When most people
think of work ethic they think of how you behave when on the job; your general
attitude, your response to co-workers, and your ability to run on
schedule. I believe there is more to the
term “work ethic” than meets the eye, one that ties in very closely with
perceptions of time and governance. This paper will explore the term “work
ethic” within the context of precarious work, focusing on sex workers, bead
workers, part time handy men and free-lance artists in Johannesburg. They all
have something in common, and it is what Jane Guyer explains as living in
punctuated time, what Gustav Peebles refers to as being orientated in the
present. The antithesis of what Weber calls the “Protestant Work Ethic”.
What
is work ethic?
If one looks at
Gustav Peebles paper A Geography of Debauchery
it cannot be helped to question the nature of work as an ethical entity
with regard to one’s context. Peebles
paper calls into question the nature of hierarchy in relation to present and
future orientated work ethics. Where a present orientated work ethic would be
one in which a person lives for the moment, money becomes something that is
useful now. The thought of future saving, which predominates the ethic of the
“future orientated” workers mind is lacking.
Both of these
ethics are closely tied to the nature of the state. The former being shunned as
an autonomous notion allowing the individual mobility and freedom; it creates a
sense of disdain for hierarchy (Peebles 2008; 115). The latter is advocated – I
believe because these workers work in favour of the state, while the former
does not – how can they contribute to society if they work in cash and can’t be
traced for taxes?
One must ask: in the context of South Africa,
where the latter “future orientated” ethic is held in repute, and the former
“present orientated ethic” is held in disregard by certain laws – is there
really a choice and should present orientated people be held accountable for
their actions?
When
is it ethical to orientate yourself in the present?
It is not new
news that South Africa, like many economies in the world, suffers from a high
unemployment rate. In light of this entrepreneurship is a valued ideal – and is
necessary in order for more jobs to be created; but contradictory to this ideal
are the laws which govern this post-colonial state.
On almost every
street corner in Johannesburg informal trade is rife, and where there is
informal trade there is also regulation. Bead workers, prostitutes, free-lance
handy men, and various other precarious street entrepreneurs suffer under these
regulations. Separate bead merchants lose up to R6000 a month’s worth of
product due to police confiscation; under laws such as “no selling within 5
meters of an intersection”, even though it becomes clear that the police doing
the arresting aren’t quite sure of the laws that they are upholding.
In the middle
class freelance musicians and artists struggle under various regulations when
it comes to finding housing; as it becomes impossible to apply for a rental
property without letters of employment, steady income, or pay slips. Most
musicians work on a cash basis – there are no invoices or contracts in this
informal economy.
Sex workers –
while they may have networks in place that deal with security – also find
issues when it comes to working, as our informant Snowy elaborates: she had to
go to a wedding over Easter weekend, and wanted to buy a new pair of shoes. She
was unable to go out to work because of the high density of policing during the
holiday period. Many other sex workers spend evenings in prison holding sells
for plying their trade along Oxford Road.
From these
examples it becomes clear that the laws of South Africa do not favour those
that live in a present orientated space; making precarious work situations in
an already flooded job market a more difficult task then necessary. While these
types of workers have the freedom of their own time, they are still bound by
laws which mar their ability to produce income.
It must be
asked: is this ethical? Should present orientated workers be made examples of –
as unwanted “parasites” for using their abilities in an informal market? In a
country where tax money is openly known to be used for corrupt means, where
entrepreneurship is encouraged and then shunned when it takes place in the
streets. The answer is, and can only be that it is unethical to punish these
people for trying to make a living within a constitution that flaunts freedom
of dignity, and the right to work.
The world has
shifted from the Protestant Work Ethic; of working hard now in order to enjoy
the future – which perhaps in its time was viable because it was supported by
the economy that produced it; the ethic matched the times. But the times have
shifted, working for the future is impossible for some – where there are no
jobs to support such an ethic - new rules must be made. A new work ethic has
emerged, one in which people live in the present, have lost a sense of near
future, and look ahead to the far future. This is what Jane Guyer refers to as
punctuated time in her article Prophecy
and the near Future: Thoughts on the Macroeconomic. (Guyer 2007; 409) It is
only logical that a new economy must follow, and the laws which govern the old
economy must move towards accommodating the crisis – a clear indication of this
crisis being the increase in “ritual murder” and the trade of body parts as an
attempt to alleviate the lack of employment through new magic. (Comaroff and Comaroff; 1998)
What
is an ethic?
