Camille: Dangers of the American Ideology on Work

By

  In his chapter on work, Shelby outlines a fascinating and compelling account of why the urban black poor’s refusal to participate in a workforce with only limited and demeaning work is justifiable. The section on Work and Human Flourishing was particularly resonant for its account of the American obsession with a hard work ethic. Within the United States, there is a pervasive --and what I will argue is an insidious-- ideology of hard work and “picking yourself up from your bootstraps.” This story and valuation of human worth operate as an ideology because it is a “widely held set of associated beliefs and implicit judgments that misrepresent significant social realities and that function, through this distortion, to bring about or perpetuate unjust social relations.” Our obsession with “hard work” and wealth accumulation is central to the dominant conception of the good and perception of human flourishing. Yet, this ideology ignores the social and economic realities of less privileged groups, obscures exploitation, and justifies unjust economic stratification.

The first objection to this mentality is that its ideology is based on flawed reasoning that doesn’t hold for all social classes and races. It is the “American Dream” that anyone can rise above their misfortunes if they put their head down and work hard. Yet, the lack of economic mobility in the United States is astounding. Additionally, the upper classes depend upon the subjugation and maintenance of stratified and unjust economic classes in order to have a group of people doing the dirty work and menial labor that no one else takes on. There is an assumption that working hard leads to human flourishing and is what makes someone dignified and an upstanding citizen. However, this assumption doesn’t hold true for the urban poor, who are forced into taking demeaning jobs that don’t pay well, perpetuate injustice, and inhibit them from pursuing their conception of a good life. The fact that this mentality operates as an ideology lends itself to its insidious persistence – it obscures relevant information, misleads people, and, thus, inhibits social reform.

The second objection rests upon the idea that when this mentality is forced upon the population through mandates of requiring work of residents in black ghettos, it violates principles of political liberalism. It is a fundamental principle of a liberal society, as Kant and Rawls express, that individuals are free to develop and live according to their conceptions of the good so long as they live up to their civic obligations. To force a mentality of the American work ethic or mandate wage labor would infringe upon people’s choices. As Shelby makes clear, while we have a sense of duty to “work if we also eat,” it is reasonable for people to refuse work in an unjust society.

Thirdly, this ideology puts socio-economically disadvantaged individuals in a double bind. Essentially, people in the black ghettos are screwed if they work and screwed if they don’t. If they accept work, they might be working a physically arduous, highly unpleasant, and dangerous job, where they can no longer care for their dependents and are subject to demeaning stereotypes and associations. Suppose, instead, they refuse work because of any of those reasonable rejections. In that case, they are similarly stigmatized, are unable to provide for themselves and their families, and might not receive adequate support. We have an obsession with the workforce rate of people below the poverty line, yet we don’t consider the real human consequences of their experience. Essentially, both options are bad options.

Lastly, this idealized perception of hard work in the US contributes to harmful rhetoric around welfare that stigmatizes and devalues minorities. Through the “laissez-faire” racist beliefs that people on welfare are lazy, self-defeating, or parasitic, people ignore the relevant unjust social arrangements and historical oppression that bring about these dependencies in the first place. It places emphasis and blame in the wrong places and then adds insult to injury by stigmatizing the victims of unjust institutions. If hard work were the panacea, then we wouldn’t be facing these enormous issues of inequality. The issue is that people are systemically barred from equal access to opportunities and wealth accumulation or even access to respectable positions of work in the first place.

When considering how to reform, I firmly agree with Shelby’s account that the most affected and oppressed must be the most centered. Any advocacy must be sensitive to the reasonable demands of black citizens, and interventions should not add to the burdens of the oppressed when seeking to correct injustice. Instead of focusing on forced integration, we need to focus on investment.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more