Repair and upcycling: Artisanal work as alternative engagement with socio-ecosystems

Abstract

Spanish

French

The article contributes to sociological reflections on the nature of work and its relations with the biophysical world in contemporary environmental degradation by focusing on the case of upcycling and repairing practices. Drawing on ethnographic research, the article considers artisans’ narratives and practices to shed light on how alternative ontological relations with communities and ecosystems are experimented with. The article expands current research on the sustainability, meaning and materiality of work by considering emerging configurations of ecological socio-material practices in everyday life. In a context where work has been tied to objectives of efficiency, profit and growth, the analysis points to the capacity of artisanal practices of repair and upcycling to retain the positive connotation of work as the ability to transform materials and the surrounding environment while preserving the ecosystem. The research highlights that everyday experiences of work can represent a space of changing and transformation of socio-material relationships, questioning the nexus between work, emancipation and environmental exploitation.

Keywords

Care crafts ecological labour repair upcycling

Introduction

In recent decades, scholars have started to reflect on the position of work and employment in contemporary societies, considering both material articulations and symbolic constructions (Gerold et al., 2023; Hoffmann and Paulsen, 2020; Weeks, 2011). In elaborating the nexus between ecological degradation and capitalist accumulation, de-growth and eco-socialist scholars have imagined post-work societies where work progressively fades, together with alienation and overconsumption, from human perspectives (Chamberlain, 2018; Gorz, 1999). Furthermore, feminist theorists have often pointed towards how contemporary notions of work focused on production and wage-regulated employment relations have contributed to obscuring and dismissing the role of reproductive (Federici, 2021; Fraser, 1994), emotional (A. R. Hochschild, 1979) and care work (Finch and Groves, 2022) in modern societies.

However, it has been underlined how post-work theories have often failed to elaborate alternative notions of work that can question the competitive and exploitative nexus that ties human labour to nature (Pellizzoni, 2022). In addition, despite the accent of post-work scholars on the possibilities of self-expression opened by the future increase of leisure and free time as the opportunity to eventually unlink personal fulfilment from working activities, work has to be regarded not only as a material necessity but also a central arena for subjectivation (Farrugia, 2022; Weeks, 2011). The case of creative and cultural work is insightful in this regard since scholars have considered the necessity to overcome interpretations based on the assumption of rational economic logics and, instead, focus on workers’ efforts to build a space of good and meaningful work (Alacovska, 2020, 2022).

Considering how alternative relations with the biophysical world take shape in the case of artisanal repair and upcycling work, this article contributes to expanding sociological literature on emerging experimentations of sustainable socio-material practices in everyday life. Questioning the alienation and standardization of Fordist and post-Fordist work, several contributors have seen in craftwork a possibility to reconnect work with human flourishing (Ferraro and Reid, 2013; Sennett, 2008; Thurnell-Read, 2014) and to reframe production processes under non-capitalist premises (Hawkins and Price, 2018; Taylor and Luckman, 2018). Because of the emotional, bodily and material knowledge involved, artisanal work has recently been considered as offering practical opportunities to elaborate more sustainable relations with the material world (Rennstam and Paulsson, 2024; Vincent, 2023). Focusing on artisans’ narratives and practices, the results presented frame repair and upcycling work as existing, although experimental, ecological alternatives to production-oriented paradigms. The analysis shades light on how those practices can retain the positive connotation of work as the capacity to foster human emancipation, to transform materials and the socio-cultural environment without reproducing exploitative relations with the biophysical world.

The article is structured as follows. The first section considers scholars’ contributions to the debate on work, craft and environmental degradation, focusing on the peculiarities of the case of upcycling and repair work. The second section deepens the methodology adopted and the research context. In the third section, the research results are presented considering the unfolding of affective and caring dynamics between artisans and materials in restorative practices, the meaningful role of ecological working practices in fostering emancipation and professional realization, and the unfolding of experimental relations and economies with the surrounding community. The fourth section involves a discussion of the research results considering repairing and upcycling as careful and meaningful engagement with communities and ecosystems in a context of environmental degradation. The final part concludes by relating the research findings to existing debates in the field.

