ought not be limited to designing a grim picture of hopelessness and exploitation. Instead, a comprehensive answer to this question is contingent upon a thorough examination of what new conditions both preclude and open up, and of whether the disappearance of old forms (of work, relatedness, identity) create space for experimentation and for forging new ideas.

Second, the question “Where have all the workers gone?” foregrounds a critical epistemological reflection on where anthropologists locate labor and work(ers). Do they position workers—be it factory workers, academics, digital entrepreneurs, rural workers, care workers, or street vendors—as ideological and (a)political subjects? And if so, how to they frame their struggles and agency? This epistemological reflection starts at the very conceptual differentiation between work and labor (see, for example, Narotzky 2018) and extends to the thematic and theoretical perspectives from which anthropologists look at workers and work/labor regimes.

The epistemological aspect gains even more prominence if we consider that the “location” and (common sensical) framings of workers in particular ways (for example, “illegal workers,” “undeserving work migrants”) figures as an essential discursive tool used by right-wing conservative ideologues and policymakers. This series responds to recent calls to look at how both labor formations and struggles transform in the context of global rise of the far right and right-wing populism and authoritarianism (for example Kasimir and Gill 2022, xxxi). What makes this task a challenging and important one is the fact the contemporary far right represents a variety of ideological positions, from virulent proponents of neoliberalism to advocates of nationalized socialism. This variety translates into different policies on labor, work migration, environment, international trade, to name but some.

Finally, the question “Where have all the workers gone?” also points to the need to critically re-examine our own assumptions and theorizing on forms of organization and struggle that we tend to interpret as workers’ agency. Unsettling the theoretical-normative implication of public visibility and self-organized collective forms of workers’ struggles is crucial if we want to complicate and better understand newly manifesting forms of agency, such as various digital practices, forms of civil disobedience or new (self)understandings or workers. Lazar points to a broad sense of political agency including both “visible” collective struggles in the public space as well as other forms of collective and digitalized agency and solidarity as a productive way to see the value and effects of workers’ “day-to-day struggles” (2023, 1).

We have invited anthropologists working on worker populations in different parts of the globe to contribute to this series by reflecting on the ways their case studies help us to better understand current transformations of work/labor. We asked the authors to be especially attentive towards the questions why they approach current transformations of work/labor through a particular perspective and topic (for example, migration, digitalization, self-organization, far-right ideologies, etc.), what the respective perspective reveals, and what new questions and theoretical angles it points at. We further asked the authors to consider how the anthropological assessments of work/labor and “locations” of workers and their struggles are shifting.

While the contributors tackle different contexts and focus on different kinds of work and labor, a set of common themes emerges from their essays. Let us highlight four issues that underpin our discussion on work and labor. First, anthropological investigations make evident that many developments labeled as “pandemic” or “post-pandemic” need to be studied in a longer time perspective and in combination with other long(er)-term transformations. Fuad Musallam encourages us to consider the precarity within the universities as a process that is a part and parcel of the neoliberalization of the educational system and Rosana Pinheiro-Machado sees the pandemic as heightening the neoliberal transformation of street workers into digital entrepreneurs. Sian Lazar calls for linking anti-austerity and anti-neoliberal protests with long tradition of anti-colonial struggles. Annika Lems and Jelena Tošić point to the long-term effects of rural and urban ruination and marginalization, while Marketa Dolezalova points to the long existing “structure of resentment” as a frame for the anti-migrant workers’ rhetoric of the pandemic era.

Second, ethnographic engagements add to the question “where have workers gone” by unveiling who have replaced them. In discussing the situation of migrant workers, Marion Breteau, Marketa Dolezalova, Ignacio Fradejas-García, and Thurka Sangaramoorthy demonstrate a peculiar hierarchy of precarity that exists on the labor market. Aardra Surendran and Rosana Pinheiro-Machado likewise emphasize such hierarchy in focusing on how access to digital tools affects people’s position on the labor market and their livelihoods. Furthermore, in grappling with the questions “where” and “who” the workers are, the contributors also push us to reflect on the shifting meanings of work. Nellie Chu calls for expanding our reflection on work beyond employer-employee relationship to better capture the “unexpected moments” of aid and support that made work and life under the pandemic possible. In taking a similar direction, Sian Lazar foregrounds the understanding of labor as enabling care for others.

Third, in contributing to what anthropology has long been interested in, the authors problematize what counts as protest and resistance and what forms it takes, and query what kind of alliances and practices of solidarity may emerge. Isaie Dougnon and Annika Lems emphasize the necessity to look more closely at how, respectively, migrant workers’ and farmers’ self-definitions may render them both empowered and more fragile. Fuad Musallam interrogates the possibility of intergenerational alliances, while Rosana Pinheiro-Machado shows that an increased individualism may coexist with expressions of solidarity and collective anger. Marion Breteau and Nellie Chu emphasize the creative role of videos and apps in protesting the precarious labor conditions during the pandemic as well as in forging networks of support. Indeed, collective support and care emerge in numerous contributions as one dimension of resistance strategy—and a source of hope in the midst of dire work and life conditions.

What further emerges from the essays is the recognition that clearly categorizing the developments on the labor market or workers’ subjectivities appears quixotic. Put differently, the boundaries between formal/informal, visible/invisible, or resisting/compliant are increasingly blurred. Thurka Sangaramoorthy brings this point home by emphasizing the “permanent liminality” of workers and tension between their essentiality and disposability, and Sian Lazar proposes the concept “patchwork living” to tackle the contradictions marking workers’ life conditions. Aardra Surendran highlights the tension between visibility and invisibility of workers resulting from the digitalization of governance, and Ignacio Fradejas-García examines—“the myth of formality” as a cover up for informal labor. Jelena Tošić considers potential (contradictory) effects of entangled experiences of work(ing) under authoritarianism. In discussing far-right activism during the pandemic, Agnieszka Pasieka shows the troubling overlaps between the far-right antiglobalist, antiliberal discourses, and other discourses foregrounding the rights of local workers and national economies.

Finally, our contributors show the potential of ethnography as knowledge-building practice and demonstrate the ways in which their ethnographic material enables them to examine the shifting meanings of life and labor in contemporary world.