SOC455:

Check syllabus for assigned reading related to the evolution of work before proceeding.

Changes in Work

Why does Monday have such a bad reputation? Why are there songs that belt out "Everybody's working for the weekend," or that scream "I don't want to work ..."? If we didn't know better, we'd think work was a bad thing, right? Was it always that way? Did people in ancient societies write songs about disliking their work? I can't say for certain, but probably not.

From what you read, you should be getting a picture of how work has evolved over time. In hunting and gathering societies, there was not a separate designation of life-activity called "work." People just did what they did to exist from day to day. What we think of today as "leisure" was interspersed with activities that ensured one's survival, like finding food or shelter.

Over time, the notion of "work" as something distinct evolved. While the text goes into the details for each era (i.e., hunting and gathering societies, agricultural societies, imperial societies, feudal society, industrial revolution, monopoly capitalism, postindustrial society), I'd like you to think broadly in terms of these changes over time. How might we characterize them? What are the important analytical points in understanding this evolution?

First, we could look at the notion of control and who has control over the work. Certainly, in hunting and gathering societies, individuals had control over their "work." The putting out system demonstrates a different kind of control, which was concentrated in the hands of merchants. The enclosure acts forced peasants off the land and into factories for fear of punishment for vagabondage. Industrialization brought even tighter control with management concentrating workers under one roof and subjecting them to strict time discipline. The trajectory of control over time certainly is not in favor of workers. Societies changed from individual control over life activity to organizational control over a substantial portion of one's life activity.

Second, we could look at how income is derived. Prior to having a money economy, people did not have incomes. They produced what they needed and as surplus developed, it could be sold or exchanged for the work of artisans. Serfs had to "pay" their feudal landlords a significant portion of what they produced. Later, merchants carried the costs of the raw materials while craftsmen were paid a piece rate (i.e., a rate per item produced). The factory system introduced a system of wages by which workers were paid for their time and expected to perform the tasks the managers set out for them. Looking back, we see a shift from producing things for oneself or that one could sell for income to producing things for another — for wages.

The Industrial Revolution brought sweeping social changes with it. Individuals' ways of living were changing. Rather than working when needed or choosing individual effort, workers sold their time, their labor, to factory owners for a set amount of money. They then entered into a kind of contract in which they were to do what was asked by the factory owner until their workday was finished. Working for wages might not seem like such a big deal now; however, at the time it was a dramatic change in the way of life. So drastic was the change that some people (Karl Marx was the most notable among them) referred to this system as one of "wage slavery." Slavery?! The factory system was so abhorrent that the only comparison to be made was to slavery. That should tell you something about the magnitude of the changes we are talking about.

Another significant change from the industrial revolution is the distinct separation of people's lives into working and non-working or leisure time. "Separate spheres" evolved — that is, the idea that economic activity took place in one sphere while leisure took place in another. These spheres were seen as not only separate, but distinct. Thus, "work" came to mean "employment." What is the difference between work and employment? We could say that work is activity that creates goods and/or services or provides for the distribution of those goods or services. Work can be done for pay, support, or coercion. This definition of work is purposely broad enough to include housework, volunteer work, slavery, and other non-waged work. Housework, for example, is work (that's why it's called houseWORK and not housePLAY) that is done in the home by someone for others (family) in turn for economic support of other household members. Employment, on the other hand, is work done for wages (wages can be per hour or by salary)

Over time, the separate spheres ideology took hold and only employment, done outside the home, was considered "work." Those who were not employed, but may have been working very hard, were considered economically idle and thus, not working. The Industrial Revolution and the separate spheres ideology helped devalue work done in the home. We know that this work was largely done by women for their families. Sadly, that is why today we may still hear someone say, "I'm just a housewife," when asked what she does for a living.

Finally, the third analytical dimension is the division of labor. Over time, societies have shifted from virtually no division of labor (i.e., everyone does most of the tasks necessary for their own survival) to a highly complex division of labor like we have today. In the next chapter of your text, you will come across the standard occupational classification, which lists over 400 broad occupations! Within occupations, which are groupings of jobs, are many, many related jobs. The complexity of our occupational system today is a far cry from what people experienced in hunting and gathering societies.

The Meaning of Work

What is the meaning of work? I might as well ask what is the meaning of life. There are many different perspectives on this question. What do you think? Is work basically a necessary economic activity — people must work in order to live? Or, is work a uniquely human activity through which we express our creativity — people living to work? This question whether we work to live or live to work has been pondered by many social theorists over the past two centuries or so.

Karl Marx held that humans were differentiated from animals because of their unique human nature, a creative urge they possess. Individuals were meant to live to work. Work was not to be something forced upon them out of necessity. They were not to simply work in order to survive. However, Marx tracked the social changes he observed as the factory system took hold in England and concluded that although people should live to work, the current system (capitalism) perverted human nature and caused humans to work to live. The division of labor in society and in the factory caused workers to become alienated from their work, from each other, and even from nature. Under capitalism, people were working to make factory owners wealthy. While they were paid a wage, they did not own what they produced nor did they share in the wealth they created through their labor. Marx called this "exploitation." Other social theorists have simply called it "profit." Okay, potato (po-tay-tow) or potato (po-tah-tow); one person's exploitation is another's profit. Nevertheless, Marx was describing the very changes you just read about in Hodson and Sullivan.

