|
|
|
To access the previous chapter click on the ink below.
Chapter 2 Freedom and Constraint. There’s many a one who would be idle if hunger didn’t pinch him; but the stomach sets us to work. George Eliot from Felix Holt. The search for autonomy amongst adults can be seen partly as a response to the experience of parental control in the family as a child. It is also a powerful part of the culture of a capitalist society. The American slogans “from the log cabin to the White House’’ and “the land of the free” express these values well. It is more than an escape from the control of the other, and particularly the employer. It is a belief that the best will come out of the individual with the least constraint. Put differently, it can come from a realisation that one's employer is making more from one's labour than oneself. So you escape this unequal relationship of employment, and become self employed. One writer has seen the explosion of artistic expression in the 1960's and 1970's as a kind of romantic revolt. It was romantic because it stressed the values of authenticity, spontaneity and individuality. It rejected hierarchy, bureaucracy, and imposed identities. The entrepreneurial values of the 1980's of choice, freedom, and initiative seem to flow easily from the previous two decades. However, the range of freedoms on offer in entrepreneurial culture is focused more on the role of consumer (Marquand, 65: 1992). One has more choice in the role of consumer, as there is an increasing variety of goods and services on offer. Of course, the unemployed cannot exercise this increased choice, so their choices are very limited. Also there is little choice as a producer, as work is increasingly standardised. The example of Mc Donald's, where each stage in the preparation of fast food is minutely defined, is perhaps an extreme example (Gabriel, 88: 1988). However, it does make the point that in one's working life one conforms, and the freedom to manoeuvre is severely limited. Finally, entrepreneurial culture is itself opposed to other values. Its stress on individualism is hostile to the collective values of trade unions. So one is not free to espouse any values. Explaining the attraction of entrepreneurial values may be done by looking at the last two decades of the twentieth century; but it was also done by appealing to the earlier eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The capitalist founders of firms in this period were often heroic figures. Some were very interested in technology, and even sciences. They took great risks by starting new enterprises, and were wealth creators. Contemporary capitalists often wish to see themselves in this tradition. However, there are differences. Early capitalists usually risked their own money. Contemporary capitalists risk other peoples (Marquand, 1992). Also the early capitalists had to convert people from aristocratic values, where the land was for the leisure pursuits of hunting and fishing; as opposed to capitalistic farming; or where flowing water was needed for the earliest factories. Contemporary capitalists have to convert people from different values. These are the values of government interference in the economy to regulate and to tax. Freedom from these constraints was required in order to grow, and make more profits. The existence of the governmental constraints can be traced back to the Second World War. The authority of the government rested on the management of the economy then, and through taxation, the provision of the welfare state after the war. The 1980's were a period when capitalists attempted to regain some of their earlier authority from the government. The new values can be summed up in the slogan: "Managers have the right to manage." This right implied the right to constrain others at work. A founder of sociology Emile Durkheim argued that society was partly built on constraint. This was necessary because of the variety of new occupations that society had produced by the twentieth century (Durkheim, 1984). This variety created the possibility of envy, which Durkheim believed was a part of socialist politics. This envy needed to be constrained, in the interests of social peace. Although it could be argued that this form of socialist politics was brought into existence by capitalism itself; and so envy is more the creation of capitalism. This development of new occupations, plus increasing specialisation within occupations, meant that most people could no longer be self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency may have been a possibility for rural peasantry, but not for urban industrial workers. We necessarily depend on others for products and services, which we need in life. This has been called “a high degree of interdependence” (Lukes, 154: 1973). Further, this was a constraining principle. One is constrained because one cannot provide for oneself everything that one needs to live everyday. The food one eats is produced elsewhere, and one depends on other farmers, and distributors, and retail shops to make it available to urban dwellers. These constraints were seen as necessary because of the growth of more legal and economic freedoms that people could exercise over their lives compared with their feudal past. Durkheim believed in the need for some balance between freedom and constraint in the interests of a healthy society. The prospect of more economic freedoms can at first sight be an appealing prospect. Even the possibility of failure and bankruptcy can add excitement to this world. A recent study of bankruptcy in Britain found that around 40% of new businesses fail within 3 years of start up. The values of freedom, independence, opportunity for innovation, and the expectation of high financial returns, were strongly present in this study. But the stereotype of the hardy individual was not so prevalent. Rather there was a series of negative experiences, frustration with the role of employee, inability to progress in the firm, and fear of unemployment and redundancy. Some believed that they were too old in their 50's to get employment. The experience left bitterness to employers. " When I was made redundant for the second time, I felt I couldn’t trust anyone" (Whyley, 17: 1998). This lack of trust produced a need for the self-reliance that comes with self-employment. Younger people were more positive about self-employment. They tended to have more skills or training or professional experience, which made it easier for them to find other employment, or to start self-employment. Some also had generous redundancy packages that eased the move into self-employment, without an interim period of unemployment. Indeed some of these younger people felt that the available jobs had little to offer them, and so became more enthusiastic about self-employment. These younger and enthusiastic people positively valued freedom and creativity, and did not just want to run a