The beginnings of a banner in the creative area

During term time days quickly gained a routine, involving large evening meetings as well as smaller morning ones both concerning our strategy. Here tasks were decided upon and divided up between the group to volunteers who would report back on them at the next meeting. By the end of the first full day it was decided to form taskforces for certain areas such as communication through Twitter and Facebook, direct action, and poster and banner making. There was some resistance to this separation of tasks at first for fear of creating static committees and wider divisions within the Occupation. It was decided that these groups should remain fluid in order to allow new members of the Occupation to join in, and thereby stop any entrenched division of labour and also maintain lines of communication across them. Within these groups there was never a discussion of ability. Instead, anyone who wished to do a task or help with something was welcomed to do so regardless of previous skills. This worked both to enable the development of new skills but also their synthesis with existing skills, as well as the deployment of skills in ways which were unexpected by allowing the space for this creativity both in actions and ways of working. This was something refreshing for many students used to working individually or in highly prescriptively organised ways.

Interestingly despite the organisation of these tasks there was a stronger resistance to the organisation of domestic tasks, with many preferring instead to see that these activities would simply get done on an individual and informal basis. As such, the majority of these daily tasks would be carried out individually or by a small group of people, apart from large clean-up operations which were conducted most mornings, or when members of the Occupation had simply had enough of the coffee cups littering the building. This was in part a reflection of the group resistance to any pressure for certain members to perform certain jobs through the enforced expectations of a cleaning rota or cooking duties for instance. Although this became an effective system where the tasks did get completed it still lead to an unequal system where some spent a significant amount of time cleaning up after others. This small group, which would do regular water collecting, cleaning and on some occasions cooking, was composed of both males and females although women were often more strongly represented within these tasks and in expressing concern over these tasks, bringing them up in the organisational meetings. The group dynamics concerning these issues were giving rise to a certain amount of resentment from those conducting them leading to an unsustainable situation in the long term. In many ways resistance to organising these tasks and so taking responsibility for ensuring the equal spread of work can be seen as reflective of society as a whole. This created a disappointing situation where despite other efforts to challenge wider norms, forms of domestic work were still seen as lowly making them beneath discussion and organisation.

Group meetings

After several days of lobbying we were able to open up one of the downstairs conference rooms. This became a quieter sleeping area at night and our study space during the day. This was felt to be a huge priority of the Occupation due to its aims but also due to the timing of the actions which took place just days before many students’ end of term deadlines, so we recognised the need to help students work for their study commitments whilst making their political statement. This was demonstrated in the image here which shows that whilst meetings were ongoing some were unable to tear themselves away from their work but at the same time continued to contribute to the decision making process. Notice members on laptops continuing to work whilst also contributing to decision making but also the use of laptops within the meetings to check information or write notes.

The space provided more than a chance to do the solitary work often expected for essays. We saw many students working together in ways sadly often not witnessed within our current higher education system, with students from first year to PhD being able to help one another. One particular example was an experienced French speaker and two native French speakers helping to coach someone who had taken a French wild module and was feeling unsure about his chances of success in an upcoming test. Visitors and occupiers in the Senate also built their own library, and encouraged seminars both by staff and students. The feeling was very much focused on attempting to recreate the Senate as a free space of learning. The emphasis lay on an encouragement for all to join in as much as they could. There was never a compulsion to do so, instead there was an understanding that all would contribute what they could, however they could.

After two weeks of Occupation free access to the building and connection to the internet was denied by the University after the commencement of legal proceedings. From this point on, numbers were radically reduced as were the activities of those inside. Communication needed to be organised around a phone tree of close outside supporters and dongles with reduced internet access. The key work inside at this point noticeably shifted towards courting the media where the focus was on communication and publicity. Interviews were even conducted through windows and articles were written in national newspapers. This came to a head with the decision to end the Occupation attracting wide media attention. Yet the question of future actions was also discussed as those inside undertook a large scale clean-up operation to return the building to its former meeting room character and plans began to be made for meetings for the new term.

These working patterns were particular to this space providing a fluid dynamic but one which was reflective of wider hierarchies of intellectual, political and domestic work. Now that the group is working outside of this space it remains to be seen if the same fluidity and lack of demands can be made of individuals for tasks and how stable organisation will take place.

*All photos have been allowed for public use and where possible the photographer’s permission has been granted for their use within this post.

During a holiday spent with my five year old nephew I reluctantly began to become an authority on children’s TV characters. Nostalgically I thought back to my own childhood remembering Postman Pat and Fireman Sam. It struck me how so many popular children’s TV programmes focus solely on the area of work, a theme which has continued with Underground Ernie and Bob the Builder,[1] the latter of which this essay will focus on.

