>Indeed of course under
>capitalism labour power is a commodity.
i think that r. edwards' point in _contested terrain_ is a crucial framework for interpreting hidden injuries: the only thing sold here is the potential for productive labor --employers actually have to wrest the work out of people. so, employers look for ways to sort people by intensely examining the commodity people are selling. i think there are interesting aspects to this interplay between these hidden injuries and the way it operates to ensure that labor power is realized as productive labor.
to illustrate but by drawing on the lower rungs of the work hierarchy:
in the catering biz, when you need extra staff you call the employment agency for some "warm bodies." what purpose could this possible serve, to pay people $7-$8/hr knowing full well that they won't be productive? it would seem irrational, no? it actually creates solidarity: the 'warm bodies' are ridiculed by both mgmt and regular employees producing a tenuous solidarity that rests on 'us' [hard workers] v 'them' [slackers].
how did this work? whe i was in the biz, my boss had a penchant for hiring college students on vaca from Cornell. she believed they'd be more than warm bodies b/c, on her view, people who went to college (as she had) had a work ethic. this, funnily enough, wasn't generally true. she even knew this. yet, something worked in this scenario. the hostility toward 'slackers' was about the fact that they could resist the demand to realize their labor power for their employers. they had freedom in the eyes of the reg staff. moreover, they didn't suffer the indignities of judgment b/c future college degrees protected them, both internally and externally. whereas the label 'slacker' might work on someone who has no other choice than to demonstrate solidarity with others hard workers b/c, like them, you have no choice, the label 'slacker' and the public ridicule they were subjected to meant little to them for their response was, "i don't have to do this work; i just need some cash for ____."
i've pointed out here before that this sort of service work also has important implications for mgmt/worker solidarity and why, i think, it's difficult to organize unions: the enemy is more readily seen as clients, customers, patrons who you are continually told you work *for*. to me, this is important with regard to this new management rhetoric about team work and taking care of customers, particularly as the "who" you are producing for becomes more visible in these industries [see also, larry hirschhorn's altogether too optimistic reearch]. another structural factor that's makes resistance difficult: service work is notoriously understaffed. if someone doesn't show up everyone else must work harder. you screw over your mates, not your boss. solidarity is crucial here yet works in mgmt's favor.
of course, we need to look at the structural context, too: how is labor extracted from the regular workers? my boss was also openly uncomfortable about this b/c to do so she had to lie w/ the 'promise' of pay raises/promotions. there was a well-known glass ceiling. once a cook, for ex, reached $8/hr they would often be summarily fired as examples. not all, but some: if you wanted to work your way up, then you'd best not get too cocky about pay raises and you'd best earn them continually. that was the stick.
there was also a carrot: the 'work you way up' ethos that is part of this industry overall. somewhat peculiar to this company, but nonetheless i think instructive be/c it is *so* obvious. the CEO and all exec level mgmt, would don aprons, wait on tables, take orders from cranky Cornellians, and slide their arms into piles of leftover food and dirty dishes. people often noted how hard these folks worked: "look at that Mr. M working so hard in front of even his own neighbor, that rich s.o.b. _____." [do note that Mr. M made it a point to work hard in front of rich s.o.b.'s at elite functions well-covered in local press. this was for him, for his well-to-do buds and for us. Mr. M, who started out with the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise, had something to prove to himself, the upstart from working class background, and to those with inherited wealth.]
indeed, it seemed to reg. staff that exec mgt put to shame the clerical & administrative staff pressed into service as wait staff every weekend. [exacerbating hostilities b/t food service workers and clerical/admin staff, b/t clean and dirty work; b/t those ruled by the clock and those not]. the majority of the folks at the top levels of the corp. had started out at the lower rungs so their message was: we may make lots of money but we're not ashamed to do the same work and if you want to get where we are then do the same.
