Nature of the Modern Working Class Culture - Essay Example

? Nature of the Working Culture Today College Introduction It is possible to relate culture and taste to social For example, unlike people from the lower socio-economic groups, most people from the upper socio-economic class are fond of classical music. However, there are exceptions; drawing the same kind of distinction between the cultures of social classes today is much more problematic. This is because the mass media have apparently created a superior culture of the highest in the society that is easily reachable to a wider audience; opera is no longer enjoyed by a few minority regarded as intellectuals. For instance, in Brazil, Samba is seen as music of the young working class, but in Europe and North America, it represents an exotic form of ‘world music’ popular with the educate elite. This explicitly reveals that relationship between culture and social class seems to differ broadly in the world. Thus, ‘class culture’ is a concept created by the debates about the changing structure of class (Kirby 1997: 676). Working Class Culture In the 1950s, affluent group of workers was emerging due to the escalating standards of living in the 1950s and changing working class culture nature, which created a change in political attitudes and middle class lifestyle. According to Kirby, “Sections of the working class enjoyed access to a range of cultural goods and commodities for the first time, including family cars, washing machines, televisions and holidays abroad” (1997: 676). Kirby further suggests that mass society was created by the emergence of American cultural products including rock and roll, American movies, and juke boxes and so on, which led to gradual erosion of the working class culture. Working class people always lived with the fear of job insecurity, constantly wondering how long they would last in their current jobs, or if they would stay in their rented houses on a permanent basis or not (Charlesworth, 2000:163). Instead of emphasis on planning ahead, the working class culture focused on a happy living by the day or moment, as well as the value of having fun while one had a chance. According to Kirby, traditional working class culture stood for certain values, among them a sense of responsibility for others in the community and tolerance. It also emphasized on commitment of one to political involvement and a sense of decency, which, knows right from wrong. The arrival of mass entertainment designed to appeal to all classes slowly eroded the traditional working class culture. The introduction of radio, for example, alienated the need for working-class people to meet and sing their own songs (Kirby, 1997: 677). Stereotypes of the Working Class Culture Stereotypes are based on “oversimplified and pre-conceived ideas of the characteristics of a particular, situation or group” as displayed in Oxford Dictionary, 1989, “Stereotype”. In many studies of the working class culture and stereotypes, there has been the dominance of gender. According to Dunk, stereotypes relating to gender are changing. Nonetheless, structures of patriarchy and ideology still have root in the society (Dunk, 2003: 18). Central stereotypes reflect the world concepts of dominant classes who are in a quest for self-actualization at the expense of others below their class. For example, many have stereotyped Blacks as ‘Jezebels whereby women were all perceived as promiscuous (Mankiller, 1998: 565). Alongside racial and ethnic stereotypes, gender and social class are among the most prominent features where people fall. In the society, a complex interplay exists among racial-ethnic, gender and class stereotypes (Andersen, Taylor 2008: 276). Andersen and Taylor further notes that there are gender stereotypes. This refers to stereotypes that focus on a person’s gender. According to these authors, women stereotypes tend to be more negative compared to those of men. The typical woman has been traditionally stereotyped as subservient, flighty, overly emotional, overly talkative and prone to hysteria, and inept at math and science. Many of these are cultural stereotypes. The cultural media-music, T.V and magazines, art and literature convey and support this. The male gender too is stereotyped as crude unflattering strokes. They are macho, insensitive, pigheaded and in comedies as inept. They are generally depicted as interested in sex with as many women as possible and as available. (Andersen, Taylor 2008: 276). This is not the case with the modern day working class. The woman is no longer subservient; she is in equal competition with men; be it in the workforce, career advancement or home-keeping. Women have embraced duties that were traditionally stereotyped as ‘masculine’. These include professions in math and their role as breadwinners/heads of the family among others (Andersen, Taylor 2008: 