The sociology of work has a rich history of using the visual. Images are useful to us as ‘a point of access’ (Grey, 1998: 131) allowing us to see anew an aspect of the workplace or our attitudes towards work. In the case of BtB, when analysed sociologically, we can view the ideologies which run deeply within it. This kind of analysis has been done previously with the reading of children’s fiction with the claim that ‘in reading fictional representations, it is suggested, we acquire an insight into organizational realities.’ (ibid.). It is this same, often hidden, insight which I wish to gain from my reading of BtB.

Within BtB, ideology can be seen explicitly in representations of co-operation, friendship etc. which most children’s TV programs try to teach children. There are nevertheless deeper ideologies present in the ways in which work is depicted. Conversely, it is important to remember that the transmission of such messages are much more subtle than is suggested by writing them in a stark form (Grey, 1998: 146). Within this essay I am certainly not claiming that specific ideology of work has been deliberately placed within ‘Bob the Builder’ to subvert children. BtB can, however, act as an indicator for how we view or wish to imagine the world of work to be. 

Division of labour

A lack of intrinsic value taken from work has been related to the division of labour which, according to Durkheim, Marx and Weber, has been a feature of work since the industrial revolution. Although often thought about in a factory context (e.g. Hamper, 1991) the division of labour is very much present within many types of work today. I will first look at this from the perspective of the human characters and will then argue that it is the machines which are the best example of the division of labour. From here I will go on to argue that BtB can be read to show the machines to be the ultimate examples of the division of labour and that instead of them being machines which are anthropomorphised, it can be argued that they are rather workers who are dehumanised to the point of becoming their individualised job.

Bob, Wendy and Farmer Pickles are all workers who experience very little division of labour, they are all able to do almost any job they need to. The only experiences of this division between the human characters is the calling in of experts to do the job, e.g. how Bob and the gang get their work, even when it may not be really necessary (such as Little, Sneezing Scoop, 2001) where Wendy and Dizzy put in a washing line for Mrs Potts, a job that most people would do themselves.

On the whole the humans are given lots of autonomy with Bob and Wendy running their own business and having no one to answer to except for the customer. Even in relation to the customer there is a huge amount of sovereignty, e.g. Scarecrow Dizzy, where instead of giving a house a whitewash, Wendy and Dizzy paint it pink but the customer did not seem to mind, luckily.

Within BtB it is certainly the anthropomorphised machines who are the example of the division of labour. First, just by their presence since it is the division of labour which has led to the development of machines which can ‘facilitate and abridge labour’ (Smith, 1862: 20) which is exactly what these machines are doing whilst enabling the human characters to transcend this division — an idea also echoed by Weber’s Technical division of labour whereby there is specialism and the use of machines (Weber, 1947: 219). Unlike the human characters each machine has a set task to do within each project. Their skills are limited solely to that task and they are largely physically unable to learn a new skill. Each machine has been created simply for that repetitive task and no others, if a machine decides to try and change its role then this always leads to difficulties and them returning to their original role as exemplified by Dizzy attempting to become a scarecrow (Little, Scarecrow Dizzy, 1999). So although they are given human characteristics there is a strong machine mentality to this.

From here I will, however, argue that it is very fitting to read BtB from the other perspective, that instead of anthropomorphised machines that demonstrate some division of labour they are workers who have become dehumanised through this division of labour to become represented simply as machines. The idea of a worker becoming simply an extension of their machine due to the division of labour (Ritzer, 2008) is one which is as true today with computers as it would be in the factory setting. It can certainly be argued that for the workers under Bob and Wendy, who have to repeat their sole skill with a machine again and again they have simply become recognised as that skill and machine rather than a human with other attributes.

This reading can be taken further looking at the hierarchies which exist, although there is undoubtedly a hierarchy amongst the machines with Scoop unofficially at the top. The biggest hierarchy which exists is certainly between the skilled workers (the characters depicted as human) and the non-skilled (those shown as machines). The non-skilled are widely treated as children who although keen to learn have no real ability to as there is no progression between shows.

The main area in which this reading does, however, fall down is the relationship between the skilled and non-skilled workers where despite having to be guided, the non-skilled workers are always appreciated and valued. Rather than being viewed as replaceable they are seen as unique. Also despite their unskilled, repetitive work the machines do gain a sense of enjoyment from the work they produce. In the sense of BtB a value is made out of the division of labour as it enables the gang to work together. In doing so the division of labour is viewed in an entirely positive light.

Alienation

As we have seen, the division of labour is viewed in a positive way setting the scene for the lack of depiction of alienation with BtB. Of the main characters only one can be viewed as really experiencing alienation, Spud the Scarecrow.

