Sociology

Sociology
Does the way we work define who we are?

does the way we work define who we are?’, might best be approached by thinking about it as asking ‘in what ways does it define who we are?’. As noted in the lecture, the starting point for social science treatments of work is the idea that work does not stand-alone but is social, cultural and political as well as economic. ((Marx, Durkheim and Weber)) all point to different ways in which work defines us, but, when we get to specifics, you might want to ask, what kind of society, what kind of individuals, what kind of politics, what kinds of consumption, what kinds of family structure, etc., does industrial work produce/create? Think of the workers on the General Motors production line, their lives and their society. What kinds of society, etc., does post-industrial work create? Think about the under-employed people whose stories we hear about in Getting By. Bear in mind, there is a good case to suggest that forms of work also define what it’s like not to work, and that in different societies with different patterns of work, not working is different too – the point Michael Piore makes incredibly eloquently.
Note:
Change over time is, of course, something I hope those of you who have chosen this essay would focus on. The real question, however, is, how can we make sense of the changes we see in patterns of work and in the lives of individuals over time? The short answer, as discussed in a previous email, is we need to see work as linked into wider social, political, economic and cultural relationships and arrangements, including the seemingly personal, like family life. Industrial/fordist work is connected with particular kinds of family life, social relations, politics, economics and cultural practices, post-industrial/post-fordist work with a different kind (hunter-gatherer life with a different kind still). The important thing is to draw out the links with reference to specific differences.