Adam Smith, on the other hand, felt that human beings were economically oriented. People worked in order to live. The division of labor would increase a society's productive power such that many more goods could be produced. Rather than one worker producing 10 widgets in a day, if the labor was divided such that people specialized in the different parts of making that widget, perhaps thousands of widgets could be produced in that same day. The division of labor would bring greater wealth to a society and, thus, to the individuals working in that society. Rather than making and selling 10 widgets in a day, one worker could participate in helping to make 2000 widgets. Greater compensation would follow. Workers would not be alienated, rather they would be satisfied at their greater material wealth. They worked to live.

Bureaucracy

Another sweeping social change that evoked comment from intellectuals was the entrenchment of bureaucracy. We all know the word, but how do we define it sociologically? Briefly, a bureaucracy is an organization or social structure with the following elements:

• standardized rules and procedures;
• written records;
• hierarchy;
• a specialized division of labor; and
• formal duties.

Most of us spend a great deal of our waking hours in contact with bureaucracies. Universities and many of the organizations in which we work are considered bureaucracies. Unless your work organization is very small, chances are you work in a bureaucracy. Our local, state, and federal governments operate as bureaucracies as well. It was not always the case that bureaucracy was a way of life. In fact, the development of bureaucracy was another one of those social changes (like waged employment) that made for comment by social theorists. The most famous of these commentators on bureaucracy was Max Weber. In the nineteenth century, when Weber described bureaucracy, he did so with praise. He extolled speed and efficiency as bureaucracy's special virtues. Nevertheless, there is a side to Weber's work that demonstrates his fear of bureaucracy. He said it would become an "iron cage" from which we could not escape, and once entrenched, bureaucracy could not be eliminated. It would effectively crush all alternate forms of organization because of its great power.

Right now you may be scratching your head wondering just which bureaucracies Weber was talking about. Keep in mind that he was writing about historical changes in work organization. Prior to any significant diffusion of bureaucracy, organizations were small and run by their owners, often in a capricious and non-rational manner. You'd be surprised, but having written records was considered quite an innovation! Rather than having individuals try to be competent at all tasks, bureaucracy divides up the labor such that individuals can become experts in their roles within the bureaucracy. Furthermore, everyone follows a set of rules so that the organization will run smoothly and predictably. If Joe or Mary or Dogbert were absent on any given day, the organization would not fall apart. Duties are clearly defined and knowledge is kept on record. If any individual should leave the organization, even the one at the top of the hierarchy, the organization would still continue to function. Although bureaucracy might not be perfect, compared to what came before, this new organizational form was indeed fast and efficient.

So why does the word "bureaucracy" seem to have a negative connotation? When Penn State makes an error on your registration or you cannot get the form you need, why is it that you exclaim, "What a bureaucracy!"? When people cannot get an accurate answer from the IRS, why do they utter "bureaucracy" under their breath? Bureaucracy, it seems, has become a four letter word (if it actually were a four letter word, it would be easier to spell!). In fact, the connotation of the word indicates a slow-moving, inefficient, and often bumbling organization. Can this be the same phenomenon described by Weber? Of course it is, and much of the sociology of work has devoted itself to studying the ills and dysfunctions of bureaucracy. The following are just a few avenues of research devoted to understanding bureaucracy today:

• looking at negative effects of bureaucracy on personality;
• examining the relationship between the informal organization and the formal one (the bureaucratic structure);
• determining which types of tasks are suited to a bureaucratic environment;
• understanding the effects of rapid environmental change on bureaucracies' ability to function; and
• revealing where lack of bureaucratization rather than too much bureaucracy has caused a breakdown in organizational operations.

There are many more strains of sociological research on bureaucracy, but this list should give you some idea of the kinds of questions that have been asked. Fortunately, sociologists recognize the disjuncture between the theoretical type outlined by Weber and the everyday bureaucracy we deal with in the world of work. Many have set out to understand precisely this disjuncture.

Postindustrial Society

The most recent sweeping social change to elicit comment from social theorists is a shift from industrial society (or mass-production systems) to something called "postindustrial society." Even before you read the chapter in your textbook, you probably heard the term. Postindustrial society refers to the contemporary Western societies in which manufacturing operations have decreased while the service and financial sectors have expanded. Robert Reich (who was the Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration) expands on this idea by describing three broad categories of work: routine production services, in-person services, and symbolic-analytic services. In the United States, the proportion of jobs that are routine production is decreasing while the other two categories are increasing in importance. Of course, the jobs in this last category appear to be more interesting, better remunerated, and require more educational credentials to obtain. . In the book The Work of Nations, Robert Reich describes the global division of labor as one in which developing nations increasingly take on the routine production work of the world and workers in the most developed nations (i.e., industrialized capitalist nations like the United States) will specialize in symbolic-analytic jobs. In-person service jobs cannot be shipped overseas, but they do not represent "good jobs" according to Reich. Of the "three jobs of the future," the good jobs are symbolic-analyst jobs.

