Work Is A Socially Defined Construct
Work has no objective definition. “Work” is constantly evolving and is even inconsistently defined in our modern era. What I deem work you may, with validity, not. This fact is inarguable. Work is a socially defined word. As Applebaum records in The Concept of Work, the definition of work varies vastly given temporal and spatial considerations. Therefore, in this essay, I argue “work” is a socially defined concept. I’ll focus primarily on the modern Western world, i. e. market-driven democratic societies (ciiiiite), when defining the term because this era is most relatable to me. I’ll use anthropological proof and analyze large social drivers, such as governments, to argue my point. Secondly, I categorize certain activities, like domestic labor, as work or not work. In sum, the paper explains work as a social, subjective, changing word and gives a snippet of what I define as work in today’s Western world.
The paper looks at three social levers defining work in today’s market-driven Western world: the state and large organizations, the objective care, and the paradox of work. Each social lever contributes a piece to the puzzling word work. Governments and formal organizations define work almost synonymously with employment. Employment is a bedrock definition of work, a starting place. If a person is employed in that moment, they are absolutely working. However, that definition is too narrow and merely a starting place. Employment adds subtle insights even while being narrow. For example, if a person is in their office but hasn’t started “productive work” activity, I argue they are still working. It’s a spatial claim, meaning the person wouldn’t be in an office if not employed. Further, organizations change the realm of employment.
Employment and work alters as the environment of society moves along. Take skyping into a meeting from home for example. Formerly, the employee showed up in an office but now they skype in from home. The employee and employer blurred the spatial boundary of work due to new environmental (technological) updates. If employment is the starting block of work, Goldthorpe and Lockwood’s “orientation to work” builds upon that starting block. The two men describe three orientations of people towards their formal work. Of most interest is the solidaristic workers. This group finds moral obligations and self-fulfillment in work.
The line between work and non-work is nearly indistinguishable for this group. These people, I imagine, are entrepreneurs, passionate social activists, and couples with a common life mission in the material world. Goldthorpe and Lockwood’s solidaristic workers are important because they come close to defining works most liberal, outer bound. As The Sociology of Work elegantly states, “Work is more than employment but less than all forms of social activity; indeed employment is a form of work but not all work is employment. ” Ulrich Beck’s The Brave New World of Work was this week’s most provocative piece; in the book he defines work as a paradox: “on the one hand, work is the centre of society around which everyone and everything revolves and takes their bearing; on the other hand, everything is done to eliminate as much work as possible. ” This is absolutely brilliant and absurd. I’ve intuitively picked up on this paradox, living in America where work is a societal cornerstone. Building off Beck’s point, I find it necessary to partially define work as a rat’s rate, a conundrum, a societal craziness in the modern Western world. Work will change once society wakes up to this issue, the issue of advancing for advancements sake. This fact reinforces my main point: work is a dynamic social construct. Now, I’ll make concrete distinctions between work and non-work activities.
I know not all societies did or do distinguish between work and non-work, but I do. To be more exact, I deemed an activity work if it is at least one of the following: (1) employment as defined by government, (2) a, loosely defined, necessity to live, or (3) personally enriching and reached my arbitrary standard of rigor. I want to explain my reasoning on two activities, only two due to space limits, that’re potentially controversial. Those are domestic chores and actively looking for work while unemployed. Domestic chores are certainly work. Domestic tasks are needed for a quality lifestyle, and the chores are cumbersome. Two other facts remain: certain employed workers do domestic chores as their job and domestic chores often require one house member to cut back on their formal employment.
It’s clear the word work should cover domestic chores. Unemployment while looking for work is also work. A job necessary to live, in the Western market society, and seeking employment is a rigorous task, at least initially. Recall movies when someone becomes unemployed. Their first action is to grab newspapers and a pen and hit the phones. It’s unfair, as government would, to say the person isn’t working only because they don’t produce to the economy and aren’t taxable. An unemployed job seeker is just barely on the wrong side of the “workforce. ” I think job seeking is within the scope of work.