Work, craft and repair practices in times of socio-ecological crisis

Amid the rise of ecological concerns and societal inequalities, scholars have begun to rethink the role that work and employment occupies in contemporary societies (Gomez-Baggethun, 2022). Regarded as ‘inherently both productive and destructive’ (Hoffmann and Paulsen, 2020: 344), the unsustainability of work has recently entered debates in environmental social sciences. Criticizing modern work ethics that regard work as an end in itself (Weeks, 2011), post-work and eco-socialist scholars have been reflecting on future societies where work occupies a marginal rather than a central position (Chamberlain, 2018; Gorz, 1999). In this sense, this literature has been advocating not only for a reduction in working hours and for the decoupling of work and income but also for a broader cultural shift based on values of reciprocity and autonomy rather than competition and accumulation (Gerold et al., 2023). Questioning the dismissal of care, emotional and reproductive work in capitalist societies, scholars in the field of feminist studies have been questioning the invisibilization of social reproduction’s activities that are central for sustaining human life and societies (Federici, 2021; Fraser, 1994). Ecofeminist thinkers have been underlining the need to move away from extractivist approaches towards the need to re-value care-giving work and eco-sufficiency (Salleh, 2017). However, despite focusing on the relation between ecological degradation and the capitalist exploitation of labour, post-work theories have missed the opportunity to question humans as productive beings and to reflect on the instrumental nexus that links humans, labour and nature (Pellizzoni, 2022). Furthermore, focusing on the possibility of self-expression in the space of free and leisure time, post-work and de-growth scholars tend to consider work solely as a material necessity, disregarding its relevance for subjectivation and human emancipation processes. In this sense, theorizations of sustainable futures that do not consider the human necessity for meaningful work have been seen as lacking in their capacity to foster social change (Foster, 2017). Furthermore, literature theorizing the end of work has been accused of portraying workers as passive witnesses of new capitalism and eventually to marginalize workers’ agency and lived experiences (Strangleman, 2007). Contributions in the field of environmental labour studies have intersected environmental research with labour studies, focusing on the role of workers in environmental policies and practices within trade unions, communities and workplaces (Barca and Leonardi, 2018; Feltrin, 2022).

When considering alternative meanings and practices associated with contemporary work, studies that have considered creative and cultural work can provide fruitful insights. The work of Ana Alacovska (2020, 2022) has focused on practices of alternative and wage-less economic relations that take shape in everyday life, such as commoning, thrift and downshifting, as ‘life-enhancing economic activities induced by moral conceptions of and commitment to a sustainable life’ (p. 686). Among creative work, the case of craft work has been regarded as pivotal for addressing both work alienation and environmental degradation. Moving beyond the ‘degradation of work’ (Braverman, 1998), craft work has been considered epistemologically different from the standardization and automation that characterizes contemporary work and has attracted scholars’ interest for its capacity to provide workers with autonomy and meaningful engagement (Sennett, 2008). In craft and making activities, the meaning of work shifts on satisfaction and recognition rather than profit and growth (Ferraro and Reid, 2013). The literature review conducted by Olga Vincent and Amanda Brandellero (2023) highlights how these activities can be regarded in their capacity to enlighten possible empirical implications of post-capitalist theorizations. In this sense, a craft-orientation has been theorized as a mode of organization that has the potential to translate postgrowth ideas into concrete practices (Rennstam and Paulsson, 2024). Considering empirical data collected with Australian craftspeople, Susan Luckman (2018) reflects on how conventional entrepreneurial oriented discourses of success in the creative industries are problematized and challenged by business practices that are oriented towards ethical value systems and goals. Scholars have emphasized the central role that collaboration, co-creation and social bonds play in contemporary craft and DIY practices and have regarded at the intertwining between digital and live community building and (hand)making practices as the driver of the ‘third wave’ of craft (Gauntlett, 2011; Luckman and Thomas, 2024). Adopting new materialist approaches, some scholars have observed craft practices and matter vitality as affective encounters (Bell and Vachhani, 2020). Conjugating phenomenological approaches with Bourdeusian reflection, a ‘maker-habitus’ has been described as ‘an embodied orientation to the material world characterised by an interest in material (re)production’ in which material affordances and embodied experiences are central (Collins, 2018: 174). In this sense, it has been underlined how neo-craft work can enable an affective resonance between bodies and matters, as well as providing an alternative to the loss of meaningful work (Gandini and Gerosa, 2024). In addition, despite artisanal production modes have been marginalized in industrial societies, materials’ knowledge and skills have survived and have recently been regarded as central in the quest to meet the future’s ecological and social goals (Carr and Gibson, 2016).

