The accelerating rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation is more than a technological shift — it is a civilizational paradigm shift without historical precedent. Much of today’s debate focuses on economics: which jobs will disappear, which new ones will emerge, and how productivity gains might be distributed. Yet the deeper story is sociological. AI does not merely change what we do for a living; it reimagines the very meaning of work, solidarity, and social identity. Obviously, work has always been more than survival; it has been the medium through which people find dignity and social belonging. To appreciate the disruptive power of AI, we must trace earlier transformations in the trajectory of production, distribution, and consumption.
In the pre-industrial era, labor was artisanal and local. The blacksmith, the weaver, the farmer — each embodied a craft identity rooted in kinship and community. Production was small-scale, consumption was limited, and distribution was local. Work here was inseparable from recognition. The Industrial revolution shattered this world. Factories and assembly lines reorganized time itself around the clock, transforming work into a role within a vast machine. Consumption expanded into mass consumerism, and distribution scaled through railroads and global trade. Karl Marx diagnosed the contradiction: while industrial capitalism promised prosperity, it delivered alienation. Yet industrial regimentation also generated solidarity; labor unions and collective bargaining became powerful counterweights, embedding citizenship in stable employment. The post-industrial turn destabilized this equilibrium. “Just-in-Time” production pioneered in Japan dispersed manufacturing into global supply chains. Stable careers gave way to flexible contracts, outsourcing, and the gig economy. What once anchored identity — steady industrial jobs — was replaced by precarious hustles. Solidarity fractured, replaced by individualized survival strategies.
At the same time, capitalism’s internal dynamics sharpened inequality. As Thomas Piketty shows in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the return on capital (r) tends to outpace wage growth (g), entrenching wealth and exposing workers to chronic insecurity. Joseph Schumpeter described capitalism’s “creative destruction” — its renewal through dismantling industries — but for many workers, destruction increasingly outweighed creation. In the age of AI, Piketty’s imbalance and Schumpeter’s destruction converge: automation surges returns to capital while stripping labor of stability, turning renewal into dispossession.
Artificial intelligence is not just another tool in this historical sequence; it represents a rupture. Whereas the steam engine or the assembly line displaced some skills while opening others, AI threatens to decouple productivity from employment altogether. Algorithms and machine learning allow capital to capture unprecedented returns with minimal human labor. Surplus accrues not to workers but to platform owners who control data, algorithms, and intellectual property.
Schumpeter’s cycle of destruction mutates under AI. Earlier disruptions closed industries while opening new ones. Now, destruction outpaces creation. Clerical work, service labor, and even creative professions — from translation to graphic design — are eroded, replaced not by stable careers but by microtasks, short-term gigs, and algorithmic piecework. Renewal dissolves into precarity. This trajectory also recalls Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, which warned that rationality, long celebrated as emancipatory, often produces domination. Fordism promised abundance but delivered regimentation; post-Fordism promised flexibility but created precarity. AI promises liberation from drudgery while embedding surveillance, monopolistic control, and fresh alienations.
AI’s most profound transformation lies in how it reshapes time and space. Fordism disciplined labor into shifts and schedules; post-Fordism blurred boundaries through flexible contracts and global dispersal. AI now intensifies both movements. Platforms allocate tasks in real time, stretching labor into leisure, family, and even sleep, so that every moment becomes potentially productive. Tasks are disaggregated across continents yet coordinated instantaneously by algorithms.
Fredric Jameson, in Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, observed that postmodernism privileges spatial logic — networks, simultaneity, dispersal — over historical temporality. AI fuses modernism’s temporal discipline with this spatial logic, producing work that is continuous, ubiquitous, and deterritorialized. The risk is a collapse of boundaries, where labor colonizes every domain of life. The urgent challenge is to reclaim those boundaries so that work enriches rather than dominates existence.
Dhaka Opinion Magazine is a global/international opinion magazine. It publishes for you all. The magazine publishes with the aim to help address concerns, improve conditions, solve problems and mitigate conflicts all over the world. Your support is important for the esteemed magazine. You can sponsor the magazine and/or donate to it…
The central question, then, is how to guide AI toward human ends. Left unchecked, it will deepen inequality and alienation. Yet with foresight, it could help redefine work itself, expanding recognition beyond productivity and profit. Three imperatives stand out. Firstly, institutional reform is vital. Security cannot depend on volatile markets or corporate discretion. Universal measures — such as basic income, shorter workweeks, and lifelong retraining — are essential to anchor dignity in a world where traditional jobs no longer suffice. Instead of compensating people after displacement, institutions must guarantee autonomy and recognition amid technological flux.
Secondly, cultural revaluation is needed. Modern capitalism privileges labor tied directly to profit, relegating caregiving, creativity, ecological stewardship, and knowledge-sharing to the margins. Yet these sustain society. A humane future would redistribute both recognition and resources, treating such practices as central rather than supplementary. Imagine economies where raising children, preserving ecosystems, or producing art are valued on par with manufacturing or finance.
Finally, solidarity renewal is crucial. Industrial workers forged power in factories; today’s algorithmic workplaces are dispersed, individualized, and often invisible. Gig drivers, data labelers, and platform creators rarely meet, yet their labor is collectively essential. New forms of association must transcend physical proximity, enabling fragmented workers to articulate shared interests. Without renewed solidarity, AI’s benefits will remain monopolized by corporations and elites.
Reimagination is not nostalgia for Fordist full employment, nor blind faith in technological salvation. It is a deliberate project of reconstituting life with dignity, autonomy, and purpose. The future of work must place creativity, care, education, and civic engagement at its core. If societies nurture these forms of labor, AI could become not a tool of alienation but a catalyst for a more humane and equitable order.
As Nick Bostrom forewarns in Superintelligence, humanity may have only one chance to guide AI before our fate is sealed. The urgency of reimagining work, therefore, lies precisely in this window of possibility: to shape AI before it shapes us irreversibly.
AI may not mark the end of work, but it marks the end of work as we have known it. The challenge is not simply to adapt but to shape technology intentionally — so that it strengthens dignity, autonomy, and recognition rather than eroding them. But this requires deliberate institutional design, cultural imagination, and renewed solidarity. Protections must be robust, education lifelong, and recognition extended beyond market productivity. Just as crucial is reclaiming work’s cultural value, so that caregiving, creativity, and civic participation count as labor central to flourishing.
AI need not be an engine of alienation. Guided by foresight, ethics, and justice, it can catalyze a reconstitution of work where life is not reduced to data points or algorithmic fragments but enriched by creativity, care, and collective agency. The future of work is no longer about survival; it is about reimagination — redefining labor as socially embedded, ethically grounded, and culturally enriched, with technology serving human flourishing rather than constraining it.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Magazine and its editorial team. Views published are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
