What is Work Ethic?

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

Commodity Driven Economy?

In this paper I have focused on the position of labour in relation to commodities, matter and use-value. And it is in this relationship that we will find what Marx perceives the value of labour to be. I will also highlight the difference between what Marx believes an aimless expenditure of labour would be, and in doing so discuss the disjuncture present in South Africa in a commodity driven economy.

So let us dissect the terms. Firstly: Commodities. Commodities for Marx are constituted as commodities if they have either a) value or b) use value. Use value being the objects propensity to be useful. The qualities that Marx attributes to the use value of commodities are as follows.

11)      They are independent from the labour which produced them

22)      The use value of a commodity is only realised in its consumption

33)      It constitutes the substance of all wealth. Wealth being a societal construct. (What I believe this to mean is that the more useful a commodity is within a given society the more it is worth. For example a can opener in a society with no cans has no value, where as a can opener on an island full of canned food and no rocks would be an object of extreme use-value)

44)      The use value of a commodity is the material depository of exchange value

Now, how does labour relate to commodities? According to Marx if the same amount of work or labour time goes into the making of a product, then those products are of equal value. But value must also be measured in relation to quantity. The value of a commodity decreases as the quantity increases.  But increases as the quality and the amount of labour time that go into the commodity increase.  So we can see that more labour per commodity equals more valuable commodities, and conversely less labour per commodity equals less valuable commodities, in relation to quality and quantity.

In order for labour to create a commodity it must be introduced into productive labour in which it works with earthly matter in order to transform that matter into a commodity.  But in a capitalist society the labourer does not own the means of production necessary to produce commodities and so he must sell his labour power to a capitalist who owns the necessary equipment. In doing this the labourer exchanges his labour for money. The labourer must do this because wealth in a capitalist society is constituted by use-value, which is embodied in commodities.  He cannot purely do the amount of labour necessary to survive because the capitalist must create surplus value off of the commodities which he the labourer creates, but does not own. In order to create this surplus value the capitalist takes the production of commodities and reduces them to the effort of a group of labourers as opposed to a single individual. So if you look at a production line on a film set, take Labyrinth for example in which a mid-evil village is created out of poly euro thane. The set starts with the poly euro thane being set in moulds of brick walls. The moulded slabs which emerged must then be scrubbed, after scrubbing they are coated with coprox, and taken outside to dry. Once dry the base layers of paint are applied, and once again taken out to dry. Once dry they slabs are all taken to the set where they are constructed by the fabricators. After fabrication is complete another round of painting is done in order to accomplish the finished product. Each of these processes requires individuals to do specific tasks in order to create the greater commodity. So instead of producing one actual commodity each the necessary labours are divided. Because of this division and removal of the individual labourer from the commodity, the film set, the capitalist can make surplus value off his commodity because the value of it is related to labour power expended. But this, the labour power, is calculated amongst a group and not an individual. Surplus value is then further increased through extended working hours, and worker productivity.

So we can now see the relation of the value of labour to commodity under a capitalist system. It is clearly an exploitative one, in which the value of the labourer is degraded in the process of making surplus capital. It is a situation in which the labourer has very little control of his work hours and pay rate. But is forced into labour for he has no common land on which to survive with just simple modes of production like sustainable farming.

With this brief introduction to Marx’s theory of labour I would like to draw your attention to the difference between labour and the expenditure of labour power. Labour according to Marx is productive activity with an aim, whereas expenditure of labour power is productive activity without an aim. This baffles me slightly. What sort of expenditure of labour power does not have an aim? My guess is that because we are talking about a capitalist system the aim of the process of labour would be the production of commodity. This, I believe, is a terrible aim, probably worse than the Socratic drive for truth via logic. For this aim shifts the whole structure of society into a commodity driven economy. While it is true that commodities are a necessary part of an economy, the aim of a society should not be to produce commodities, but to ensure that people have the necessary commodities in order to live. As we can see in our South African society we have a surplus of wasted commodities, and a large rate of poverty and unemployment. The question I will pose you is how can this disjuncture be eradicated? 

The Market Universe of Doom

There is no doubt that there is wealth in South Africa, and conversely there is no doubt that there is poverty. And in between this wealth and poverty there is mass unemployment that is slowly decreasing according to the Quarterly Labour Force Survey in South Africa October to December 2011, even though it is still sitting at 23.9%, that is roughly 4244000 unemployed people out of a population of 32670000 people between the ages of 15 and 64. The most trouble lies in youth unemployment with the unemployment rate being 51% among 15 to 25 year olds (Jones: 2011). The question then is where is the money going? Why is it not being invested into business – which would create employment? Why are there no jobs for the youth of South Africa?