Although consumerist orientations have privileged the creation of new, mass-produced items, recent decades have witnessed a rise in consumer interest towards repaired, refurbished and upcycled products as well as in DIY and prosumer practices (Brandellero and Naclerio, 2026). Parallelly, scholars have started to focus on everyday engagement in repair practices under the lenses of disciplines such as consumption studies (Laitala et al., 2021) and design (Durrani, 2019, Kucher (2024). Against the decline of reparability in postmodern societies (Schmidt, 2019), in the present context of social and ecological crisis, repair practices have been described as containing an emancipatory potential (Graham and Thrift, 2007), as a ‘regime of practice that fosters the imagining of alternative social scenarios, where different relations between human, non-human and more-than-human actors became possible’ (Graziano and Trogal, 2019, p. 205). At an empirical level, repair work has been regarded as offering practical opportunities to elaborate alternative ecological relations with the socio-material world, both because of the necessity to switch from disposable to reparable items and by virtue of the emotional, bodily and material knowledge it involves. The process of repairing has been seen as relying on artisanal skills and as being characterized by ‘a complex repertoire of gestures, a variable emotional tone and the gathering of sensual knowledge’, a set of particularly human competencies (Dant, 2010: 1). The relation between repair, emotions and community has been explored in the case of car restoration work, where young trainees described the repair object as having material and social lives and their work as ‘good work’ (Bozkurt and Cohen, 2019). An expansion and a re-evaluation of repair activities has been seen as central not only for addressing contemporary environmental concerns but also for its capacity to create skills and stimulate good and rewarding occupations (Carr, 2017). The case of repair cafés has been analysed in several studies, interested in their role in fostering urban commons (Zapata Campos et al., 2020), in their contribution to social activism and political participation (Graziano and Trogal, 2022), and in their capacity to enact caring relationships among people and things (Madon, 2022; Meißner, 2021). Emerging from feminist theory to define the ensemble of invisibilized and feminine activities of reproduction (A. Hochschild and Machung, 2012; Young, 1990), the notion of care has become central in reflections upon current socio-environmental degradation. It has been seen as a specific approach not only to human beings but also to the material world, including the non-human environment in a ‘web of care’ (Barnes, 2015; Centemeri, 2021). Grounding care in ontological relations, the work of Puig de la Bellacasa constructs care as more than an affective and ethical instance, as the material and labour engagement needed to sustain the complex net of planetary relations (de la Bellacasa, 2012; Tacchetti et al., 2022). Conceptualized as ‘everything we do to maintain, continue and repair our world’ (Tronto and Fisher, 1990, p. 40), repair, care and eco-social systems’ reproductions appear to be interrelated.

Methodology

The findings elaborate on qualitative research conducted in Turin, Italy and Marseille, France between February and September 2023. The research aims that guided the data collection were oriented towards comprehending artisans’ material and symbolic experiences of work and at understanding the relationship that is enacted with communities, materials and ecosystems in the context of contemporary environmental degradation. The fieldwork entailed traditional ethnography and the collection of 20 in-depth interviews which took into account both the subjective dimensions of work and the self-understanding of the workers (Ezzy, 1997). The ethnographic fieldwork was central in the selection of research participants for the interviews and contact was made in both brick-and-mortar ateliers, through snowball sampling, and on social media. The composition of the sample with regard to the type of craft practised includes paper crafts, textile and fibre manipulation, jewellery making, and candle and soap making and excludes digital crafts, beverage and culinary artisanal work, and crafts related to human body manipulation. Focusing on crafts that involve the manipulation of materials, the research considers tangible object transformation. The participants are equally distributed between the two locations of the research: Turin and Marseille. In terms of materials, 3 worked with mixed sources, 1 with paper, 9 with textiles and leather, 2 with metals, and 5 with plastics. The work settings spanned from ateliers located on the street (7), coworking spaces (4), private laboratories (9). With repair and upcycling practices the present study refers to the process of creatively restore objects and materials otherwise destined to waste in order to restore or enhance their value. The research participants are involved in both repair and upcycle activities and adopts hybrid practices in their everyday working experiences. The terms mending and repair are used interchangeably throughout the paper and refer to the process of restoring the appeal and functionality of a thing aiming at extending the object’s life. The term upcycling is intended as the process of transforming or adjusting an existing – and disused – item providing it with a new purpose or fit. In this sense, this article intends upcycling, repair and mending practices as aimed at dignifying and extending the life of already existing materials and objects. Considering demographics, the majority of the interviewees are women aged between 30 and 45 years old working as solo-entrepreneurs in the artisanal field, some of whom decided to engage in craft activities after a career change with the aim of engaging in a more meaningful working activity (8). Previous studies have pointed at ambiguous positionings of women in the craft sector, reporting the intertwining of precariousness and entrepreneurship and hybrid forms of creative work between domestic and online environments (Black et al. 2019; Luckman and Andrew, 2018). In the presented research, the interviews were conducted with artisans for whom craft constitutes their primary professional activity and who identify as artisans or craftworkers. In this sense, craft and repair activities are both a source of income and a central element of their professional identity. The analysis included both ethnographic notes and interview transcripts and was inspired by grounded theories’ presuppositions (Charmaz and Belgrave, 2012). Following an extensive reading of the data collected, a thematic analysis was conducted to identify major themes in the accounts. In a second phase, an approach guided by discourse analysis (Wetherell et al., 2001) was enacted with the aim of considering research participants’ individual and subjective views and emotions in relation to their socio-material working practices. The interviews and the analysis were conducted in the local language and only the excerpts quoted have been translated in English. The research participant names have been pseudonymized according to the informed consent and ethical documentation of the project.

