Re: [xmca] Emotion at Work

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden who-is-at>
Date: Fri Aug 03 2007 - 17:59:48 PDT

I think what Helena has reminded us of is the need for a "participants'
point of view" and to avoid an objectivist analysis from outside the
consciousness and motivation of the individuals involved. People in
capitalist society do not always or even usually go off and get a job in
order to participate in the social division of labour, i.e., to be part of
the social production of the community, but rather, to gain personal
independence by earning a living, perhaps by stealing cars. Whether you are
part of the system of social production or just earning a living or just
enjoying yourself will define quite a different frame for determining what
you do and your motivations, and its dynamic will be governed different
rules. And of course, you need to have an idea of which system(s) are most
prominent in other people's thinking and motivation, too.
There is of course one big activity system namely the world capitalist
market, but we can't build a psychology on that can we? For example as soon
as producers started exchanging products we had "commerce" arise as a new
activity system with its own rules, motivation, consciousness, etc., then
travel, etc.. What I was wondering about was: how and to what extent can,
for example, "earning a living" be a *whole* activity system, as opposed to
being a myriad of different activity systems around the living of different
people? I know that the rule of "earning a living" are social determined,
but what makes the activity a system or should it not be called a "system"
at all? And how do we objectively know when some series of actions
constitutes an "activity"? If I thought we were all here having a nice chat
and exchanging ideas, and then someone told me "No, this is a learning
activity, not recreation, going on here." And someone else piped up and
said "No, this list is about a struggle for Marxism" How does one know what
the truth is here? What is the criterion?
I'm not quite clear on this?
At 04:56 AM 3/08/2007 -0700, you wrote:
> As I read your comments I found the first activity system
> described/named but not the second except insofar as you identified it's
> object: making a living, which you contrasted to the object of the first
> activity system: being a fish culturist. But the first activity system,
> the focus of the discussion paper, was also clearly identified in other
> activity theoretic categories in your comments. Perhaps Wollf-Michael is
> right in saying there is only one activity system. But if we, adopting
> Marx's categories as Engestrom applied them, consider that the use-value
> of being a fish-culturist is doing the best job and getting the biggest
> and healthiest fish as a member of the entire team, while the
> exchange-value of that job is for each member of the system "making a
> living", the fundamental condition of wage labor, is the problem
> resolved? I don't remember any analysis of the contradictions
> between use value and exchange value of the fish culturist's labor in
> the paper.
> Not too sure about this expanding power stuff either.
> I don't know if Engestrom has changed his position about the
> contradictions between use and exchange value in activity systems but
> perhaps that would account for your concern which seems to be addressing
> the class character of all labor in capitalist economies. Our ability to
> participate in "this or that activity" is a function of the market for
> the labor commodity, no matter how skilled. Certainly,when one does the
> best job they can but still gets laid off, frustration and resentment
> arise. I'm not sure whether the term "wage-laborer", someone who haas to
> "make a living", as opposed to someone who inherited a lot of money for
> example, is a category of a specific activity system or one of the
> principles of all activity systems in capitalist economies. The latter
> is how I understand Engestrom when he evaluates how ithis contradiction
> works itself out in the different vertices.
> As far as production, distribution, exchange, consumption in the
> Grundrisse, Marx's analysis in that work showed how production was
> determinant of the of the others despite their ability to be analyzed in
> terms of each other. Hence commodity production as determines the
> specific characteristics of the other elements of the economic system as
> a whole.
> Paul Dillon
>Wolff-Michael Roth <> wrote:
> Hi Helena,
>I am sure all appreciate your extensive comments as much as I do. The
>one question I have is about the two activity systems and how you see
>them as operating in the hatchery.
>I think if you took Marx's Capital, or perhaps rather Klaus
>Holzkamp's extension of Leont'ev, you would think of one rather than
>of two systems. As individuals, we expand our own room to maneuver---
>control over our life situation---if we contribute to the collective
>control over life conditions. By participating in this or that
>activity (Tätigkeit, deyatel'nost'), we expand our person control---
>we buy food, clothing, a roof over our head, etc.
>Now you COULD see it as two systems, but the second would be an
>integral and constitutive part of the first, just as Yrjö (1987)
>cites the GRUNDRISSE, where Marx writes how production can be
>analyzed in terms of consumption, exchange, distribution, and
>production; and each of these terms in turn can be analyzed in terms
>of production, consumption, distribution, and exchange. Thus
>productive activity, such as working in a fish hatchery, involves
>exchange processes---but whether these constitute activity
>(Tätigkeit, deyatel'nost') is another question, which is answered
>when you ask, so what is societal about this?