works quite nicely since my ex-husband is at work by 4 a.m.to do the work a cook might normally do, at 7 works in his capacity as "manager" of the uni cafeteria, often delivering breakfasts and luncheons to the chancellor and prez who insist on being taken care of by the "manager" [no lowly staff for them!]. he doesn't get home til 6-7 p.m., does inventory, the books, and catering on Sat/Sun. he has no dream of advancement, he's just hoping to keep his salaried managerial job. he sure as heck doesn't feel that he's really made 'progress' insofar as he's really quite aware that wearing a tie to work instead of a cook's uniform hasn't brought him any increase in freedom or dignity. he cannot point to mgmt who have the 'freedom' and 'dignity' of not doing 'dirty' work b/c they symbolically demonstrate that even they don't find such work beneath them.
this has all been exacerbated by a wider structural context. first, there is the reality of corporate buyouts & mergers with this particular company, which i'd argue is a trend as successful small companies become part of chains like marriot who are expanding into other aspects of the hospitality industry. last i worked in this industry, there was intense competition in this regard. second, there is the widespread deployment of this fear of downsizing in the popular media, which the corp used to their advantage during a 6 month test of who would get weeded out during the merger.
as a somewhat personal side note: it's likely that there's more than a slight correlation between the onslaught of this test and my ex's growing concerns about becoming closer to his children, which manifested itself in a child custody battle that was extremely expensive for him. it would seem irrational on the face of it; but one way, as S&C note, to shore up one's identity--sense of dignity and freedom--under these conditions is to turn toward the haven of the family as some sort of sphere divorced from these competitive ethos. [then again, the ex could just be an asshole. a redundant tautology, i know!] still, as kathleen gerson has shown, the cultural turn toward "new fatherhood" and the personal concern with it as an alternative source of identity tends to coincide with fathers' realizations that their avenues for advancement have been blocked. there's no doubt that the father's rights movement has something to do with this, in my view.
the food service industry is very much like this all over, since it's built on this work your way up ethos. while there's been an explosion in employment, it has been a step ahead of the credentialization infrastructure necessary to create a firm hierarchy b/t professional v. practical knowledge. there is an old and well-cultivated ethos which suggests that no one can *really* know how to do anything unless they've spent time in the trenches. in this sense, tho, it is also somewhat peculiar and to be differentiated from other service industries, tho i'm not certain in precisely what ways.
so max, your daughter may well be put through some severe degradation rituals--especially b/c she's a she--if she wants to prove to anyone that her CIA training is any match for the heat of the kitchen. and you'd best teach her how to use the word fuck as a verb, noun, and adjective because there's a difference between a whisk and a fucking whisk. a fucking whisk produces the best she-she sauces and no ordinary, non-fucking whisk will do. she'll need to stick with the she-she restaurants if she wants to avoid this for they do pride themselves on maintaining that professional training is superior.
also, this is by way of suggesting that i'm not sure about the claim that college education, in the states, alters class distinctions simply by virtue of the fact that more folks attend college. while 50% go to college, the number who graduate [25%] hasn't changed since the 50-60s. and, as we can imagine, the burden of 'dropping out' is generally internalized as a personal failure. the 25%, too, was an increase from the 10% in earlier decades b/c the gov't invested heavily in the expansion of the uni system with public uni's which served several purposes. also, these numbers include two-year community colleges which were actually instituted by elite uni's as a way of diverting the unwashed masses who were demanding college educations-- not, however, because they wanted technical knowledge which community colleges are generally mandated to provide. rather, it was for the reasons that frank rissaro seems to suggest. as brint and karabel note in _the diverted dream_ the working class "desire" for vocational training was purposefully imposed on them. liberal arts educations were to be reserved for the elite; vocational training in the expanding service and knowledge industries was for the rest.
the point here, too, is that the uni system in the US is in an extremely competitive situation. they *need* to advance this rhetoric of continual training and advancement thru higher education just to keep up with the purported demands of the job market. in the late 80s and 90s, there was heavy competition over a dwindling student market, compared to the baby boom yrs. randall collins calls this credential inflation, though he hasn't explored this aspect of it.
for a time, with the explosion in college attendance, there was some leveling in terms of the prestige hierarchy of uni's. but the uni hierarchy is reasserting itself quickly and people are starting to recognize differences between a private and public uni, between a community college and a four year college, between the big three/ivy's and other uni's. though, i must say the common sense understandings still rest on who has the best sports team.
so, a bit of a riff on what you'd said, chris, but more anon....
kelley