Research results

Care and affect in restorative practices

The ethnographic data collected shows how research participants frame repair and upcycling practices into a wider effort to adapt labour practices and production processes to contemporary environmental challenges. Having had a traditional craft education but working with secondhand, unconventional materials and objects that are not designed to be repaired presents several practical challenges. In fact, the process of reconstruction and transformation of existing objects requires the craftworker to engage with the materials, often discovering hidden characteristics and unexpected outcomes of the manipulation. As Miranda elaborates, compared to a standard production process, upcycling and repair practices require more intellectual and manual energies since it is necessary to critically rethink the conventional production process:

There is more work, I have to think about transforming before creating, and this transformation starts from the object, the work is more intense, it is still artisanal work but with an added variable that determines the success of the construction part. (Miranda)

Working with existing objects appears to enhance artisans’ problem solving and critical thinking and to be a challenge that is appreciated by the workers themselves. When interacting with Flora, she suggested that the vision of the final product is not imposed by the creator but co-emerges in the interaction with materials:

The clothes on the mannequin tell us what they want to become [. . .] the fabric told us what it wanted to become. Even if it was all ruined, maybe that’s exactly what was needed; the worn-out part gives the shape to what it’s meant to become. (Flora)

From the data collected emerges not only the role of the creative effort made by artisans in rethinking how pre-existing materials and objects can be worked to be restored to their original function, in the case of repair, or transformed in order to serve other goals, in the case of upcycling, but a space of human and non-human interaction where materials have a sort of agency, a vitality of the matter (Bennett, 2010), is suggested. Valery collects and transforms old plastic objects whose original functions were connected with water and pools:

They want leather, they want noble materials, they want it to be unstained, they don’t want it to be greasy, they don’t want it to crumble, they don’t want it to smell like chlorine. But that’s why I chose this material, because it smells like vacation, because it’s greasy with sunscreen, because it’s also an olfactory journey. And that’s really what I love [. . .] all these plastic materials that no one wants, they are amazing like that, everyone deserves a chance in life, that’s what I do, except that since humans have annoyed me, I do it with the materials. (Valery)

The excerpt shows the rejection of contemporary artisanal and consumers’ material culture that privileges high-end materials. Valery is motivated by her choice of working with plastic, the waste par excellence of consumer society, a material that is often removed from contemporary aestheticization of sustainable fashion and upcycling cultures. Within this decision, emotional and affective components are encapsulated, making the sensory experience of the material central to the artisanal work and valorizing its capacity to evoke memories, stories and emotions. Furthermore, the research participant describes an affective and emotional relation with the material she has chosen. Noting that ‘everyone deserves a chance’, a sentence that usually refers to human’s opportunities for emancipation is moved into the material and non-human word, in a certain sense investing plastic, the undesirable and yet iconic material of the Anthropocene, with human and caring affects. The presence of an emotional and affective relation with materials, objects and the transformative process is also highlighted in the data collected with Amaranta, who repairs and adapts ancient trinkets, jewellery and buttons:

For me it is an honour to work with these objects that are 60 or 70 years old [. . .] is not only to provide a new life that is aesthetic but there are other values, it is a matter of what you are expressing with that item, what are the stories carried inside. It is something very powerful for me, something beautiful. (Amaranta)

In the extract, the artisan expresses her emotional involvement in the repair and upcycling work, configuring an intimate relationship with both the objects and the transformation process. Focusing on the affective and material qualities of ancient items, artisans picture themselves as engaged in a form of cultural preservation that is loaded with affective nostalgia and countercultural ideas of value. Exalting the inner qualities of materials and items, the research participants refuse the diffusion of disposable and fast consumption, claiming the authenticity and timelessness of restored old objects. Through the process of repair and upcycling, new meanings and values are forged in bridging the past and the present on an emotional and material level, generating an ‘intimate entanglement’ (Callén Moreu and López Gómez, 2019).

Enforcing emancipation through ecological work

Creative and cultural work has often been regarded as imbued with discourses of passionate work and self-realization (McRobbie, 2018). Also, in the case of crafts, aligning personal beliefs with working practices appears to foster workers’ purpose, satisfaction and autonomy (Ocejo, 2017; Sennett, 2008). From the data collected, upcycling and repair practices are often described as a form of meaningful engagement not only with daily working activities but also as a sense-making activity oriented towards ecological motivations. In this context, the rejection of consumerist trends and of contemporary aestheticization and marketization of upcycling practices is a theme on which the interviewees elaborate, configuring the decision to pursue restoration work primarilyin ethical and moral terms:

I love to modify clothes that are clearly not wearable as they are [. . .] We could call it upcycling, but I personally prefer to call it recycling in a very simple way. (Marcus)

By inserting his work into the area of recycling, the interviewee affirms the centrality of materiality and of anti-waste values, at the same time constructing a distance between his daily activities and the contemporary hype that surrounds upcycling practices in the so-called sustainable fashion industry. In a context in which ideals of sustainability and upcycling are often appropriated and commercialized by major industrial and commercial ventures, small artisans are situating their work and values amid the textile sector’s contradictions. The decision to manipulate old items has also been connected to the need to reduce overconsumption, to DIY cultures and to ideas of self-provisioning, as in the case of Esme who works with jewellery:

By using only existing materials. I transform them as little as possible, let’s say. Basically, I try to consume as little as possible, whether it’s energy, materials. I don’t buy new materials, even for tools. I buy only what I need, little by little, and then I do everything myself. (Esme)