>Thanks again for your careful reading,
>On 1-Aug-07, at 9:20 AM, Helena Harlow Worthen wrote:
>Hello, xmca --
>I hope this response is not too late to re-engage in the discussion
>of Wolf-Michael's paper "Emotion at Work." It always seems to take me
>a while to work my way through a paper. By the time I get through it,
>and then read through the discussion, the discussion has started to
>fade. In addition, I tend to write pretty long responses because I
>come to these discussions as a labor educator and therefore imagine,
>rightly or wrongly, that I have to load up my contribution with some
>explicit explanations. So apologies for the long post and the late
>contribution, but I'm very interested in hearing anyone's reply.
>Helena Worthen
>Comments on Wolf-Michael Roth's paper, Emotion at Work (MCA14, 1-2)
>Wolf-Michael follows the work experience of two employees at a
>federal fish hatchery in Canada over a period of five years, with a
>return visit one year after the five-year period. In this article, he
>is concerned with investigating the relationship between emotions and
>motivation and identity for the purpose of incorporating these into
>activity theory, which he says has tended toward being a theory of
>"cold cognition." He compares the emotions, motivation and work
>identities of two employees, Erin and Jack, to show how their
>feelings about their work relate to their motivation and identity -
>or more specifically, how their emotions about their expertise at
>work and the degree to which it is valued in the workplace affect
>their motivation to do their work and consequently, their identity as
>Bringing emotion into the discussion of the production of knowledge
>at work is very important, and this ethnographic study provides
>plenty of material. As someone whose job (labor education) consists
>of teaching employees about the social relations of employment from
>the perspective of workers, I appreciate attempts to approach the
>profoundly important question of how people feel about what they know
>and how this affects what they learn on the one hand and what they do
>with what they know on the other hand. Since learning goes on all the
>time at work, and since the success or failure of both workers and
>workplaces is tightly related to what is learned and what is done
>with that knowledge, this is a question of general interest to both
>employees and management.
>However, I would argue that Wolf-Michael's study would benefit from a
>step which would have to be taken early in the analysis. I would like
>to see the comparison of the emotional valence of Erin and Jack's
>deployment of their expertise framed in terms of not one activity
>system but two. First is the activity system of production and second
>is the activity system of earning a living. Through the division of
>labor of the first system, Jack and Erin are fish culturists, engaged
>in fish feeding, ordering feed, cleaning the fishpond and other
>actions that contribute to the overall activity of fish hatching (p.
>45). In this first system, their goal-directed actions are consistent
>with the collective motive of the hatchery: hatching fish. But
>through the division of labor of the second, they are employees who
>are trying to earn a living. Not always, but sometimes, these two
>activity systems conflict, with resulting tensions between the
>emotions, motivations and identities associated with them. Wolf-
>Michael notes that Jack and Erin could be doing the same actions in a
>backyard fish pond, where they would also be engaged in a different
>activity system (motivated by recreation, not production or earning a
>living), but he doesn't distinguish between the two activity systems
>that are taking place at the workplace - fish hatching and earning a
>For example: Wolf-Michael's description of Erin's voice pitch as she
>analyses the computer generated plot of fish length and weight
>(rising pitch, positive valence of emotion) is taken from a moment
>when she is talking about her work in the activity system of fish
>hatching. He does not provide a description of her voice pitch when
>she is talking about the changes undertaken by the new management or
>the impending layoffs, although he does report that at the time when
>she is being laid off, the emotions expressed through voice pitch (p.
>50) are wider in range and there are "many more emotional outbursts
>with large differences" (p 52). I would have said here that we're
>looking at the emotional tension between Erin's pride in her
>expertise as a fish culturist and her anger as an employee at being
>laid off - one activity system (fish culturing) is going well and the
>other (earning a living) is going badly. If we are looking at two
>systems, we can understand why Erin, for example, might feel proud
>and committed with regard to her work as a fish culturist but anxious
>and even bitter with regard to her job, and that these two emotions
>would be in tension with each other.
>Similarly, Wolf-Michael's description of Jack's emotional state could
>also benefit from being understood as the tension between being
>engaged in two conflicting activity systems at once. Wolf-Michael
>gives us more information about Jack. Although he is a gifted and
>conscientious fish culturist who developed some original experiments
>and did research that at first got some recognition, the hatchery is
>now under the new management and support for his professional
>development has evaporated. He is seeing doors of opportunity
>closing. He's understandably angry and cuts back on his investment in
>the fish hatchery beyond what he has to do to earn a living: he re-
>calibrates his commitment to being just an employee.