276). Social class stereotypes, according to Andersen and Taylor are based on assumptions about social class status. Middle and working class people stereotype upper-class people as snooty, aloof, condescending and phony. Some stereotypes held about middle class people, by both the upper class and working class people, are that they are overly ambitious, striving, obsessed and keeping up with the ‘Joneses’. Andresen and Taylor point out that the principle of stereotype interchangeability holds that stereotypes, particularly those that are negative, are often transposable from gender to gender, social class to social class and more so from one racial group to a social class, and from one social class to a gender. Stereotypes about the working class exist. The upper and middle classes perceive them as lazy and unmotivated. The working class also perceives the lower class individuals as inherently violent, dirty and incapable of improving themselves. However, the modern day working class culture is characterized by immense activity. Men and women have taken up double jobs, working overtime, part-time and on weekends to make an extra coin (Andersen, Taylor 2008: 276) There is a traditional negative stereotype about the African Americans. The world portrays them as naturally lazy. Similar application of this stereotype exists in history of the Irish, Hispanics, Italians, Polish, and other groups. The same stereotypes applied to women have been applied to African Americans. The media portrayed them as childlike, overly emotional and unreasoning (Andersen, Taylor 2008: 276-277). African Americans have, however, risen to compete equally with the white working class despite prejudices. They have taken similar jobs, education and live a rather similar lifestyle. They are not lazy, emotional or childlike as they are traditionally stereotyped. During the slave era, the slave system involved the domination of men over women. Black women performed domestic labor for their masters and their own families. White men further exerted their authority in demanding sexual relations with black women. The system was paternalistic. The whites viewed the blacks as incapable of caring for themselves. The prevalent stereotypes of African Americans being childlike portrayed by the media for decades can be traced directly to this system of slavery (Andersen, Taylor 2008: 285). This old stereotype is not typical of the modern day working culture. The white, black and women alike are treated equally in the workforce. According to Eley, (Eley 1995: 21 in Friedrich 2003:4) “the images and stereotypes of the traditional working class culture” as they are portrayed by the media refer to a historical formation of the period between the 1880s and 1940s. It is around this period that the working class image formed. The working class nature has been ‘racialized’. Chav is an abusive term associated with the white poor group. Chavs are not invisible normative whites, but rather hyper visible ‘filthy whites.’ In a way, that bears striking similarities to other national stereotypes of the white poor such as the US ‘white trash’ figure, the chav foregrounds a dirty whiteness – a whiteness contaminated with poverty.” (Tyler, 2008: 25). Post-Fordism “Flexibility’, a characteristic of the Post-Fordiam period whereby it became a familiar catchphrase of the 1980s similar to the ever-present prefixes "post,". In fact, the two are often connected since the fundamental nature of this "post" period – whether postmodern, post-Fordism, or post-industrial - is considered to be flexibility in the form of flexible accumulation, flexible firm, flexible specialization, flexible labor market flexibility; ‘The Age of Flexibility.’(Heffernan, 2000: 30). Basically, the arguments concerned with post-fordism/flexibility reflect on how national economies, industries, organizations, as well as world capitalism are adapting to the fluctuating markets, technological change and global competition (McDonald 2000: 1). Post-Fordism characterized the changing nature of working class culture. According to Hall, Post-Fordism involves a change on use of new technologies in the information sector. It also includes a drift to labor process form and organization of work that is decentralized. Post Fordism is sometimes referred to as “flexibilism” and is characterized by a flexible schedule. I n addition, the old manufacturing base slowly fades away as more improved and computerized industries emerge (Tschmuck, 2012:29). There is more specialization in service and product providence, marketing and packaging of products. The post Fordism era relies on customer accessibility by means of their taste, culture and lifestyle. This is contrary to the Fordism era that targeted customers mainly based on their social class category. Post- Fordism era is also characterized by white collar jobs and the feminization