How
do you see work? I'm sure it's more than just a place to hang out
from early morning to early evening. Nothing defines us more to
others than what we do for a living. At any social gathering, one of
the first questions asked is: what is it you do? Work doesn't just
allow us to put food on the table and a roof over our heads; it goes
a long way in determining how we think of ourselves and how we think
of others. Work also plays important roles in how we see power,
authority, responsibility, collaboration, politics, and related
social characteristics.
In
political science, there is a branch of the discipline that is
dedicated to explaining how people acquire their ideas regarding
politics and government. That branch is political socialization and
usually the scholars who delve into this area of interest focus on
families, communities, and schools. But there are other socializing
agents in society and they do affect how one sees his/her government
or politics. These can be the media, churches, and the world of
employment. There is a reciprocal relation when it comes to work.
Some of us are attracted to more authoritarian environments, while
others feel they must work at jobs that allow a great deal of
latitude. In both cases, initial preferences are further reinforced
and legitimized by the expectations of the workplace. I was a
teacher who was, on a day to day basis, physically constrained –
one school building I worked in didn't even have windows. My son, on
the other hand, has a job that has him traveling all over Tampa.
Now, were we attracted to our respective employment due to our
personalities, or did the jobs affect the persons we eventually
became? Probably the effect goes both ways.
George
Lakoff1
writes of two views concerning employment and both, I believe, relate
to how an individual sees both government and politics. He writes
about how we tend to form metaphors in our minds to make sense of the
world we live in and this includes how we make sense both of the
world of work and of the world of politics we encounter. In terms of
work, Lakoff identifies the Work Reward metaphor and the Work
Exchange metaphor. Each reflects different views of power,
authority, and legitimate accounting.
Before
getting into each metaphor, let me remind you of a recurring theme in
this blog; that is of the accounting we naturally engage in as we
interact with others. This accounting takes place when one person
does a good turn for another. When this happens, the giver of the
good turn accrues a credit from the receiver and the receiver takes
on a debit. The amount of each is affected by several factors –
for example, whether the good turn is solicited or unsolicited. A
solicited favor earns the receiver an even greater debit than
otherwise would be the case, but even when not solicited, a debit is
accrued. Think about it: your next door neighbor comes over with a
platter of food for you as a good gesture. You, in good spirit,
accept the platter. Even if you didn't enjoy the food, you will
probably go on about how good it was the next time you see the
neighbor. Beyond that, you will feel that you “owe” the neighbor
a good turn in the future. That's just the way it is.
When
you get a job, there might be some initial sense that the employer is
doing you a favor. If nothing else, he or she is ending the ordeal
of looking for work – a task so disagreeable that I always
unreasonably felt, along with moving, it should accrue a paycheck.
So after you land the job you begin to work. How do you see your
employer? That's what Lakoff addresses.
Lakoff
describes the Work as Reward view as one heavily ensconced in the
idea of a superior-inferior relation. You work and the employer
rewards you with pay. Simple. When so defined, the relation between
you and your employer is one noted by deference for the employer's
wisdom, authority, and ability to not only issue reward, but also
punishment for disobedience. This latter aspect can even include
being fired. The metaphor is supported by a vertical, hierarchical
view of management in the workplace. Under such an understanding,
one is encouraged to view politics as a top-down oriented activity.
There are those in power and those not so empowered. One's
responsibility is to get along, do one's part, and get paid – I
mean get rewarded.
On
the face of it, one is tempted to say, of course, one works and one
gets paid; what else is there? The Work as Exchange metaphor has an
important, albeit subtle difference from the Reward metaphor. In
that alternative view, the socialization it promotes can be
meaningful. First, work is seen as a value. That is, the worker
approaches his or her job not so much as accepting a good turn, but
as providing a good turn by offering his or her valuable skills. The
worker, in this metaphor, does not relinquish his/her labor, but
provides it so that an exchange can take place. The employer
possesses his/her money and that is what is exchanged for the valued
labor. Under what conditions? The conditions are negotiated before
the exchange takes place and are contracted under an agreement. The
contract can be formal and written – it usually is – or it can be
verbal. All such conditions, such as promotions, are viewed in this
light. Pay is not a reward; it is an element in an exchange. The
exchange is totally voluntary. There is no sense of obedience. If
the worker is dismissed, he or she is not so much punished; rather,
the employer has refrained from his or her voluntary participation in
a continued exchange. The worker, in like manner, can leave
employment not to punish the employer, but because the worker no
longer wants to voluntarily take part in the exchange. Instead of a
superior-inferior relation, the exchange view places the parties on a
more equal standing.
Now
you might say, bottom line, the results are the same whether one
holds a Reward or Exchange metaphor. But I think that if a place of
employment opts for language of Reward or, instead, a language of
Exchange, especially for young workers, the socializing effect can be
different. For a political, mental construct that promotes a
metaphor of shared and voluntary participation – as is the case
with liberated federalism – the metaphor of Work Exchange is more
conducive. It more readily lends itself to expecting horizontal
authority structures and to clear and spelled out working conditions.
While
politics in the workplace is usually not addressed in civics
classrooms, I think there is a place for it. Work can be introduced
as an institution that can help encourage active participation in the
political modes of the polity – both locally and nationally. Of
course, not all work sites can be the paramount of openness in regard
to workplace politics. The military readily comes to mind as a place
where hierarchical authority is essential. But all enlightened
leadership is an example of more open communication and
decision-making given the restraints that define the nature of the
work and of the responsibilities with which the workplace is charged.
Probably some of the factors that might allow for a more
exchange-oriented metaphor would include the level of creativity
called for in the work. But again, all job types need not hammer on
the employees' heads how “inferior” they are, but instead would
benefit by communicating the integrity and dignity that the employees
deserve. Such workplaces promote federalist values.
1Lakoff,
G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and
conservatives think. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