The truth of the matter is the world has changed - not only in the technological shift where unskilled labour is becoming less of a commodity because of the mechanical take-over - if Benjamin Lee and Edward LiPuma are correct, another change occurred in 1973 – the year which marked the end of the Bretton Woods agreement and of the gold standard. The old model has been undermined and a new model has taken its place while the rest of the world seems unable to keep up with the change. The economy no longer drives the market, it is now the market which drives the economy. (Benjamin and LiPuma 2002: 203-205)

Model one: Marx. In a very simplistic explanation of Marx’s model productive labour was the basis of an expanding economy. Labour itself was a commodity, and a necessary part of the production of commodities. The key was to drive the cost of labour down in order to create surplus capital off of the selling of commodities. (Benjamin and LiPuma 2002: 203)

Model two:  Derivatives. And here things get murky for I am delving into the realms of the market. A place I have no authority on. Derivatives are defined as “financial instruments that derive their monetary value from other assets, such as stocks, bonds, commodities, or currencies.” (Benjamin and LiPuma 2002:204) What a derivative does is it gives individuals the opportunity to sell certain assets at a specified date. I shall use the example that Lee and LiPuma use: “One might purchase a call option for $500 to buy one hundred shares of IBM at some future date for $100 a share  - the strike price. If at that future date IBM shares were valued at $120, the buyer would realise a profit ..” (Benjamin and LiPuma 2002:204) The process is far more complicated than this, but as you can see it seems as if profit or capital is being made from nothing. An abstract instrument which “circulates in its own universe”. (Benjamin and LiPuma 2002:204)

So now we can see the shift, capital is no longer solely created by productive labour, as the capital that was initially made off of the old model is now circulating in the market which has its own means of capital expansion (although Marx did predict this shift). There is no longer a need for those with monies to invest in productive labour, and when they do it is invested in bigger developing economies. The exploitation of labour now seems to be the in which newbie entrepreneurs can use in order to gain access into the new model. 

Where does that leave the masses of the unemployed youth? In yet another mode of estrangement, for without money they cannot enter into the new model of money for mahala in the market. And those in the market seem to be living in a different universe with minimal plans for the upliftment of the impoverished. Perhaps the time is coming where these two worlds will have to sever ties in order for the former to survive on their own terms without the influence of a greed driven economy on their minds. It is already happening in some parts of the world – as some are calling it “The Fourth World War.” And perhaps this is where a new imagining of the future could occur, outside of the system in developing a sustainable area – in terms of shelter and food supply - outside of governmental rule. Is it a better option than waiting around for the government to do something, or for the world to change?

The second option would be to look at Brazil’s rapidly increasing economy in 2010 due to their focus on agriculture and resources - with a current growth rate of 8.4% in their agricultural sphere. (Fick 2012) Although The Economist doubted the likelihood of the continuation of this boom which has now slowed down because of Brazil’s tendencies to save too much, invest too little, and spend dubiously to keep growth up, as well as their need for more skilled labour. (The Economist 2010) There is still room for learning from this example in the case of South Africa and other African nations when it comes to looking at how to re-involve the youth within the working sphere.

References

·         Fick, Jeff. March 2012. 2nd Update: Brazils’s Weak Industry Slows Once Booming Economy. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120306-708430.html

·         Jones, Michelle. 2011. Half of SA’s Youth are Unemployed. http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/half-of-sa-s-youth-are-unemployed-1.1019783

·         Lee, Benjamin and Edward LiPuma. 2002. “Cultures of Circulation: The Imaginations of Modernity.” Public Culture 14(1):191-213

·         Quarterly Labour Force Survey, Quarter 4 2011, www.statssa.gov.za

·         The Economist. May 2010. Brazil’s Booming Economy: Flying Too High For Safety. http://www.economist.com/node/16167612

