Left leg

Glue and silicon, paint and varnish, grout and wood-filler. Traces on his clothes. The trousers especially tell the story of my friend’s most recent jobs. There was that shower to fix urgently in Hackney one night last week, and the bathroom to sort out after a would-be plumber with too many tools and too few skills had been let loose in Hampstead. At the ongoing job in South London, he’s supposed to be doing the plumbing and not general building work, but it’s hard to keep the boundaries firm once on-site and when the other guy is not so confident. And working on his own place in the meantime means more varnish and paint than usual.

Right leg

The photos show the sides of his trousers, where his hands reach his upper leg. The marks on them are more than evidence of what got spilt or dropped. They indicate gestures of work. And how the right side (yes, he’s right-handed) takes the strain. And how if you’re going to do stuff like this, where you can’t help yourself wiping the residue of the materials that fix and cover and generally hold things together in houses and bathrooms, well you wouldn’t want to have the wrong trousers for the job.

I started taking photos without much of a project in mind at first but soon thought it would be interesting to keep a record of the whole period of the construction. I convinced Colin Samson of the idea and we got into a routine, taking pictures almost every week until Easter, always from the office window and sometimes through the blind. By that point, the structure was starting to emerge. Then we both went on holiday and missed the second floor go on. After that I carried on (Colin had become bored!), taking pictures every couple of weeks or so until I left the University in September 2006. This was before the outside was finished, but fortunately, Lucinda’s Platt’s office was directly above mine at the time and some of the final photos were taken from there by her or by me, the last in February 2007.

I wanted to do something with this but wasn’t sure what. Then when I saw David Hockney’s photo-collages in his exhibition of portraits at the National Portrait Gallery in Autumn 2006, I knew I wanted to make a picture story like them. I love the simultaneity of time and place, for instance, in the moods of competition of The Scrabble Game, and in the gestures of Billy Wilder lighting his cigar.[2]

With some help thinking it all through from Rowena Macaulay, I started putting the pictures together, selecting, cutting, sticking and fiddling about with them. In the end, I made a single large collage composed of several lines of images representing the formation of the building and how it took shape over the time of its construction. The bottom line shows the ground being moved, the next one up is of the laying of the foundations, and above that, the floors gradually appear. As the space gets enclosed, fewer of the building workers are visible in the photos. The building emerges as the product of their work, and at the same time conceals the work which made it.

The original collage can now be seen on the ground floor of the Social Science Building at the University of Essex. The picture of it here in situ has some reflections of the room and the building itself back into it – this wasn’t intentional but I like the sense it creates of the collage as part of the building.

The View from 5A

To finish off the project, I decided (with permission from the UK Data Archive) to photograph the move of the Data Archive into the new building. I spent two days with the removal men, following them around and photographing their trips back and forth across the campus. In the end, they got me to help out. From this I made a series of collages showing the labour of removal, two of which are posted here.

The Move 1

The Move 2

[2] These images can be found online or in various of Hockey’s publications.

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.

The project aimed to explore labour as a social activity and the forms of work involved in a building refurbishment of this kind; and to explore the building as an object/product of labour that is transformed by it so to map visually the material and spatial changes in the building which is being worked upon, the social/physical construction of place.

The project was based on ethnographic work undertaken in collaboration with Peter Hatton (a visual artist and lecturer at the University of Kent) from March to October 2007, the period during which the building was being refurbished. Photography was central to the methodology but was one of a bundle of related techniques, including informal observation on-site, participation in site meetings, and interviews with the project’s builders, architects and engineers.

The work that people do produces a different kind of relationship to space/place. Builders monopolise the physical manipulation of the building – as process and object. They live and breathe it, quite literally, as its dust and paint and debris get under their nails and skin, and into their hair and eyes. In contrast, engineers and architects know the building as a conceptualised space, through drawings and measurements, reports and schedules, and observed it as a ‘landscape of viewing’.

Lived Space

Conceptualised Space

Building projects are characterised by multiple sequential and co-existent work activities which produce a place such as this building anew, and in which some forms of work are literally covered by others. Indeed, it may be that the product of the labour is the finish that conceals it. Or, the mark of quality of labour is that the finish is unmarked.

When building work was started, the building itself ‘was a complete shell’ comments Michael: ‘We were talking about it the other day, how you can see the end product now.’ Another of the builders, Grant, talks about satisfaction with the job, with the end product as he calls it, since ‘you can see what you’ve achieved,’ he says. As someone who’s in wet trades doing plastering and brickwork, this is true for him. However, this is not the case for all. Ground-workers for instance, never see the end product and their own work is concealed even though it underpins the rest of the project, they’re ‘unsung heroes’ according to some of the other builders interviewed.

This makes us ask: what means of representation can we make use of to hold onto the recognition of the labour involved in the production of place? We came up with the idea of projecting the building back onto itself. The images seek to pull apart what has been remade and expose the building in different states thereby implying the labour of its reconstruction. 

Dado Rail

The juxtaposition of the images below shows co-existent and varied perspectives. It brings different moments into the same moment of seeing (now) and offers a way to re-view what might be taken for granted in a single image. In the second set of images, by stretching and superimposing them in specific ways, our attention can be drawn to what we are not necessarily conscious of in a single image, for instance, the movement involved in the labour in the upper body, and the weight and discomfort of the position of the lower body (kneeling on the wood).

Laying Screed 1

Laying Screed 2

A gain of the visual, especially for the sociology of work, is in getting at elements of complexity it is difficult to grasp with other methods, especially in workplaces that are not familiar to us all, restricted spaces, such as building sites.

Whilst there is considerable innovation in data collection and research practices in visual sociology, there remains reluctance to be similarly innovative in ways of telling and representing research (through image, sound and text). Putting things together in novel ways, e.g. collage, allows us to gain different insights — there is therefore analytic potential in working with the visual as data and representation.

To download the leaflet from the exhibition that was one of the outcomes of this project, go to: http://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/staff/academic/lyon/rochester.pdf.