Positioning her activity in oppositional terms to consumeristic trends, the research participant elaborates on a sustainable-oriented ethics of both production and consumption in which individual choices pertaining to the labour process acquire a social and political meaning. In this context, Samantha reflects on ecological matters and artisanship in contemporary times:

I realize every day that the most sustainable way would be to stand still and stop doing. And so, fundamentally, I am confronted with this: inactivity would be the only possible response to this historical moment we are living in. [. . .] My concept of craftsmanship is not about the ‘homo faber’ constantly producing because we are filled with objects. Now, there is a need for artisans who are capable of using their know-how for something else. (Samantha)

On the one hand, Samantha’s reflection aligns with post-work ideas regarding the nexus between work, productivity and environmental degradation. On the other hand, while pointing to the need to reduce both production and consumption, she elaborates on a new, ecological role for artisans and creators as experimenting and opening new avenues, able to move craft production away far from capitalist-oriented accumulation and environmental damage. Criticizing the idea of homo faber in which constant production and personal emancipation are linked, the excerpt proposes a shift towards a new narrative of craftmanship that moves away from overproduction and resource consumption. A similar idea is proposed by Sara who upcycles old items she collects in flea markets:

I like what I do, when people see an item that was modified, they have a mental shift. This is very valuable for me, making things in another way is possible. When else do we have to start? (Sara)

For me it’s really personal, I really need to do something that has meaning [. . .] I create a path that didn’t exist before, and for me that’s the most beautiful opportunity, for my personal vision, for my personal fulfilment. (Valery)

In the case of Sara, the satisfaction comes not only from her ecological working practices but also from public reaction, therefore configuring sustainable work with the power of transforming, shaping and inspiring shared socio-cultural values. Valery’s words point at the role of personal fulfilment in working practices, where repair and upcycling are configured as both forms of self-expression and value-driven paths. Suggesting the need for action and the need to align personal values and working practices, the excerpts proposed reflect a sentiment of urgency collected through the ethnographic fieldwork with artisans, in which fighting the current ecological crisis has emerged as a way to challenge passivity and resignation and as a possibility to exert personal agency and emancipation. Similarly, the idea of moving artisanal skills into a new territory is configured as a source of empowerment and personal growth. However, the separation that research participants enacted at the discursive level between a traditional way of working, tied to overproduction, overconsumption and disrespect for materials and resources, and an ecological oriented ethos of work underlines how innovative practices are not only individual experimentations but also part of a collective effort to rethink artisanal work, personal realization and production processes.

Experimenting collaborative networks and economies

During the ethnographic fieldwork, the artisans encountered often distanced themselves and their practices from competitive and neoliberal conceptions of work and entrepreneurship. Rejecting profit maximization and aggressive marketing strategies has often been described as a point of distinction from contemporary discourses around (craft) work. Instead, social relationships, collaboration and care practices have been positioned at the core of the everyday work and described as a constitutive part of individuals’ values systems. The rejection of competitive notions of work is tied to the urgency of the ecological degradation in the words of Simone. In discussion with Alina, who works with leather items, shoemaking and repair, the contribution that old and experienced shoemakers have been giving to her daily working practice emerged:

Today, we do not have time anymore. It’s been 15 years that there has been talk about open source, sharing know-how, sharing intellectual property. I think that this is the key, we cannot compete, we have to collaborate [. . .] is not as the market wants us to believe it. (Simone)

The repair world is huge. Shoes are shoes and they are done more or less in the same way. It is not the case for repair work [. . .] it is very creative, firsthand experience is needed and I seek help a lot. There are two shoemakers here in the area, I ask them and I rely on their advice on how to do things. (Alina)

These comments show how the notion of success is positioned beyond an individualized vision and is instead inserted into a collaborative and networked environment in which knowledge sharing among artisans is central. The competition that characterizes neoliberal entrepreneurial ventures, which has been recognized as part of contemporary creative work (Scharff, 2016), appears to be absent from the case considered. Instead, caring relationships are created not only with materials but also with the social environment. In this sense, acts of reuse and recycling appear to move away from individualized understandings of work and rather to practically and affectively engage the community surrounding the artisans (Brandellero and Niutta, 2023). Erika works with upcycling, on-demand tailoring requests and reparations, and shares the atelier with three colleagues:

Once people in the area discover that you are interested in second-hand items, they spontaneously come and bring things that they do not need anymore. Especially the elderly, I received beautiful fabrics [. . .] once women had all kind of textile materials stored at home. (Erika)

Erika’s words show how community interactions contribute to fostering social dynamics beyond capitalist paradigms that are not limited to extending the lifecycle of materials but also relate to personal stories and intergenerational interactions. In her experience, older generations are contributing to the artisanal economy with a know-how concerning ‘good things well done’ and a culture of reuse and reparation that is often depicted in opposition to contemporary consumerism and a loss of traditional skills and expertise. A similar experience is shared by Sara:

When people see that you recover materials, they start bringing it to you. And it’s very nice because there isn’t much of a culture of exchange, especially since we are immersed in this idea that you must work, earn. (Sara)

