Men and work. Since the industrial revolution men and work have been interlinked and almost interchangeable. The identity and image that most men have of themselves has been centred around work, or more accurately, employment. The role a job bestowed upon a man defined who he was. Further, it gave him status and rewarded him financially, giving him the means of independence and of being a provider for a family. In this context it is unsurprising that as the old patterns of employment break down, with a clear shift towards part time work, serial employment (a regular change of job rather than remaining in the same job for life), and the growth of long term unemployment, so there has been a corresponding questioning not only of the role of men, but of what it means to be a man.
In this issue of Achilles Heel we offer several different perspectives on men and work, reflecting both personal experience and social commentary. We recognise that not only does work have an impact upon men but that also men have an impact upon work. The identification of work with employment and therefore money, in a system where money generally equals power, has suited us as men and there has been (and still is in many quarters) a strong investment in maintaining this. Such a framework may not be to the benefit of all men but it ensures that the major beneficiaries will generally be male. It is in the area of paid work more than any other that the term patriarchy has meaning today. This is demonstrated by the tiny percentage of women in the higher echelons of management or sitting as directors in the boardroom in the realms of money, politics and corporate power men still dominate.
However, change is happening and this is reflected in a number of themes that emerge time and again in the articles. One of these themes is the aforesaid acknowledgment that the pattern of employment has changed and is continuing to change. In the past 14 years, according to the Income Data Services and HMSO Annual Abstract of Statistics, an estimated 90% of jobs created were part time and low paid. A similar percentage of jobs lost in this period were full time and paid enough to support a family. It is no longer possible for many men to be the sole providers for a family.
A further and related theme is that of the sterility of work in terms of emotion, feelings and spirit. It may be acceptable for a man to love his work but to offer or receive love at work is another matter. The damage that men do to themselves and others in such an environment where vulnerability and caring are usually perceived as signs of failure is immense. For all the undoubted benefits on offer there is a price to pay, which is usually exacted through physical and mental ill health and the breakdown of relationships. Creating a workplace where the values of love and community are greater than those of profit and status is essential if the culture of isolated endurance, ruthless competitiveness and emotional indifference is to change. This would also go some way to bridging the chasm between home and workplace by bringing their values into alignment rather than setting them up in opposition. This leads into the question of what exactly is work. For as stated before, it is not so much work that most men identify themselves with as employment, work carried out for money. If bringing up a child is work, running a household is work, maintaining a relationship is work, supporting the community in a voluntary capacity is work. Yet these and other unpaid activities are not ones with which men generally identify themselves. When there is no money or status to be gained, we are less likely to accord activities with the title of work. But by denying the value of child-care, relationships and community we deprive ourselves of both intimacy and the balance of a life lived with wholeness, health and mutual support.
In this context it seems important to recognise the framework in which employment takes place. In a system where mass consumption and the profit motive are primary, then greed, selfishness and exploitation are inevitable. As underlying dynamics they infuse all employment. For whilst it is possible to be paid for working without having personal motives of profit and consumerism, by being part of the larger economic system all monetary exchange cannot but help be part of it. From this perspective, the identification of men with paid work in such a system must create a parallel identification with greed, exploitation and selfishness. This is not to say that all men embrace these values at all times but that all men have to deal with their pervasive and seductive influence. For a further consequence of such a system is that unpaid work that does not address itself to profit or consumption is devalued. This perhaps explains why although many individual men will bemoan the lack of time they can spend with their families because of the demands of work, as yet there is no strong political impetus from men to reduce working hours, change the working environment, or even demand paternity leave. It should be noted here that this is true of both the left and the right, which are equally dominated by men at all the upper levels.
Change is happening but it is still very much at the personal rather than political level. The articles here reflect this emphasis on personal experience rather than political action. However, when it does not remain isolated and is shared with others, the personal is political. We believe the questions raised here are both pertinent and naked. Stripped of the clothing of paid work, who are we as men? Stripped of the identification with employment and men, what is the nature of work? We hope this issue of Achilles Heel offers some small contribution towards answering both these questions.
Copyright © Achilles Heel Collective
