`I have no problems, if you know what I mean, but I can't say as I'm really content. There's no problems at work because I just do what the boss says...he's not a tyrant or anything; he wants me to do good work, and that's fine, no quarrel with that...I can't really figure it out, like I feel impatient sort of...See, I feel like I'm being held back, like I'm not on top of things...I don't know what you would call it, maybe sort of powerless...I'm not going to quit, life is all right... it's just this feeling at times of not being in control of things that...it makes me real intolerant and kind of edgy'

This is what Carl Dorian, a young electrician apprentice, said in response to a question about his experience of work. How are we to make sense of it? We know comparatively little about Carl. He is American, he lives near Boston, did well enough at college to learn his trade and is recently married. He likes his job which he does well, his boss is fair and yet he can't say that he is content.

Conventional Wisdom

One response, broadly informed by `positive science', would be to say that Carl is mal-adjusted. That is to say, he has not (yet) understood and accepted his position in society; and he has not yet fully taken responsibility for his situation. This problem could be attributed to Carl's (defective) personality - perhaps he is considered stubborn or unwilling to learn. In which case, perhaps he should be sent on a `development' course (e.g. Behaviour Modification or Transactional Analysis) designed to remedy such defects. Or the problem could be attributed to the managerial style of Carl's employer - perhaps s/he should attend a training course (e.g. Human Relations) in how to make Carl feel less `edgy'.

It is quite possible that such diagnoses and prescriptions are effective, at least in the short to medium term, in managing such problems. By attending a `development' course, Carl might well be persuaded to interpret his situation in a new light in which his `attitude' is the source of the problem rather than a product of it. That is to say, he becomes exposed to, and acquires, the knowledge which tells him that his feelings of `impatience', of being `held back', of `edginess' arise from his unrealistic expectations about work and/or his unrealistic sense of his own abilities and prospects. Instead of expecting to be `in control of things' and having greater opportunities, he learns to re-construct his reality in a way that lowers his expectations, and thereby reduces his feelings of frustration and resentment. His self-knowledge of having `no problems' with his boss lends plausibility to the suggestion that his problem resides in his own attitude, rather than elsewhere - such as in the capital-labour relationship which mediates the interactions between Carl and his boss.

Critical Analysis

An alternative response, more consistent with `critical science', would involve an exploration of how Carl's knowledge, including his interpretation of work and his account of his feelings, are socially constructed. Instead of regarding Carl's response as a reflection (or representation) of reality, attention is focussed upon the historical and cultural production of the stocks of knowledge drawn upon by Carl when accounting for his situation. Of fundamental importance are the stocks of knowledge which provide a sense of what is normal and unproblematical.

In contemporary society, the meaning of work has become closely associated with paid employment. When Carl says that he has `no problems at work', this is readily interpreted to mean between the hours when he has sold his labour to an employer - an understanding which is confirmed as Carl immediately makes reference to his `boss'. As an electrician, Carl might well apply his skills within his own home. But even if the activity were identical to that undertaken for his employer, it would not be defined as `work'.

Work has no intrinsic meaning. What counts as work is socially constructed. In Ancient Greece, anything that disfigured the body or detracted from the pursuit of more ennobling activities, notably philosophy, was regarded as a demeaning activity rightly undertaken by slaves. Needless to say, this understanding of work at once reflected and reinforced the position of an elite whose engagement in the realms of philosophy. There was nothing remotely equivalent to a work ethic, let alone a belief that joy and fulfilment might be found in manual activity. In modern society, the definition of work is complex and often contradictory. As employment, work is valued, especially if the alternative is unemployment. But it is often valued as much and often more for the extrinsic rewards - material and (e.g. salary) symbolic (e.g. social status) - associated with employment as it is for the experience of working.

Stocks of knowledge - which, in Carl's case include conceptions of what is a problem as well as when `life is all right' - are not politically neutral. Rather, they are developed, communicated and adopted within relations of power. The meaning of work is not given. Rather, it is socially constructed through a process of struggle in which it comes to be defined in historically and culturally distinctive ways. Arguably, Carl finds himself in a relationship of relative dependence and subordination, a relationship which is partially acknowledged when he refers to feeling `sort of powerless'. But, more fundamentally and paradoxically, his relative dependence is expressed in his understanding that `life is all right'. This self-knowledge suggests that he has no real reason to complain (`I have no problems') and, therefore, that he has no one but himself to blame for being `real intolerant and kind of edgy'.

