Cary Grant as Walter Burns in ‘His Girl Friday’

This sort of interpretation could easily be made of a friend of mine who works as an economics journalist. He puts the hours in, and he seems to like it. An omnivorous cultural capital enables him to reference Keynes, Donald MacKenzie, Don de Lillo, Enron and The September Issue in the space of the 8 minute dissection he gives me of the current state of the financial crisis. This impresses me, because he has an explanation, and even a position on each of these things, and it amounts to a story worth hearing. It seems that the acquisition of the new is the dimension of governance which he has internalised, and its relentlessness is something quite demanding. Immediacy is one of the dimensions of the professional ideology of the journalist listed by Mark Deuze (2005: 447). To stop, or to slow down even, is to lose track, and possibly to lose status.

But we sociologists do tend to the negative. There might also be pleasure – and virtue — in this immediacy, this quest for knowledge and for novelty, and a satisfaction in using knowledge to produce knowledge. In After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre describes character as combination of role and personality. Some roles at particular historical moments embody the character of the age: the Prussian officer and the English public school teacher in the late 19th Century. For MacIntyre, such a character legitimates and embodies the moral order of the age. And I wonder, what if the journalist is the Character of our time? The person of virtue in the liquid modern world without grand narratives, filled with uncertainty and, would be the person who steps into the public spaces of incomprehension, masters enough of a story to tell, with quick words and references to now, and always has an eye out for the next tale.

References

1. Deuze, M. (2005) ‘What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism. 6: 442–464.
2. Du Gay, P. (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work. London: Sage.
3. MacIntyre, A. (1984) After Virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
4. McRobbie, A. (2002) ‘Club cultures: notes on the decline of political culture in speeded up creative worlds’. Cultural Studies. 16 (4): 516–531.
5. Rose, N. (1990) Governing the soul: the shaping of the private self. London: Routledge.

In Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, (Sillitoe, 1960 [1958]), Arthur is proud of work, his speed, his skill on the capstan lathe, the secret of his extra fat pay packet, and so he think he’s cock of the pub come Saturday night, where he can down the pints, fall down the stairs and still go home with his married lover Brenda.

He knows Saturday night shouldn’t feel like Monday morning. And he knows that Saturday night demands the pay back of Sunday morning. Sunday morning is no redemption though, it’s hangover and a sprint out the door before her husband comes home, and then perhaps fishing trip, these are the counterbalance to the routine of work and pub.

You may be familiar with the idea that the standard 9 to 5, Monday to Friday working week is less common than once it was. Shift work, part time work and the need for workers to facilitate the consumption activities of those who have a weekend holiday from work are all evidence of detraditionalisation and flexibilisation, although there are those who think the level of change is overstated (Bradley et al, 2000: 51–70). But obviously people work on Saturdays.

I hate working on Saturdays. I used to, my first job was in a lean-to makeshift garage, where I checked for flaws in new clothes. I was 13. Later, I worked Saturdays in a car showroom as the meet and greet girl, and then in a bar. And I liked it sometimes, but I can’t work Saturdays now. Sundays are different. A bit of marking, some reading, I don’t mind. Sundays are dull anyway. But the mythology of the Good Saturday that I like to live with doesn’t permit for this day to let me work. The Good Saturday, however, cannot simply be understood as leisure time, defined as freedom from work (Parker, 1983). Saturday is festival time. Gadamer describes the festival as autonomous time, time which has its own rhythm, which exists not to be spent but to be experienced. Festival time is not unpredictable, or freefloating, only different to the temporality of other days. My manifesto for a Good Saturday does not mean ignoring the norms of work (routine and obligation), but playing with them to make saturday feel like festival time.

My manifesto: the paper, always the same. Breakfast that takes time (this is work). Spontaneity — though spontaneity needn’t mean an absence of order. Putting things in order (this is work). Being surprised. Seeing what happens. A trip out. A pint too early in the day. Noting and remarking on the absence of work. Letting things take longer than they need. These make for an ordinary sort of Saturday festival. The festival, says Gadamer is a community experience (this is why all football matches should start at 3pm on Saturday), but not everyone can share my good Saturday, they have to be willing to let time stretch without apparent end. Who’s free this weekend?

References

Bradley, H. Erickson, M. Stephenson, C. and Williams, S. (2002) Myths at Work. Polity: Cambridge.
1. Gadamer, H. G. (1986) The Relevance of the Beautiful and other essays. Trans. Nicholas Walker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Parker, S. (1983) Leisure and Work. London : Allen & Unwin.
3. Sillitoe, A. (1960) Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. Pan Books, Ltd, London.

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 narrator in Billie Jo Spears’ 1969 country song Mr Walker it’s all Over could have done with some female colleagues like Dolly, Lily and Jane. ‘I don’t like the New York Secretary’s life’, and who can blame her, when it’s too full of men, from the company president on down, with hands ‘reaching out to grab the things that I consider mine’. So she’s heading back to Garden City, Kansas, because ‘the boy next door don’t know it but come June he’s gonna gain himself a wife’. A late-1960s experiment with women working in the big city is here doomed to failure, and an earlier femininity is reasserted.

Step into the Office Baby by Belle and Sebastian is also about office politics and sexual harassment. Here, the roles are reversed, as we might expect in a post-feminist world. She says

We need to talk
Step into my office, baby
I want to give you the job
A chance of overtime
Say my place at nine

He, though, isn’t sure. He’s ‘a slave to work’, he’s ‘only living when I walk amongst office staff’. And he’s not sure that he wants the sort of overtime she has in mind.

She wants him to sharpen up, be a man, complete with retro phallic necktie.

I've got to change my ways
Dress for business every day
A sharp suit and a kipper tie
A big arrow pointing to my fly

It’s not just the inversion of heteronormative expectations that’s notable in the contrast between Mr Walker and Step into the Office, it’s the meaning of private sphere. In 1969, she could escape back home, where her mom and her man will save her. In 2003, he has nowhere to hide: his own place isn’t a sanctuary from work, but a place where work is in his head ‘in bed by nine, my thoughts composed’, and he succumbs to the office affair, goes to her place to ‘take down her little red dress’. The office is no escape from sexual politics.

No way to make a living loves it for talking about work. The Wire portrays work in a way that makes sense to people who’ve had a job. It’s not like other shows: the key tension is not who will shag whom, (as in Grey’s Anatomy, which Dawn intends to discuss at length on this site), nor is work a conveniently located site for the continuation of ongoing local stories (like the factory in Coronation Street). It offers a series of workplaces, at varying levels of formality, where people are competent or incompetent, good, bossy, well-meaning, faceless or charismatic; and where the individual is constrained by an organisational structure within which he or she can struggle or shine, and by work colleagues who can enable, intervene and obstruct. The Wire is the best portrayal of work you’ll see on TV and there will be an occasional strand to this blog to discuss …

• Corner boys and starting work; the division of labour
• ‘an inelastic product’ – formal education, skills and employability
• masculinity and the police force
• unionisation and brotherhood
• politics a work
• crusaders and volunteers
• Templetons and how to deal with them.
• Office spaces
• The relationship between inside and outside,
• sociality around work … and so on. OK, I’ll shut up.

I will be talking about some of this at The Wire as Social Science Fiction conference, where Ewen Speed and I are giving a paper on ‘Mutualism and Markets: An Exploration of Moral Regulation in The Wire; http://www.cresc.ac.uk/events/Wireconference.html