Bob is still doing jobs for others and so in theory would have little control of the end product he creates, he is also stopped from becoming fully engaged within his work due to the outsourcing of much of his work to the machines. These would normally be seen as alienating factors. There is still a certain amount of freedom that Bob has within the work as shown when a house ends up pink rather than white (Little, Scarecrow Dizzy, 1999). However, this lack of alienation may also be linked back to the cash nexus which Bobsville has managed to escape, this has created a situation where Bob has connections with all the people he does work for. The human characters within BtB still have control over all areas of the work despite having little engagement within the actual physical activity. They are able to control and guide the machines and retain an overview of the project from start to finish.

Nevertheless, the machines appear to be engaged within traditionally alienating work. The division of labour and their inability to fully understand and engage with their work provides an image of workers who would conventionally get little satisfaction, yet the machines are shown as gaining a great deal of intrinsic value from their work. This can be read as a claim that some workers (such as these who cannot completely engage) do not suffer from alienation from such a division of labour, or that group dynamics can help to solve issues of alienation.

This is especially interesting when we consider Spud the Scarecrow, who I have claimed is the most alienated. Spud is a semi-human character who can take part in many different activities although often not very successfully. Spud is extremely alienated by his main job of being a scarecrow which he often views as boring. As such, Spud has a desire to do jobs that the machines and human characters are doing. Although Spud is shown as a liability failing in much of the work he attempts, he does show some ability beyond his set job of being a scarecrow which is more than is demonstrated by most of the machines. It remains unclear if his frustration stems from this or his lack of a community, something which both the machines and the human characters have.

What does this all tell us?

There is certainly an argument that by expressing orderliness in Bobsville and later Sunflower Valley we are attempting to protect children from the insecurities of the reality of working life, and BtB can be seen as an expression of, indeed a cultural manifestation of, certain feelings that we have about work.

The strongest reading presented here is the view of the machines as dehumanised, low skilled workers rather than anthropomorphised machines. Here BtB shows the danger of unskilled work. Only those who are incapable of learning are not alienated by this work. There is a certain condescending tone which the human characters use with the machines as though they are children, yet without the opportunity to mature that alone can tell us a great deal about the way we view unskilled, practical work within a singular area. Although the machines are shown to be happy with their position, a hierarchy between the characters is clear with Bob being placed unmistakably at the top. For most viewers in the audience that BtB is aimed at their desire is to be like Bob rather than being like one of the other characters.[2] BtB can then be read as showing issues of being an unskilled worker who experiences a division of labour, despite these workers not experiencing alienation within themselves perhaps due to a sense of unity with other workers.

For more about Bob, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/bobthebuilder/ and http://www.bobthebuilder.com/uk/.

References

1. Anthony, P. (1977). The Ideology of Work. London: Tavistock Publications.
2. Chichester-Clark, R. (1976). On the Quality of Working Life . In M. Weir, Job Satifaction (pp. 26–31). Fontana: Fontana.
3. Clayre, A. (1974). Work and Play. New York: Harper & Row.
4. Cooper, R. (1976). How Jobs Motivate. In M. Weir, Job Satisfaction (pp. 138–147). Fontana: Fontana.
5. Grey, C. (1998). Child’s Play: Representations of Organization in Children’s Literature. In J. Hassard, & R. Holliday, Organization Representation (pp. 131–148). London: Sage.
6. Hamper, B (1991) Rivethead. New York. Warner Books
7. Little, B. &. (2005). Benny’s Back. Bob the Builder: Project Fix It . HIT Entertainment.
8. Little, B. &. (2001). One shot Wendy Series 4 Ep 5. Bob the Builder . HIT Entertainment.
9. Little, B. &. (1999). Scarecrow Dizzy. Bob the Builder . HIT Entertainment.
10. Little, B. &. (2001). Sneezing Scoop. Bob the Builder . HIT Entertainment.
11. Marx, K. (1986). The Economic and Philosophical manuscripts of 1844. In J. Elster, Karl Marx, A Reader (pp. 35–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.  Mészáros, I. (1975). Marx’s Theory of Alienation. Whitstable: Whitstable Litho Ltd.
13. Reeves, R. (2001). Happy Mondays. London: Pearson Education.
14. Ritzer, G. (2008). The McDonaldization of Society 5. London: Sage.
15. Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. London: Allen Lane, Pengiun Books.
16. Strangleman, T., & Warren, T. (2008). Work and society. London: Oxon.

[2] This conclusion was drawn from a highly unscientific poll of my nephew and 6 of his friends. Of the 7 asked separately 6 identified with Bob, one with Spud. Obviously other studies need to be conducted before drawing a formal conclusion.