Power and Knowledge

In `positive science' power is widely understood either in terms of A's ability to get something done despite B's resistance or as a deviation from authority. For example, power would be attributed to Carl's boss if s/he forced Carl to work against his will. However, according to Carl, his boss is not a tyrant and he has `no quarrel' with the expectation that he should `do good work'. Alternatively, power would be attributed to Carl if there were evidence of any influence he might wield at work which did not flow from his position as an electrician apprentice employed in a small business. What `positive' knowledge of power completely overlooks, or takes as given, is the presence of power in defining and sustaining social realities.

All knowledge of reality is an articulation of power. When Carl states that he has `no problems', his account of himself as a person with no problems is based upon a particular, learned way of making sense of his situation. Namely, that having a boss is normal and that the expectations of this boss are reasonable. Therefore, he has `no quarrel' with his boss. Carl understands, and takes it for granted, that he has no legitimate grounds for complaint about his work so long as his boss is not a tyrant. To elaborate a little, we may say that Carl has learnt and accepted the understanding, or knowledge, that work is about selling labour for a wage; and that so long as employers respect the (impersonal) terms of this exchange, and do not treat his/her workers tyrannically as (personal) slaves, there are `no problems'. The hegemonic power invested in this knowledge enables a relationship of dependence, between Carl and his employer, to be reproduced. By identifying with a stock of knowledge which defining the contract between them as equitable - so long as the boss is not tyrannical -Carl asserts the legitimacy of a structural relationship in which he also feels powerless. In short, power resides as much and more in the stocks of knowledge (e.g. about work) through which identities, such as Carl's, are constituted as it does in the possession of resources through which one person or group is able to impose their will despite resistance.

Work in the Modern Context

Just as the meaning of work in Ancient Greece developed within an historically distinctive social structure, the contemporary meaning of work has been formed within a particular historical context. Of greatest significance has been the development of `free' contracts of employment, contracts which have produced a sharp distinction between `work' (employed time) and `leisure'. While at `work', the individual was obliged by the terms of the contract to comply with the demands of the employer. Only outside of working hours was s/he `free' to do a s/he pleased (within the law). Whereas the boundary between everyday life and activities undertaken to provide subsistence had been non-existent or blurred, the creation of contracts of employment meant that people were hired for specified hours to perform tasks which had no immediate connection to their immediate everyday requirements. Increasingly, work has become defined as the sum of those activities undertaken as a means of acquiring a wage or salary with which to satisfy our (socially constructed) demands as consumers.

n industrialised societies, an instrumental conception of work is dominant. Above all, work is understood to be a means of subsistence - as a way of earning money with which to buy wanted goods and services. When work also offers some degree of interest and satisfaction, it is regarded as a bonus - and one that is therefore often important when making career decisions. As Carl says of his job as an electrician, `I like doing electrical work, you get around, you see different kinds of people and problems, it's a good way to make a living'. Clearly, Carl regards aspects of his job as interesting. But he also experiences frustrations in his work. His problem is that he finds difficult to understand precisely because he has `no problems', yet is not `really content'.

If Carl's sense of unease and frustration cannot be adequately understood either in terms of his (maladjusted) personality or his boss' inept style of management, then it is necessary to explain it in terms of the way in which work is organised, historically and culturally. In selling his labour to his boss, Carl forfeits control over how his labour is to be applied. Having said this, his employer may also train and reward Carl to act responsibly so that the costs of supervising his work are reduced. However, there is a tension inherent in the construction of their relationship. On the one hand, the employer is obliged to allow Carl to understand himself as a `free' agent if s/he is to avoid the resentment and resistance associated with any suggestion of tyranny. Seemingly, Carl is willing to do what his boss tells him precisely because the requirements are deemed to be legitimate. Yet, on the other hand, Carl experiences his freedom to be unjustifiably constrained : he feels `held back' and `not in control of things'. He reports:

`I guess its a question of, like am I working for someone? I...I feel like I'm taking shit even when, actually, even when there's nothing wrong'.