It is true that many of the routine manufacturing jobs are being shipped to developing nations, especially if they are "labor-intensive" industries, that is, industries in which a significant portion of the cost of the final product is due to labor costs. Companies in capital-intensive industries (those that require extensive investment in high cost equipment, i.e., capital), have a more difficult time relocating across the globe. They do move; however, it is with less frequency and less ease than companies that manufacture garments or semiconductors.

There has been much debate about recent shifts in the global division of labor given some of the ills observed in developing nations. Here I will provide a brief overview of the polar ends of the debate regarding the significance and character of changes in work around the world. I will label the first camp "modernization theory." Modernization theory holds that developing nations (also called Third World or South nations) are merely going through growing pains just as the United States did during its period of industrialization. The problems experienced by these nations, such as poverty, occupational health issues, or a lack of labor rights, are seen as temporary social problems. These countries are on an evolutionary path that imitates the history of industrialized nations. Just as U.S. industry maintained horrible working conditions for significant portions of the workforce in the past, today's developing nations will eventually evolve past this stage into a more "modern" stage of development. Social problems are but temporary problems that will resolve themselves over time.

In contrast is exploitation theory which holds that the conditions observed in developing nations are not, in fact, temporary. Instead, these conditions are a permanent result of unequal relations among nations. More powerful "first world" or industrialized nations are said to be exploiting "Third world" or developing nations to their own benefit. Developing nations are predicted not to emerge from their current troubles because they do not have the power to do so. As long as industrialized nations can benefit from maintaining the status quo, developing nations will not "evolve" as predicted by modernization theory.

Both of these descriptions are necessarily oversimplifications of these perspectives. However, this overview gives you an idea of the main contrasts of the two perspectives. Empirical reality seems more complicated still. Some nations' histories seem to lend support to modernization theory while other nations' situations clearly lend credence to exploitation theory. If you think about the term "postindustrial society," you can see that it was coined from a Western, industrialized perspective. POST-industrial implies that the society has moved beyond industrialization. In a global context, only the wealthiest nations will have transcended an industrialized society to reach the heralded postindustrial society. In contrast, Third World nations are in the midst of industrialization and are not expected to transcend that state any time soon. We will expand on these ideas and return to the theme of globalization throughout the course.

Summary

Just as Karl Marx decried the shift to "wage slavery" and Weber commemorated the advent of bureaucracy, today's observers are working hard to understand the changes in the global economy as the next set of major social changes affecting workers around the world. What other changes might lie ahead for workers in our global economy? How do you see the future affecting your work life?

Activities

To determine when your assignments are due, refer to your Course Schedule.

1. Reading Questions: Each week, you should answer the questions for this week's readings. You can access the questions from the Lesson 2 - Reading Questions.
    
2. Analytical Paper: For your Lesson 2 analytical paper, please complete and submit either Option I or Option II below. Your submission should be 2 - 3 pages in length.
   
   Option I:  Meaning and Experience of Work
   
   You will need to draw from your past or present work experience to write this paper.  If you have never worked then you can interview a family member to gain information that will allow you to answer the following questions.

• What is the job you are using as your reference?  (i.e. human resource manager, child care provider)
• Do/did you like this job? Why? Why did you take this job?
• Is there another job you would rather be doing? What is that job and why?
• Are you satisfied or fulfilled with this job? Why?
• Are you alienated? Why?
• Do you feel exploited? Explain.
• How would you characterize the meaning of work for you?  Would you say it is closer to Marx’s or Smith’s view? Why?
• Drawing on Reich’s work describe how you see the global economy and the future of work affecting your work life.

Option II: International Work Hours Data Interpretation

The International Labour Organization reports Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM). To access the data, go to: http://kilm.ilo.org/KILMnetBeta/default2.asp

In the dropdown menu, select Table 6a – distribution of employed population by hours worked per week (by sex, age group and status). Select all countries ; 2005 (the most current year for which data are available); MF; and select all age groups. Click “View.”

Look at the column showing the share of persons working 40 or more hours and notice the countries where less than fifty percent of workers work 40 or more hours.  Then find the countries where more than seventy-five percent of workers work forty or more hours.

• Compare countries within the categories, and contrast them across categories.
• In which category is the U.S.?  Does it seem to fit with the countries in the category it is in?  Explain.
• Re-read the material on work and leisure (pp. 31-32) in the text.  Due to shorter work weeks and longer vacations, Americans could stop working in October and take the rest of the year off and we would then be working similar hours as our counterparts in western Europe.  What factors contribute to a culture of overwork?
• Consider why a culture of overwork exists to a greater degree in the U.S. than in other wealthy nations.

Submit your comments to the Lesson 2 - Dropbox.