WORK SOCIALIZING POLITICAL VALUES

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.