During the ethnography, acts of collaboration emerged around repair and upcycling practices in opposition to neoliberal individualistic stances. As remarked by Sara, despite requiring more time and energy compared to throw-away culture, restorative practices appear to spontaneously engage people in cooperative actions and in participating in recycling practices. These kinds of exchanges are central to constructing local networks and social bonds among artisans, peers, clients and neighbouring communities. Several of the research participants have developed ways of engaging clients in the sourcing of materials:

If you want a jewel, I ask if you have broken items, then I will offer to buy them from you, and in exchange I will give you a discount on one of my pieces, or I will make you a piece of jewellery from your own jewellery, there you go. I also do bartering; it can be any form of exchange. (Elodie)

Repair and upcycling practices appear to be part of a field of experimentation that aims to go beyond the traditional consumer–producer relations constructed around monetary transaction. In the case of Elodie, her strategies might also contribute to making her craft more accessible to clients and to transforming the act of purchasing into a collaborative process. Contributing to developing personalized and relational exchange, artisans develop alternative models in which value is redefined beyond market dynamics and at the same time challenges extractivist culture in terms of production and disposability attitudes in consumption.

Discussion

The analysis presented highlights how artisans involved in restorative activities reject dominant logics of production to instead experiment with alternative connections in terms of working practices, materials and communities. Critically rethinking the production process, materials are ascribed agency and human attributes, in a process where human and non-human elements become entangled and have the potential to produce an affective resonance (Gherardi et al., 2018). Artisanal restorative work reconfigures socio-cultural relations with materials, moving away from an exploitative nexus and framing non-exploitative and caring relations between work and the environment. Questioning both the inherent unsustainability of work and its exploitative nature (Hoffmann and Paulsen, 2020), artisanal activities of repair and upcycling point to the undervalued but essential role of care and maintenance for socio-ecosystems.

The ethnographic data presented shows how restoration work is triggered by the desire to enact personal agency and emancipation in times of ecological decay; in this sense, individual choices pertaining to the labour process acquire political, ethical and social meaning, pointing at the role of working activities in fostering personal realization and social change. In this sense, the analysis shows how the homo faber (Sennett, 2008) is moved away from entrepreneurial and productivist approaches and entrusted with the role of experimenting, transforming and inspiring socio-material values and practices. Rejecting productivist-oriented models of work as well as contemporary discursive hype around upcycling and sustainability, research participants experiment with the possibility of reconfiguring work and production processes away from neoliberal and extractivist modes (Luckman, 2018; Hawkins and Price, 2018). At the same time, notions of success and satisfaction are positioned within a collaborative and networked environment, within a network of care that not only pertains to materials but also communities. Considering the emotional and affective relations that link humans and matter (Dant, 2010), caring for materials emerges from the analysis as a human and social attribute, not only as a characteristic of artisanal work. Previous studies have remarked the central role that collaborative practices and knowledge exchange have for the contemporary wave of crafts (Gauntlett, 2011), the results presented expand on the role of communities in artisanal and repair settings and advocate for further research in considering their role in strengthening processes of resilience and sustainability. Relying on intergenerational interaction and cooperative practices, artisans involved in repair and upcycling activities are inserted into a field of experimentation that avoids traditional consumer–producer relations and redefines value beyond monetized market dynamics. The results align with the considerations of those scholars who have looked at environmental practices as embodied interventions in which alternative relationships can be experimented with (Schlosberg and Coles, 2016) and with those studies that have regarded craft practices as a field in which non-capitalist relations can take shape (Rennstam and Paulsson, 2024; Vincent and Brandellero, 2023). Repair and upcycling activities can be regarded as ‘spaces of hope’ where social relations alternative to capitalist modes are present but often poorly visible in capitalist societies (Williams, 2002). Restorative, bottom-up practices of upcycling and repair construct diverse forms of community interaction and material relations, aligning with the notion of experimentalism and promoting adaptive responses to the ecological crisis (Meyer, 2023).

Conclusion

The article considers artisans’ narratives and practices of repair and upcycling work to shed light on how alternative relations with communities and ecosystems are experimented with. Looking at artisanal practices allows the study to gain a privileged perspective to expand current research on the sustainability, meaning and materiality of work. In a context shaped by ecological degradation and work intensification, the research highlights the ways in which everyday experiences of work can be a space where socio-material interactions are transformed. Restorative practices emerge as a possibility to reproduce positive connotations of work, intended as an emancipatory practice that retains political, ethical and social meaning, while proposing a caring, affective and non-exploitative relation with the biophysical world.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge Prof. Amanda Brandellero and Olga Vincent for their support with this research.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: NWO Dutch Research Council [VI.VIDI.195.160].

ORCID iD

Emanuela Naclerio

Author biography

Emanuela Naclerio holds a PhD in Sociology and is currently visiting researcher at the Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and lecturer at the Politecnico delle Arti di Bergamo. Her teaching and research interests revolve around arts, culture and contemporary societal transformation such as environmental degradation, individualization and aestheticization. Her work has been published in journals such as Sociology and International Sociology.