Unemployment and the World Class African City

Johannesburg, South Africa, 2012, a city striving to be world class. One, like many developing countries, that is constrained by neo-liberal policy and a structural adjustment programme. And within the city and country and continent we find some of the highest unemployment rates of the newly independent states after the so called breaking away from the colonies in the twentieth century. While it was first opined that it would be the east that would fall and Africa that would flourish economically – this has turned out to not be the case. And a growing discourse around estrangement begins to surround the ever present decline in employment opportunities. Which I shall discuss in terms of the Comoroff’s picture of this estrangement being more related to a generational divide as opposed to class or race. But, before one can even begin to start looking at estrangement within these societies now suffering from the growing gap between the employed and the not so lucky – two questions must be asked. Firstly – what is this concept of a “World Class African City”? And secondly, if the underlying law of capitalist society is that the rate of profit is inversely related to labour costs, why is no body exploiting our desperate masses? A grim thought indeed, but this is the position we find ourselves in, with a very wealthy elite and a huge gap to the impoverished. Where is the money going?

To answer the first question I would like to go back to the beginnings of the African Nationalist Movements. Where did they evolve from? And the answer to this is that during colonialism there was a demand for local intermediaries – teachers, court interpreters, medical orderlies and agricultural extension workers – these intermediaries bridged the communication gap between the colonised and the coloniser, and became a small movement of Westernised black elite. While the movement paraded themselves as a liberation front the truth of the matter was they too wanted to enjoy the spoils of colonialism. A system which was not designed to develop the productive capacities of the colonies, but rather to extract the countries raw materials and ship them back to the mother land for processing and manufacturing.  So at the turn, when Africa became independent what replaced the colonial elite was now the new black elite.  And the exploitation of the black masses continued. (Mbeki 2009:6-7) This to me is the underlying premise of our World Class African City. One that is merely an extension of colonial rule. An exploitation vehicle.

The second question I do not have in my capacity to answer, yet, although I have an inkling it has something to do with the relationship between the private sector and the politics that rule it. But the picture I have so far painted is that of the emergence of a new elite, one that is still bound in some way to colonial ideals. And it is in this that we find the roots of the problems that have shaped mass unemployment in our country. If the World Class African City is the ideal towards which South Africa is striving, then there is no hope for the poor, for a world class city is a capitalist city, one where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And it is out of this that the so called estrangement has emerged. But is it really anything new?

The Comoroff’s boldly state that estrangement is no longer mainly a problem of class, but of generation. (Comoroff 1999:284) Of shifting culture in a dynamic world. Perhaps in part they are right. When one looks at the rise of occult economies – the uneasiness of the youth and their need to blame the older generation for the rise in unemployment rates, for the lack of change in the post-apartheid system. And in turn finding new magic to do so, burn the witch – sell the body parts. (Comorof 1999:279-303) When cultural norms are flipped in Madagascar and it is women that emerge as the new provider, and the trade of sex becomes less of a taboo and more of a way of life. (Cole, Jennifer 2004:573-588) Where the youth in Senegal, although highly educated cannot find work, and kill time by perfecting the art of tea making. This now symbolises as a lack of productive activity - as opposed to a traditional art of the former generation. (Ralph 2008:1-29)

But to state that the problem of estrangement is that of a generational gap and put class on the back burner cannot be right in its entirety. Yes it is a new discourse, or perhaps an old one with new stories, for hasn’t it always been the way that the younger generation shall rebel against the old?  And while there may be shifting ideologies between the youth and their predecessors, are they all still not involved in the class struggling together? A struggle which still has its roots, and its present, in a colonial mind frame.

To speak of shifting identities with in a new context, is to bring an old topic back into the forefront. All we are asking is of the identity of the unemployed today. How are people evolving to fit into society today, and is that not the perpetual question of the new school anthropology? What is happening to people today in relation to the past? Because it seems that all our studies from the colonial era to now have been the study of people in a world changing due to western ideals being integrated into a global conscious. The identity of the unemployed hasn’t changed since the reclaiming of the commons in the 1600’s, they are still the peasants, and the elites are still the elite.   

References

·         Comoroff, Jean and John. 1999. “Occult Economies and The Violence of Abstraction: notes from the South African Postcolony.” American Ethnologist 26(2):279-303.

·         Cole, Jennifer. 2004. “Fresh Contact in Tamative, Madagascar: Sex, Money, and Intergenerational Transformation.” American Ethnologist 31(4):578-88.

·         Mbeki, Moeletsi. 2009. “Architects of Poverty.” Picoador Africa, Johannesburg.

·         Ralph, Micheal. 2008. “Killing Time.” Social Text 26(4):1-29