從異化到重構：零工勞動中的勞動價值與主體性再思

From Alienation to Reconstruction: Rethinking Labor Value and Subjectivity in Gig Labor

本文旨在探究當代零工勞動條件下，勞動者如何在結構性異化中重構勞動價值與主體性。數位平台與演算法治理的興起，以任務片段化、評價機制與不穩定的時間結構，系統性地侵蝕勞動作為自我理解與生命敘事基礎的可能，使得勞動者陷入時間不可積累、關係難以穩定、意義無從統整的三重敘事斷裂。本文試圖由此出發，探問在這樣的斷裂條件下，勞動者是否仍有可能重建一種可被承擔與延續的生命敘事。
本文的核心論點在於：敘事的連續性是勞動價值與主體性得以重構的關鍵條件，而此連續性正是勞動者在時間、關係與意義三個維度上的承擔判斷中逐步建立的。所謂「承擔判斷」，是指勞動者在具體勞動中，對時間的使用方式、關係的維繫品質與意義的判斷標準，承擔起不可讓渡的責任；在此承擔中，價值既非由市場或演算法單方面決定，也非任意的內在投射，而是從實踐的過程中湧現。勞動價值的重構與主體性的重構，因此並非兩個分離的課題，而是在勞動者承擔判斷的實踐中同時生成。透過匠心與編輯思維這兩條互補路徑，勞動者得以實現此一承擔：前者以深耕與長期技藝承諾為核心，後者以碎裂經驗的再組織與意義編織為核心，從而回應零工勞動所帶來的三重敘事斷裂。
本文進一步指出，承擔判斷的展開預設了特定的社會條件，零工勞動者的類型光譜決定了這些條件的可得程度，微觀的主體實踐並無法取代宏觀的制度改革；然而即便在條件最為惡劣之處，承擔判斷作為維持主體性的最低限度實踐，仍具有不可被取消的哲學意義。

Contemporary gig labor has given rise to a distinctive crisis of subjectivity. With the rise of digital platforms and algorithmic governance, task fragmentation, rating mechanisms, and unstable temporal structures have systematically eroded the possibility of labor serving as the foundation for self-understanding and life narrative, leaving workers caught in a triple rupture of narrative continuity: the inability to accumulate experience over time, to stabilize relationships, and to integrate meaning into a coherent life story. This article takes this condition of rupture as its point of departure, asking whether workers can still rebuild a form of life narrative that remains livable and sustainable.
The central argument is that narrative continuity is the key condition for reconstructing labor value and subjectivity, and that such continuity is built gradually through the practice of“taking responsibility for judgment”(承擔判斷) across three intertwined dimensions: time, relationships, and meaning. What this means is that workers assume an inalienable responsibility—in concrete labor practice—for how time is used, the quality of relational commitment, and the standards by which meaning is judged. In this act of taking responsibility, value is neither unilaterally determined by markets or algorithms, nor an arbitrary inner projection, but something that emerges from practice itself. The reconstruction of labor value and the reconstruction of subjectivity are therefore not two separate tasks, but are generated simultaneously in the practice of taking responsibility for judgment. Through the two complementary paths of craftsmanship and editorial thinking, workers are able to enact this responsibility: the former centers on sustained commitment to craft and long-term technical dedication, while the latter centers on the reorganization of fragmented experience and the weaving of meaning—together enabling a response to the triple rupture of narrative continuity that gig labor brings about.
A further argument concerns the conditions under which such responsibility becomes possible. The spectrum of gig worker types determines the availability of those conditions, which means that micro-level subjective practice cannot replace macro-level institutional reform. Yet even where conditions are most adverse, taking responsibility for judgment remains as a practice of last resort for sustaining subjectivity—one whose philosophical force cannot be entirely extinguished.