>Separating out these two activity systems early in the analysis
>allows us to see how the knowledge or expertise produced within each
>of them becomes charged with emotional valence. Wolf-Michael proposes
>"positive" and "negative" labels for this valence, which we might
>expand by proposing pride, enthusiasm, elation, curiosity, anxiety,
>disappointment, fear, anger, bitterness, etc - some of these are Wolf-
>Michael's. This separation would open the door in two directions.
>In one direction we would look outward to the pressures on that
>workplace from society which are typically transmitted through
>management into a workplace. In the other direction we would look to
>see the relationship between individual workers and the collective of
>workers. Activity theory helps us hold these two perspectives steady
>while we investigate what is going on in each of them.
>Looking outward, in order to really understand the social
>relationships of a workplace and thereby to interpret how people are
>behaving and feeling, we need to be explicit about the industrial
>relations system within which that workplace is operating. We need to
>look closely at the concrete reality of the division of labor that
>has sorted some people into management, others into employees (or in
>this case, two people into management, five into fish culturalists,
>two into maintenance/administrative assistant staff workers, and
>perhaps thirty into seasonal employees). Looking inward, we need to
>understand what kind of solidarity (Michael's word in page 59,
>although he notes it as something that "fuels invidiaul short-and
>long-term emotional states") is available to the employees. These two
>dimensions, both easily approached through activity theory, will give
>us the concrete reality of the kind of control that the managers have
>(or don't have) over the work done by Jack, Erin and the other
>employees. How was this division of labor established and how is it
>maintained? What are its edges and limits? What are the resources of
>the employees? The answers to these questions would provide the
>framework, or matrix, within which the emotions that Wolf-Michael is
>writing about are generated.
>Wolf-Michael tells us a few things about the concrete social
>relationships of the hatchery, so that we can extrapolate what is
>probably going on. There are 18 federal fish hatcheries in this
>province and this one employs 2 managers, 5 culturists, a maintenance
>person and an administrative assistant, and up to 30 seasonal temps.
>This means that there are not a lot of alternative jobs for fish
>culturists (especially for one like Jack who has only a high school
>education) so that keeping one's job is very important. There is new
>management and thus probably new employment practices on the agenda.
>Costs are closely watched to the point of choosing what kind of feed
>to give the fish and whether to drive 50 kilometers to exchange a set
>of keys, and the survival of hatchery is always in question (p. 53).
>We can't tell much more than this, except that "collectively, then,
>there was a sense that things were going from bad to worse" (p. 56).
>It would help if we knew what the overall agenda of the new
>management was with regard to budget and target number of employees;
>that, after all, is the overarching framework of the social
>relationships of the workplace which are being experienced by the
>employees. If we were looking at this material as an activity system
>in which managers were trying to manage a workplace during a period
>of budget cuts and downsizing, and employees were trying to earn a
>living and protect or improve working conditions (including job
>security and earnings) at that same workplace, we could understand
>the emotional valence in which the knowledge of how to do these
>complementary and conflicting activities becomes charged.
>It's within the workforce, obviously, not between the two managers,
>that the "sense that things were going from bad to worse" is
>generated. Wolf-Michael notes this: "Interactions with the new
>managers were laden with conflict" (p. 57). We are now looking at
>Jack as a member of the workforce, and Erin as a member of the
>workforce - them as employees, not as fish culturists. Not
>surprisingly, Jack - who as an older employee (he was in fact once
>Erin's mentor) has fewer options in case he is laid off - resorts to
>his knowledge of how to behave as just an employee - not someone who,
>as a fish culturist, gives 300%, but someone who as an employee
>calculates how to invest the least effort for the highest return. He
>works to rule and minimizes contact with the new management.
>Finally, in the absence of making the distinction between the two
>activity systems that are going among the workers at the fish
>hatchery at the same time (hatching fish and earning a living), we
>have a hard time making sense of what we're reading on several
>accounts. The fish hatchery is referred to as a "collective."
>Although we are not told much about the collective solidarity of the
>workforce, it sounds as if Jack is pretty isolated in his withdrawal
>into work to rule. When we get to the final section on page 59 where
>Wolf-Michael is talking about the phenomenon of collective emotion
>and its connection to individual emotion,it sounds as if he's saying
>that everyone who works at the fish hatchery, the new management
>included, is part of the collective. I would argue that the
>collective is not the whole hatchery including the new management,
>but that it's the employees for whom the hatchery is a way to earn a
>living. This essence, which can be left in the background when
>budgets are generous and jobs are secure, jumps into the foregrand
>during a period of layoffs and budget cuts, which is what is
>happening in this fish hatchery.
>Helena Worthen
>University of Illinois Labor Education Program
>Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations
>xmca mailing list
>xmca mailing list
>Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>xmca mailing list

  Andy Blunden : tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651

xmca mailing list
Received on Fri Aug 3 18:01 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:23 PDT