A current weakness
of the precariat is also potentially it’s greatest strength; it’s
diversity.
Although members of
the precariat share a lot in common, they are a very diverse group
that is, as Guy Standing puts it, “at war with itself”.
Rather than looking at what they have in common – that they are being systematically exploited – and directing their frustrations at those doing the exploiting or the systems in place that allow it, they often blame each other.
Disenfranchised members of the old working class may for example blame migrants. In return migrants may feel that members of the old working class are lazy. Educated members of the precariat that have fallen out of the salariat or proficians may hate drug addicts or ex cons. Everybody’s got their favorite group to blame, but rarely if ever do they direct that frustration at the systems in place that put them in that situation in the first place.
I feel like status competition contributes to that. Both neoliberism and high levels of inequality brought about by neoliberalism encourage fierce status competition.
Neoliberalism is based on the idea of the self-achieving, economically rational man (or homo economicus). It’s theories espouse the notion that markets are most productive when people are seeking their own self interests above all else. Compassionate ideas such as giving a person, country or business a helping hand are seen as distortions in the market that make it less efficient. Is it any surprise then that after decades of neoliberal policy, thinking and rhetoric that we are overly critical of one another?
High inequality also feeds status competition. People at the top feel a need to prove the moral worthiness for their advantage and fear losing their position. According to Rachel Sherman’s ‘Uneasy Street: The Anxieties of Affluence’, it tends to make them compete over who is the best parent, the most prudent (in spite of their wealth), the most virtuous, the hardest worker, the most charitable. It makes them compete in all sorts of arenas. And people at the bottom are competing to prove their worthiness to move up the status ladder.
The problem with this is that for there to be a morally worthy, there needs to be a morally unworthy. Often members of the precariat blame each other. The reasons given for why they are superior to that other seems to me to be incidental, so long as there is one.
Rather than looking at what they have in common – that they are being systematically exploited – and directing their frustrations at those doing the exploiting or the systems in place that allow it, they often blame each other.
Disenfranchised members of the old working class may for example blame migrants. In return migrants may feel that members of the old working class are lazy. Educated members of the precariat that have fallen out of the salariat or proficians may hate drug addicts or ex cons. Everybody’s got their favorite group to blame, but rarely if ever do they direct that frustration at the systems in place that put them in that situation in the first place.
I feel like status competition contributes to that. Both neoliberism and high levels of inequality brought about by neoliberalism encourage fierce status competition.
Neoliberalism is based on the idea of the self-achieving, economically rational man (or homo economicus). It’s theories espouse the notion that markets are most productive when people are seeking their own self interests above all else. Compassionate ideas such as giving a person, country or business a helping hand are seen as distortions in the market that make it less efficient. Is it any surprise then that after decades of neoliberal policy, thinking and rhetoric that we are overly critical of one another?
High inequality also feeds status competition. People at the top feel a need to prove the moral worthiness for their advantage and fear losing their position. According to Rachel Sherman’s ‘Uneasy Street: The Anxieties of Affluence’, it tends to make them compete over who is the best parent, the most prudent (in spite of their wealth), the most virtuous, the hardest worker, the most charitable. It makes them compete in all sorts of arenas. And people at the bottom are competing to prove their worthiness to move up the status ladder.
The problem with this is that for there to be a morally worthy, there needs to be a morally unworthy. Often members of the precariat blame each other. The reasons given for why they are superior to that other seems to me to be incidental, so long as there is one.
Unfortunately this
means members of the precariat don’t yet have “a common
consciousness or common view of what to do about precarity”
(Standing 2014).
This division is easily exploited as we have seen in both the Trump campaign in America, and also in the asylum seeker debate in Australia. The Australia government also uses this kind of rhetoric to demonise the unemployed (to justify their harsh treatment).
It is very easy to manipulate members of the precariat into turning against one another, a political tool that governments have not been afraid to use whenever it is convenient.
This division is easily exploited as we have seen in both the Trump campaign in America, and also in the asylum seeker debate in Australia. The Australia government also uses this kind of rhetoric to demonise the unemployed (to justify their harsh treatment).
It is very easy to manipulate members of the precariat into turning against one another, a political tool that governments have not been afraid to use whenever it is convenient.
“If popular
demagoguery had its way, the first variety would turn vicious towards
the second, as has been happening in Greece, Hungary and Italy. It
is also dangerous because, as predicted in The Precariat, the
combination of anxiety, alienation, anomie and anger can be expected
to lead to more days of riot and protest. And it is dangerous because
stress, economic insecurity and frustration can lead and are leading
to social illness, including drug-taking, petty crime, domestic
violence and suicide.
Finally, the precariat is dangerous because it is confronted by a strident divisive state. Many in it feel commodified, treated as objects to be coerced to labour, penalized for not labouring, exhorted by politicians to do more. Nobody should be surprised if they react anomically. But since the precariat is emotionally detached from the labour it is expected to do, it is less inclined to imagine that jobs are the road to happiness or that job creation is a sign of social progress. The precariat pins it’s hopes and aspirations elsewhere. Quite soon, it will echo a slogan of 1968: ‘Ça suffit!’”
~Guy Standing, ‘A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens’
Finally, the precariat is dangerous because it is confronted by a strident divisive state. Many in it feel commodified, treated as objects to be coerced to labour, penalized for not labouring, exhorted by politicians to do more. Nobody should be surprised if they react anomically. But since the precariat is emotionally detached from the labour it is expected to do, it is less inclined to imagine that jobs are the road to happiness or that job creation is a sign of social progress. The precariat pins it’s hopes and aspirations elsewhere. Quite soon, it will echo a slogan of 1968: ‘Ça suffit!’”
~Guy Standing, ‘A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens’
No comments:
Post a Comment