Life in the Precariat

Precarity refers to a state of uncertain existence. It is often used to describe the precariat, a socio-economic group defined by unpredictability in job security. Precarity also refers to a state of psychological or material uncertainty. 

The contextual meanings of precarity have multidisciplinary shades. Philosopher Karl Marx theorised precarity among the proletariat. Economist Guy Standing defines the precariat as people from disparate socio-economic backgrounds emerging to form a distinct social class, defined by contingent and flexible labour, fuelling the rise of populism. Philosopher Judith Butler posits that human life is inherently precarious because it can be “expunged at will or by accident.” However, marginalised lives are more precarious than others since social institutions and norms decide the extent of precarity. In the last decade, the term has found widespread recognition in Europe, the UK in particular, while in India precarity manifests as ‘gig work’.

Informality and precarity describe the adverse impacts on employment resulting from global market liberalisation. Informality connotes unprotected employment, characterised by lack of security and social provisions. Neoliberal capitalism has created a pervasiveness of precarious work in informal arenas such as sweatshops, industry sites and unpaid homework or care economy. Regimes based on flexible labour creates employment which stands on a flimsy base of casualised workforce and weakening organised labour. India’s code on social security recognises gig workers but leaves much to be desired in terms of discretionary welfare benefits, contingent on rigid engagement criteria, and insufficient to shield women workers from algorithmic bias and harassment. The flexibility of the platform economy hides the cost of uncertainty as payment systems exacerbate insecurity and worker health worsens compounded by deprivations. Measures such as fair social security, algorithmic transparency and a unified national registration system could bridge the divide between ideals and outcomes. Should platforms with employer-like control be held accountable to employer-like obligations? Real progress stands behind confronting this question. 

In the formal sector, a number of reasons have made employment precarious. Job insecurity drives ‘hidden attrition’ eroding productivity and workplace morale. Discontent with job descriptions and KPIs lead to disengaged work coexisting with job hunts while being employed. Hybrid work models cause emotional distancing due to lack of social capital. Generational divide in technology and AI adoption causes older employees to lag behind. Employment elasticity among formal salaried groups remains low. Chronic stress and burnout reduce efficiency. Employees are left wondering if they are meant to sell hours in exchange for monthly paychecks leading to the question of whether work needs to be redefined in order to reclaim autonomy. A number of psycho-social behaviours have come to characterise precarious workplace conditions. For instance, ‘quiet quitting’ refers to doing the bare minimum and ‘job hugging’ refers to retention despite dissatisfaction or instability. ‘Boreout syndrome’ is disengagement stemming from understimulating office environments and ‘Poly-employment’ means holding multiple formal or semi-formal jobs simultaneously for income security. These trends reflect a growing informalising of the formal sector led by gig integration and platform-isation amidst volatile prospects of current workplace promotions and alternate job switching.  

This brings me to academic precarity. It is characterised by increasingly-shorter and casual contracts, neoliberal bureaucratisation, burdensome metrics such as h-indexes and impact factors, and power inequalities heightened between academic nepotists and aspirants. Academic job scarcity breeds neurosis, eroding confidence and training among early-career scholars. Precarity manifests in affective dysregulation in academic ecosystems. It has intersectional dimensions - that of race, gender and class which affect knowledge production, relations, and care. Despite Indian universities claiming they believe in ‘castelessness’, 98 students have lost their lives between 2018 to 2023 due to caste discrimination on campuses. Caste discrimination, elitism and students suicides are inextricable linked. Predatory journal publication aggravates academic peril. The Transgender Amendment Bill 2026 threatens the freedom of gender self-expression, diminishing rights and freedoms of queer and trans students, thereby increasing precarity in academia. In international universities, precarity heightens suspicion toward scholars from minority groups and results in phenomena such as deprofessionalisation, and hostile networks. Advocating care ethics, transparency, and systemic reform, one needs to reframe precarity towards equity and justice in higher education. Tenure-track woes need distinction from broader precarity by embracing disciplinary learnings beyond academia and including diverse voices deterred by instability.

How does one fight precarity? The answer lies in hope and resilience. Everyday acts of kindness and mental fortitude in a vulnerable world melts glaciers of bias, prejudice and discrimination. In formal and informal workplaces, policy measures such as universal social security, stricter platform regulations and contract-to-permanent pathways strengthen collective empowerment.  In larger policy terms, enabling citizens by broad-consensus coalition building and fostering meaningful political discourse can be effective ways of regaining control in precarious times. Community network building, skill diversification, and activism grounded in radical empathy will pave the way for systemic change in institutional settings. 

P.S The title of this blog is an ode to my friend’s blog of the same name. I find his work inspirational.