of labor. The financial network becomes global with international participation and advanced and wide communication networks (Amin, 1994:4). Fordism emerged and thrived during the industrialization period. It focused on bulk production of products by industries and organizations. This phenomenon, started by Henry Ford and Fredrick Taylor, has seen great advancement in the business industry. Taylor’s scientific management program focuses on making skilled workers concentrate their skills and knowledge into managerial hands while it seizes control of the production process. This was achieved through the craft’s fragmentation into detailed parts, and precise timing of every part to get rid of superfluous motions and guarantee maximum speed. With his innovative technology, Henry Ford concluded transfer of control with his technology from workers to managers (Gartman, 1998: 122). The Fordism regime adopted a new production system as well as a new consumption. Therefore, new consumers had to be brought to absorb the goods coming out of the production line, but, unfortunately, only the working class was big enough to match the requisite number required. However, turning workers into consumers meant that their wages had to be raised, and they are also persuaded to purchase their means of livelihood, instead of producing the same from home (Gartman, 1998: 122). Following the introduction of this new technology by Ford in 1913, he encountered a wave of resistance from the workers in the form of turnover, threat of unionization and absenteeism. Consequently, he announced the Five Dollar Day program in 1914 aimed at controlling this revolt, in which he doubled most of his workers’ wages. Ford sought a disciplined labor and to induce this, he cajoled workers to spend their wages in the “right way”. As a result, he engaged himself with a paternalistic investigation into the domestic lives of his workers in order to encourage and promote a lifestyle of stable, durable goods consumption, which made them highly dependent on the high wages (Meyer, 1981: 54). Drawing from the perspective of post-Fordist, fewer workers now need to satisfy the demands of working; however, the current workforce must posses a number of abilities and skills, should demonstrate constantly flexibility and must be enthusiastic to take part in life-long learning and career upgrading programs. Post-Fordism also entails an active involvement in workplace initiatives, as well as enrichment of skill with a comprehensible demise in skills partitioning. Thus, key markers in this change represent an organization that shifts from standardization structures to that of centralized control to autonomy, customization and accountability (Reigeluth, 1999: 68). Changes in work patterns are also another significance of Post-Fordism, as well as consumption, production and the value of economic identity shaped by the workers and consumers within the sphere (Heffernan, 2002: 197). This work patterns change also suggests a subsequent transformation in Instructional Organization, which informs workers about the organizations of the Information Age (Reigeluth, 1999: 2). It is this point where the labor force requirements influence the change in the system of education through skills requirement and minimum expectations. Technological development is not seen only as a capitalist instrument to increase productivity. It also enforces the pulling out of surplus value from the process of labor. Technology is not just another weapon in the hands of the capitalist class: it can also be a resource for the new ‘socialized labor force’, through which freedom from work (not only freedom of work) becomes possible, at least in theory (De Giorgi 2006: 43). Post-Fordism was also characterized by a ‘Fordist’ factory. It looked much like a ‘desert’ in which the noisy machineries of mass production had been replaced. Instead, there were by silent and cleaver machines requiring only the surveillance of few technicians. As a consequence, a growing portion of the working class was expelled from the restructured productive sectors, thus joining the ever-growing army of the unemployed, underemployed, part-timers and flexi-workers. Ford acknowledged that there is a need for a good worker employer relationship. To emphasize this, he introduced a higher work pay and workers operated for eight hours a day thus increasing production. However, these changes were meant to provide more profit and so were merely economic rather than human. In Fordistic era, the management was extremely hierarchical. Those at the top of the company had the final say in every decision made in the company (Beek et al, 1989: 2). However, in Post-Fordist era, the workers could process a multiple of products, which allowed them to engage in several activities in the production process. The idea behind this move was that, people can identify