business. “We didn’t know anything about production, finance or selling. We had learnt nothing in college about when you were supposed to deliver or how payments are made. After our first show we didn’t even think about getting the clothes made up for order until about four months later” (Lee, 219: 1989). One of the legal requirements for running a small business is that one's personal moneys have to be kept separate from the money going in and out of the business. This was practised by only a minority however. There were a number of reasons for this. One was that the most frequent way to raise money from the bank was to take out a loan on one's private home. "More than half of the people we interviewed had raised money for their business by borrowing against the security of their family home. The amounts they raised were from £5,000.00 to £30,000.00" (Whyley, 31:1998). Also, the interviews at the bank were less to do with informal advice about running a small business, and more to do with the bank's concern about the security of their investment. So the business start up loan was closely tied to the family home at the start. A minority of people in the study were able mix the two moneys, business and personal, without problems. Sometimes there was an accountant who arbitrarily allocated moneys to one place or the other, in order to satisfy legal requirements. Others mixed the two moneys more than they realised. Finally, severe financial pressure from creditors with unpaid bills, forced the mixing of the two moneys. Household moneys were used to pay off angry suppliers. Few of those in self-employment were concerned with their personal earning capacity. Self-employment was treated like a new job, like being an employee. It just provided money to make ends meet. Few employed an accountant. Since most business was in the home, or the home was used for business, the bills for domestic fuel and services referred to both business and domestic use. Therefore, these bills were paid with one payment. This muddled the two moneys even more. All this mattered when the business started to fail. If suppliers bills were met before mortgage and bank loan repayments, then one could lose one's home through repossession! As one man put it: " I think that the main problem with the business has probably been myself. First of all I'm a craftsman, a tradesman, and not really a good business man". (Whyley, 57: 1998). Closing down the business was rarely a purely economic affair. Trading often continued long after the business was economically viable. The emotional attachment to the business was too strong. There was also an element of the coming shame, as closing would be seen as a personal failure. There were cases of severe depression and family tension. As one man put it: "I went through a phase where I could not open envelopes, which were obviously related to money. You can read envelopes, I can tell you without opening them... who they're from, and what it's about" (Whyley, 62: 1998). This feeling of desperation was common amongst business failures. Those who entered self-employment with no other choice, and with little skills or training or contacts got little from the experience; apart from a period of paid self-employment. One study of small business entrepreneurs in Kent showed that at the weekend their employer could loan tools and even capital equipment to employees. They could practice as entrepreneurs themselves! This was a sort of school for capitalism. It made the move from employee to employer much easier. It was also an expression of the trust and friendship between employer and employee. However, it also reduced any calls for higher wages from the employees (Scase & Goffee, 1982). The salience of the employer/employee relationship was reduced by these measures. The shared belief in individualism helped to reduce the class difference, which did exist between employer and employee. There was a fear amongst the employees however of slipping into a lower class position, as one grew older. One had less physical strength to exploit on the building site, so one might be given less skilled and lower paid work. Indeed this self-exploitation of one’s body can be seen as part of entrepreneurial values, and was true of both the smaller employers and the employees. This easy transition from employer to employee was not for all workers though. Only those seen by the employer as respectable workers were taken on in the first place. This was especially important for building work in private homes. Some workers were seen as unemployable. No class movement was open to them. However, for those lacking educational certification this employment, leading to self-employment, can be an opportunity to rise in society. Work can produce opportunities that neither school, nor one’s family can. A very different study called “Reluctant Managers” (Scase & Goffee, 1989) found that most male managers ranked family and personal relationships above career achievements, as the most important source of satisfaction in their lives. This study was published at the end of the 1980’s. It revealed, what later studies confirmed, that there was a growing scepticism about the values of entrepreneurialism amongst entrepreneurs themselves. Two thirds of those interviewed wanted to retire in their 50’s. “The Protestant Ethic is really wearing a bit thin,” (Scase & Goffee, 102: 1989) said one interviewee. This was a male general manager in his late 40’s. Two thirds of managers took account of their children’s education in thinking of a career move. This seems to be evidence of a reducing commitment to entrepreneurial values. The reasons given for this change in values include increasing responsibility because of untrained subordinates. In interviews with senior managers in a large high street bank, I found that an increasing number were taking early retirement. This had the consequence that for middle managers there were fewer senior colleagues one could go to for advice in difficult cases, as one did in the past. All this increases the pressures on the younger managers who remain, albeit reluctantly. Another study of entrepreneurial managers, by the same authors, focused on female entrepreneurs (Scase & Goffee, 1985). The reasons given for self-employment were summarised as more to do with income than being employed; being engaged in craft skills in the home. Also, doing this paid work in the home meant that no time was spent travelling to paid work. This saved time was seen as facilitating domestic work. The last reason given was greater autonomy and self-expression. This last reason was similar to men's reasons for self-employment. Some of the women in their sample wanted to beat the men at their own game; being assertive, exercising will power, even being ruthless. These women had often had a frustrating experience as employees, being passed over for promotion. However, they still had the goals of