As new magic is
forcing its way into society via the cracks of crisis which threaten to crumble
the economy so too must a new set of rules to accommodate a new ethic. The term
ethic becomes problematic here, in a society where one’s identity is governed
by one’s work as well as one’s social relations it follows that one’s ethic follows
from one’s job. This is a dubious statement, but seemingly true. More so than
this one’s job can fall out of alignment with the laws of a country – as seen
in the situation of precarious workers. In this case one can see how a work
ethic related to a specific job may seem immoral in accordance to the governing
law. But it is not – for the laws are contradictory; they encourage the right
to live; but enforce a certain means of life – a future orientated life. If
ethics boils down to one’s perception of time and work, then the field of
ethics demands a shift in perspective.
Theories of
ethics deal with the underlying rational of how an ethical agent should behave.
Bentham and Mill’s theory of utility says we should strive to create pleasure
and remove pain. Ethical egoism states
that we act out of self-interest. Deontological theories state we must act in
accordance with rules. The common lack in these theories is they do not take
into account context, particularly perceptions of the relation of individuals
to work. This may seem a rash judgement, shouldn’t each individual moral
judgement be judged in accordance to the context in which that judgement takes
place? A young girl is drowning in a pond, how should one react in that
specific situation according to a theory of ethics? This is obviously correct.
But by context I mean the context of the times, and it is the case that we live
in a time of crisis – South Africa, the post colony with a high unemployment
rate and contradictory laws which disable people to survive. The question is should
a theory of ethics not spring out of this context – predominately dominated by
work circumstances, not out of the under lying urge of the agent? In this
context, one in which identity and social interaction was defined by work – and
the ethics, or in this case the rules that governed it are no longer applicable
to a vast majority who now live with a different perception of the relation of
time and work – then it is not the agents of present orientated time that are
acting unethically but the system. This does of course imply that everyone has
the basic right to live and survive – which is making a huge statement of
ethics in itself. But I think it is one that everyone could agree with. But
above and beyond that the ethics of the system need to shift to accommodate this
one basic right in accordance with the shift in peoples relations to work, and
these relations of not been caused by the people but the systems that govern
their means of existence. Which were up until now an exploitation of labour in
order to produce surplus capital (Marx; 1978); a situation which produced a
future orientated space. But now with the lack of employers, as those who used
the industrial revolution to their advantage have moved onto the next phase of
derivation and invested in “the market” labourers are no longer needed
(Benjamin and LiPuma; 2002). Technology has taken over, and survival is taking
on the face of the precarious worker.
It seems as if
society is in flux – the near future is uncertain – the far future even more
so. Today is all one can really know, and if this is the case…. Well, the only
thing I can really do is leave that to your imagination, or perhaps point you
in the direction of the revolution that is taking place globally.
References
·
Comaroff, Jean and John L. Comaroff.
1999. “Occult Economies and the Violence of Abstraction: Notes from the South
African postcolony.” American Ethnologist
26(2):279-303
·
Guyer, Jane. 2007. “Prochecy and the
near Future: Thoughts on Macroeconomic, Evangelical, and Punctuated Time.” American Ethnologist 34(3):409-21.
·
Lee, Benjamin and Edward LiPuma. 2002.
“Cultures of Circulation: The Imaginations of Modernity.” Public Culture 14(1):191-213
·
Marx, Karl. 1978 [1867] Capital Vol. 1. Selections reproduced in
Robert Tucker (ed.) The Marx-Engels
Reader [302-438]. New York and London: Norton.
·
Peebles, Gustav. 2008. “A geography of
Debauchery: State Building and the Mobilization of Labour versus Leisure on a
European Border.” Focaal-European Journal
of Anthropolgy 51(1):113-31
·
Weber, Max. 1992 [1904-5]. The Protestant ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism [selections pp. 1-80 & 102-125]. London & New York:
Norton