References

Alacovska

(2020) From passion to compassion: A caring inquiry into creative work as socially engaged art. Sociology 54(4): 727–744.

Alacovska

(2022) The wageless life of creative workers: Alternative economic practices, commoning and consumption work in cultural labour. Sociology 56(4): 673–692.

Barca

Leonardi

(2018) Working-class ecology and union politics: A conceptual topology. Globalizations 15(4): 487–503.

Barnes

(2015) Beyond the dyad: Exploring the multidimensionality of care. In: Barnes

Brannelly

Ward

, et al. (eds) Ethics of Care, 1st edn. Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp.31–44.

Bell

Vachhani

(2020) Relational encounters and vital materiality in the practice of craft work. Organization Studies 41(5): 681–701.

Bennett

(2010) Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Black

Miller

Leslie

(2019) Gender, precarity and hybrid forms of work identity in the virtual domestic arts and crafts industry in Canada and the US. Gender, Place & Culture 26: 272–292.

Bozkurt Cohen

ÖRL

(2019) Repair work as good work: Craft and love in classic car restoration training. Human Relations 72(6): 1105–1128.

Brandellero

Naclerio

(2026) Crafts in the city: Opportunities and challenges of DIY and DIT making practices for sustainable lifestyles in urban areas. In: Cohen

Bengtsson

Lambino

, et al. (eds) Handbook of Research on Sustainable Lifestyles. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

10.

Brandellero

Niutta

(2023) Making sustainability transitions in collaborative spaces of making: Exploring opportunities and limitations in Turin. Cities 136: 104233.

11.

Braverman

(1998) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: NYU Press.

12.

Callén Moreu

López Gómez

(2019) Intimate with your junk! A waste management experiment for a material world. The Sociological Review 67(2): 318–339.

13.

Carr

(2017) Maintenance and repair beyond the perimeter of the plant: Linking industrial labour and the home. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 42(4): 642–654.

14.

Carr

Gibson

(2016) Geographies of making: Rethinking materials and skills for volatile futures. Progress in Human Geography 40(3): 297–315.

15.

Centemeri

(2021) La cura come logica di relazione e pratica del valore concreto. Una prospettiva di politica ontologica. In: Fragnito

Tola

(eds) Ecologie Della Cura. Prospettive Transfemministe. Orthotes, pp.75–87. Available at: https://hal.science/hal-03585703

16.

Chamberlain

(2018) Undoing Work, Rethinking Community: A Critique of the Social Function of Work. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

17.

Charmaz

Belgrave

(2012) Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In: Gubrium

(ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.347–366.

18.

Collins

(2018) A sustainable future in the making? The maker movement, the maker-habitus and sustainability. In: Price

Hawkins

(eds) Geographies of Making, Craft and Creativity. London: Routledge, pp.174–194.

19.

Dant

(2010) The work of repair: Gesture, emotion and sensual knowledge. Sociological Research Online 15(3): 97–118.

20.

de la Bellacasa

(2012) ‘Nothing comes without its world’: Thinking with care. The Sociological Review 60(2): 197–216.

21.

Durrani

(2019) Through the threaded needle: A multi-sited ethnography on the sociomateriality of garment mending practices. PhD Thesis. Aalto University, Espoo.

22.

Ezzy

(1997) Subjectivity and the labour process: Conceptualising ‘good work’. Sociology 31(3): 427–444.

23.

Farrugia

(2022) Youth, Work and the Post-fordist Self. Cambridge: Policy Press.

24.

Federici

(2021) Caliban and the Witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. London: Penguin Books.

25.

Feltrin

(2022) Situating class in workplace and community environmentalism: Working-class environmentalism and deindustrialisation in Porto Marghera, Venice. The Sociological Review 70(6): 1141–1162.

26.

Ferraro

Reid

(2013) On sustainability and materiality. Homo faber, a new approach. Ecological Economics 96: 125–131.

27.

Finch

Groves

(2022) A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.

28.

Foster

(2017) The meaning of work in a sustainable society. Monthly Review 69(4): 1.

29.

Fraser

(1994) After the family wage: Gender equity and the welfare state. Political Theory 22(4): 591–618.

30.

Gandini

Gerosa

(2024) What is ‘neo-craft’ work, and why it matters. Organization Studies 46: 577–595.

31.

Gauntlett

(2011) Making Is Connecting: The Social Meaning of Creativity, from Diy and Knitting to Youtube and Web 2.0. Cambridge: Polity Press.

32.

Gerold

Hoffmann

Aigner

(2023) Towards a critical understanding of work in ecological economics: A postwork perspective. Ecological Economics 212: 107935.

33.

Gherardi

Murgia

Bellè

, et al. (2018) Tracking the sociomaterial traces of affect at the crossroads of affect and practice theories. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 14(3): 295–316.

34.

Gomez-Baggethun

(2022) Rethinking work for a just and sustainable future. Ecological Economics 200: 107506.

35.

Gorz

(1999) Reclaiming Work: Beyond the Wage-based Society, Eerste editie. Cambridge: Polity Press.

