Abstract
The paper revisits the debate on the political function of work, defined as the contribution of work to the production and transformation of social relations, in both conceptual and empirical terms. It begins by briefly recalling the terms of the debate about the emancipatory potential of work as seen by Karl Marx and Hannah Arendt, and then proceeds to argue, contra Arendt, that since work is a collective and cooperative activity, it is not a-political. The major contribution of the paper consists of discussing the issue by critically considering the literature on both economic theories of the firm and labour economics, two strands of literature usually kept apart. We regard the quantification and individualisation trends that characterise the contemporary world of work as a de-politicisation process, one linked to the (mainstream) agency theory of the firm which legitimises financialisation. We conclude by outlining a way in which to re-politicise work and the firm.
Highlights
The debate about the political function of work opened with Karl Marx’s claim that the consciousness-raising capacity of wage labour would result in emancipation through collective action
This paper discusses the political function of work in both theoretical and empirical terms
It begins by briefly recalling that Karl Marx saw an emancipatory potential in work for two reasons: i) work is a means for self-development and ii) wage work creates the conditions for class consciousness and for the workers’ fight for emancipation
Summary
The debate about the political function of work opened with Karl Marx’s claim that the consciousness-raising capacity of wage labour would result in emancipation through collective action. Since Hannah Arendt is one of the leading disputers of Marx’s emancipation contentions, our discussion builds on a critical analysis of Arendt’s conception of work in The Human Condition Her basic argument is, following Aristotle, that in the activity of work/labour, there is neither an ethical dimension nor normative potential because no intersubjectivity is involved. Dur et al (2010) do call attention to the many benefits good relationships may yield to the firm and recognise that they may motivate workers more powerfully than pecuniary incentives; likewise, employees’ effort and employer’s benevolent treatment of workers are modelled as reciprocal gifts that, though costly, appear as possibly efficient strategies (Non, 2012) These human dispositions are considered social preferences, which are introduced into the individualistic ontological apparatus of rational choice theory; the latter only recognises cognitive, not affective elements (Sugden, 2005), which are the elements activated in interpersonal human interactions that account for cooperative behaviour (see below). Deontic activity in work requires workers to speak about their work and to express and justify their point of view on work-related matters; it requires them to listen to others’ views and concerns. This is a deliberative activity, what is properly considered “action”, or political activity, by Arendt
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