success, but became self employed to achieve them. The actual work relationships in the small firms set up were very informal and non-hierarchical. There was an expectation that all would co-operate in this small new firm. The business was based on trust and close supervision was not seen as necessary. Further, making the firm grow was not seen as desirable. This would create the need for hierarchy and supervision, and less trust. Some women were aware that they used their femininity in doing deals with men; and were less happy having to deal with other women. Yet other women did not see themselves as entrepreneurs, and did not wish others to see them in this way. One of the firms was explicitly feminist and had their origin in consciousness raising groups. This had the consequence that much time was spent at work, and occasionally after work, in discussion of the business. Matters rarely went to a vote, and sometimes personal matters were discussed, such as pregnancy, particularly where they affected the business. The craft workers, on the other hand, were more dependent on men; husbands who gave financial support, and banks who gave start up loans. "When I wanted some money to buy a van, the bank manager said 'Bring your husband down'. My husband previously banked elsewhere, and it was put very nicely that he would have to transfer his account. He did. He's very good like that ". (Scase & Goffee, 127: 1985). Where there was no bank loan, and a small capital base from savings, other studies of female entrepreneurs have found that these women were less able to cope with late payments, than those with a larger capital base were. Further, there was often a lack of assertiveness in collecting payments, or non-payments. Some women practised price-cutting as an attempt to enter a market. This can be seen as quite rational, if only as a short term strategy. However, the researchers argued that this price-cutting could be a reflection of the women's lack of confidence in their product or their skills (Whyley, 1998). Another example of capitalism providing freedom is the case of ethnic entrepreneurs. Amongst the advantages to the employees is the fact that all, or most, of the other employees are from the same ethnic group. This means that religious customs, including religious holidays are respected. The disadvantages are that wages may be low. In addition, in order to increase sales outside the ethnic group, one study found that sales staff had to be white. Nonetheless, the increased sales helped to make the employees’ jobs more secure. Studies of ethnic entrepreneurs have followed the 1980's decade of entrepreneurial culture. For some analysts there was no difference between ethnic entrepreneurs and white entrepreneurs. They both responded to opportunities in the market place. For other writers there was a reaction model. This model argued that being an ethnic entrepreneur was largely a reaction to widespread racism in society. In particular the experience of blocked mobility, or even redundancy, in large white firms led these workers to set up their own firms. There were few choices when setting up these firms. They often moved into premises and jobs left by white workers who had closed down. The idea that there was some special cultural flair for business fits badly with these constraints. One respondent put it this way: "The choice was labouring or going into business." (Ram, 1992) This picture of an ethnic ghetto was reinforced when one of the best researchers on this area was told by a respondent; "I'm only talking to you because I know your family. If you were white I wouldn’t talk to you." (Ram 1992). These firms were small, needed little capital to start up, and did not have particularly high levels of expertise. In order to grow, and ensure long term survival, these firms needed to break out of the ethnic markets they sold to. However, most employers had not strategically aimed to sell to their ethnic market, but were content to stay there. Some, about a quarter, did break out, but only by employing a white sales manager. This is a measure of the experience of racism experienced by those who tried to break out on their own. As one manager of a clothing factory put it, when trying to sell to a large chain store; "You could tell that he didn't want to buy off you because of the colour of your skin." (Ram, 1992). On the other hand, ethnic firms did lack expertise in the areas of marketing, sales, financial control and general management. There was a resistance to introducing more "rational" methods, or the current fashion, as this would be disruptive of the existing organisation of the firm. So, when one large customer wanted the latest quality controls in place, or else threatened not renew the contract, the behaviour of the factory manager had to change radically. A number of set procedures would have to be introduced, which among other things had the consequence that the manager could not work on the floor any more. The organisation of these firms was typically in terms of partnerships across kin relations. This was because family labour was cheap, and managerial control was easier because of trust within the family. Typically one partner controlled the operation of production within the firm; the other partner controls all relations outside the firm. The disadvantage of this style was that it radically restricted growth. There was one example of a family with seven brothers. They managed seven shops. There was no question of opening any more shops, although the family now had considerable experience. Having to operate within one's own ethnic group meant that a number of firms with a single ethnic group were created. One writer even claims that there is an ethnic hierarchy of firms. The hierarchy has to do with how well established the firm is, compared with how recently new immigrant owners have arrived. Jewish clothing firms were favourably compared by employees to Greek and Turkish Cypriots, Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi employers (Phizacklea, 76: 1990). This was partly to do with wages, which in turn reflected their position in the hierarchy of sub-contracting firms, who were increasingly forced to accept low prices for their production. This is a world of increasing competition with women working from home on their own sewing machines. they are also at the bottom of the hierarchy in terms of pay. The point of these studies is that there is a changing relationship between freedom and constraint, just as there was between working and non-working in chapter one. Those workers with least constraint are those who are highly skilled and educated, and those successful entrepreneurs who avoid bankruptcy. Those with the most constraint are the unskilled and semi-skilled. Those who are unemployed are the most constrained of all, but by the state; and not relations at work.
To proceed to the next chapter, click the link below.
|