What this comment suggests is that although what the boss asks of Carl within the context of the employment relationship is entirely legitimate, the relationship itself is problematical in a way which Carl experiences but cannot articulate. He cannot analyse it critically because he lacks the relevant stocks of knowledge that would enable him to do so. All he can do is describe his feeling of impatience, intolerance and edginess. The relationship is problematical because it is contradictory. It simultaneously constructs Carl as a person who has `no quarrel' with his boss and who feels like he is `taking shit...even when there's nothing wrong'. However, although the contradiction is experienced by Carl, it is contained by his lack of access to the stocks of knowledge which might enable him at least to understand it, if not to resolve it.

Contradictions and Freedom

When examined critically, Carl's basic problem is that he naturalises both the employment relationship and his own self-understanding. That is to say, he regards the exchange of labour for a wage as natural, rather than historical. He takes it for granted that his boss has a (natural) right to buy his labour and to determine what should be done with it. As Carl puts it there's `nothing wrong' with this, so long as his boss treats him decently. Clearly, Carl has some reservations about working `for someone'. He understands that, in selling his labour to someone else, he sacrifices a significant measure of autonomy and responsibility. However, there is no suggestion that this sacrifice is escapable except perhaps by becoming self-employed or by becoming an employer. In this respect, Carl's understanding of his situation parallels that of Friere's description of the oppressed:

`The oppressed suffer from the duality which has established itself in their innermost being. They discover that without freedom they cannot exist authentically. Yet, although they desire authentic existence, they fear it. They are at one and the same time themselves and the oppressor whose consciousness they have internalised'.

In Carl's case, he has internalised the understanding that the contract between capital and labour is freely made and fair so long as the employee is treated with decency. Yet, despite regarding this relationship as a natural and legitimate, Carl is not contented. He experiences a feeling of being `held back' in a way which, to apply Freire's terminology, impedes his freedom to exist `authentically'. However, whereas Freire's analysis is based upon a humanist assumption of an essential human nature whose authenticity is compromised and distorted by oppressive social structures, it is perhaps more plausible to argue that particular conceptions of freedom develop within social structures - such as the post-feudal idea that labour should not be bonded - which carry with them a claim that they more closely mirror the `natural', authentic condition or rights of human beings. Carl has acquired a conception of selfhood and individuality which is not confirmed simply by doing what the boss says. Even though the demands of his boss are acceptable to Carl, simply complying with these demands does not make him content. For Carl, living as an authentic human being means more than carrying out someone else's instructions.

This modern conception of authenticity, which encourages each individual to define their value in terms of competitive performance within labour markets, has developed within capitalist societies where a premium is placed upon entrepreneurship and (career) advancement. Relatedly, freedom is very strongly associated with economic independence and the minimum of supervision. However, Carl's concern about being `held back' suggests that he has not reflected critically upon the conception of greater freedom and authenticity which seemingly fuels his discontent. He appears to believe that feelings of frustration are endemic to employment and that they can be overcome only by becoming an employer. What he does not examine is the extent to which the conception of freedom and authenticity which underpins his discontent are contradictory. By becoming an employer, Carl might become more wealthy and respected, but he would exchange dependence upon his boss for dependence upon other `bosses' - in the form of shareholders, bankers, managers and workers like himself. In all likelihood, insecurities and anxieties - lack of contentment - about his work would be exchanged for other insecurities and anxieties about the value of his investments and his capacity to live up to his elevated status. As Freire observes of those who occupy a position of comparative material and symbolic advantage:

`They cannot see that, in the egoistic pursuit of having as a possessing class, they suffocate in their own possessions and no longer are; they merely have. For them, having more is an inalienable right, a right they acquired through their own "effort", with their "courage to take risks". If others do not have more, it is because they are incompetent and lazy, and worst of all is their unjustifiable ingratitude towards the "generous gestures" of the dominant class'.

Carl's lack of contentment and impatience could perhaps be construed as an expression of `ingratitude' - of failing to appreciate how his job had been created by his boss who, moreover, acted with consideration, not as a tyrant.

End