themselves better and more with the product if they are integrated into the product making process (Beyons, Nichols, 2006: 24). In addition, they are likely to work harder at their duties, and eventually become more satisfied with their jobs. As a result, teamwork emerged as valuable phenomena, as well as the principle of JIT, “Just In Time”. This principle required that parts to be used in the process of production arrive “just in time” for their use; hence, infrastructure and communication were desired to be faultless (Beek et al, 1989: 7). A system of supply and demand controlled making of the products, in which a great demand created a need for production of a lot of products. This created a close relationship between workers and managers as opposed to the traditional Fordist way of hierarchical and compartmentalized association. Promotion also got adopted as a way to keep workers motivated and boost their morale (Beek et al, 1989: 7). Post-Fordism also accorded flexibility to the working class. It represented a key element for a successful Post-Fordism period, which was closely related to the component of flexibility, that is, more flexibility in labor. The new vision created an environment whereby a worker in the industry could work in several places rather than only one place as before (Beek et al, 1989: 8). Conclusion Post-Fordism period marks the processing and manufacture of a wide variety of goods and services meant mainly to diversify the revolutionary culture and lifestyles in the commercialized environment. The pressure asserted by individualization and innovation played a key role in enhancing this because they stabilized political structures and communal identities put together by the Fordist society, which resulted in postmodern culture. Similarly, there were transitional corporations that came up during this period, as well as flexible production and information technology, which together created a social regime in the Fordist era. Furthermore, the period marked incidences such as niche consumption and reorganization on the basis of international lines of labor division. Conclusively, Fordist welfare services were grounded on inflexible working times. This was facilitated by immobile institutions such as hospitals, schools and welfare organizations (Burrows, Loader 1994:223). BibliographyTop of ForBottom of FormBottom of FormBottom of FormBottom of ForTop of FormTop of FormBottom of ForTop of ForTop of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of FormTop of ForTop of FormBottom of FormFriedrich A., 2003, The Representation of the Working Class in the Films Brassed Off and The Full Monty, Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH, http://www.grin.com Bottom of Form Amin, A. (1994). Post-Fordism: A Reader. Oxford, Blackwell. Andersen, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2008). Sociology: Understanding A Diverse Society. Belmont, Ca, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Beek, T. Buwalda, A. Stoop A. (1989). Post-Fordism And Post-Modernism. Aldershot, England, Ashgate. Beyons, H. Nichols, T. (2006). Patterns of Work in the Post-Fordist Era. Edward Elgar Publishing. Burrows, R., & Loader, B. (1994). Towards A Post-Fordist Welfare State? London, Routledge. Charlesworth, Simon J (2000): A Phenomenology of Working Class Experience Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Giorgi, A. (2006). Re-Thinking The Political Economy Of Punishment: Perspectives On Post-Fordism And Penal Politics. Aldershot, England, Ashgate. Dunk, T. W. (2003). It's A Working Man's Town: Male Working-Class Culture. Montreal, Mcgill-Queen's University Press. EleEley, A. (1995). Traditional Working Class Culture. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Gartman, D. (1998). Postmodernism; Or, The Cultural Logic Of Post-Fordism? The Sociological Quarterly. 39, 119-137. Heffernan, N. (2000). Capital, Class, And Technology In Contemporary American Culture Projecting Post-Fordism. London, Pluto Press. Kirby, M. (1997). Sociology In Perspective. Oxford, Heinemann. Mankiller, W. P. (1998). The Reader's Companion To U.S. Women's History. Boston, Mass, Houghton Mifflin Co. MMMMcdonald, M. (2000). Post-Fordism And The Flexibility Debate. Meyer\mMeyer. A. (1988). Americanism And Fordism -- American Style: Kate Richards O'hare's "Has Henry Ford Made Good?". Labor History. 29, 241-252. Oxford Dictionary 1989, “Stereotype” Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-Design Theories And Models. Volume Ii, A New Paradigm Of Instructional Theory. Mahwah, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tschmuck, P. (2012). Creativity and Innovation in the Music Industry. SprimgerLink: Bucher.2nd Edition. Springer publishers. Tyler, I., & Bennett, B. (2010). `Celebrity Chav': Fame, Femininity and Social Class. European Journal Of Cultural Studies. 13, 375-393. Read More