36.

Graham

Thrift

(2007) Out of order: Understanding repair and maintenance. Theory, Culture & Society 24(3): 1–25.

37.

Graziano

Trogal

(2019) Repair Matters: Introduction. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization 19(2): 203–227.

38.

Graziano

Trogal

(2022) Labour power in the repair shop. Capitalism Nature Socialism 34: 1–19.

39.

Hawkins

Price

(Eds) (2018) Geographies of Making, Craft and Creativity. London: Routledge.

40.

Hochschild

Machung

(2012) The Second Shift: Working Families and the Revolution at Home. London: Penguin Press.

41.

Hochschild

(1979) Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology 85(3): 551–575.

42.

Hoffmann

Paulsen

(2020) Resolving the ‘jobs-environment-dilemma’? The case for critiques of work in sustainability research. Environmental Sociology 6(4): 343–354.

43.

Kucher

(2024) Designing engagements with mending. An exploration of amateur clothing repair practices in Western and post-Soviet contexts. PhD Thesis. Design School Kolding, Kolding.

44.

Laitala

Klepp

Haugrønning

, et al. (2021) Increasing repair of household appliances, mobile phones and clothing: Experiences from consumers and the repair industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 282: 125349.

45.

Luckman

(2018) Craft entrepreneurialism and sustainable scale: Resistance to and disavowal of the creative industries as champions of capitalist growth. Cultural Trends 27(5): 313–326.

46.

Luckman

Andrew

(2018) Online selling and the growth of home-based craft micro-enterprise: The ‘new normal’ of women’s self-(under) employment. In: Taylor

Luckman

(eds) The New Normal of Working Lives. Cham: Springer, pp.19–39.

47.

Luckman

Thomas

(2024) Craft Communities. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

48.

McRobbie

(2018) Be Creative: Making a Living in the New Culture Industries. London: John Wiley & Sons.

49.

Madon

(2022) Free repair against the consumer society: How repair cafés socialize people to a new relationship to objects. Journal of Consumer Culture 22(2): 534–550.

50.

Meißner

(2021) Repair is care? – Dimensions of care within collaborative practices in repair cafes. Journal of Cleaner Production 299: 126913.

51.

Meyer

(2023) Experimentalism and its alternatives: Toward viable strategies for transformative change and sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 19(1): 2166217.

52.

Ocejo

(2017) Masters of craft: Old jobs in the new urban economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

53.

Pellizzoni

(2022) Post-work and ecology. In: Pellizzoni

Leonardi

Asara

(eds) Handbook of Critical Environmental Politics. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.577–592. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781839100673/book-part-9781839100673-52.xml

54.

Rennstam

Paulsson

(2024) Craft-orientation as a mode of organizing for postgrowth society. Organization 32: 695–712.

55.

Salleh

(2017) Ecofeminism. In: Spash

(ed.) Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics. London: Routledge, pp.48–56.

56.

Scharff

(2016) The psychic life of neoliberalism: Mapping the contours of entrepreneurial subjectivity. Theory, Culture & Society 33(6): 107–122.

57.

Schlosberg

Coles

(2016) The new environmentalism of everyday life: Sustainability, material flows and movements. Contemporary Political Theory 15(2): 160–181.

58.

Schmidt

(2019) In the making: Open Creative Labs as an emerging topic in economic geography? Geography Compass 13(9): e12463.

59.

Sennett

(2008) The Craftsman. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

60.

Strangleman

(2007) The nostalgia for permanence at work? The end of work and its commentators. The Sociological Review 55(1): 81–103.

61.

Tacchetti

Quiceno Toro

Papadopoulos

, et al. (2022) Crafting ecologies of existence: More than human community making in Colombian textile craftivism. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 5(3): 1383–1404.

62.

Taylor

Luckman

(eds) (2018) The New Normal of Working Lives. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

63.

Thurnell-Read

(2014) Craft, tangibility and affect at work in the microbrewery. Emotion, Space and Society 13: 46–54.

64.

Tronto

Fisher

(1990) Toward a feminist theory of caring. In: Abel

Nelson

(eds) Circles of Care. New York: SUNY Press, pp.36–54.

65.

Vincent

(2023) An economy in the making: Negotiating capitalist and beyond-capitalist ontologies and relations in makerspaces. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 55(1): 3–21.

66.

Vincent

Brandellero

(2023) Transforming work: A critical literature review on degrowth, post-growth, postcapitalism and craft labor. Journal of Cleaner Production 430: 139640.

67.

Weeks

(2011) The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries. Durham, ND: Duke University Press.

68.

Wetherell

Taylor

Yates

(2001) Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

69.

Williams

(2002) A critical evaluation of the commodification thesis. The Sociological Review 50(4): 525–542.

70.

Young

(1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference, REV-revised. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

71.

Zapata Campos

Zapata

Ordoñez

(2020) Urban commoning practices in the repair movement: Frontstaging the backstage. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 52(6): 1150–1170.