Essay Title:
Pick two readings of your choice and critically discuss what they have to say about the structure and experience of work in contemporary industrialised societies. (1000 - 1250 Words)

Readings Chosen (Bibliography):
Grint, K. and Nixon, D. (2015) “Contemporary Work: The Service Sector and the Knowledge Economy” in Grint, K and Nixon, D., The Sociology of Work 4th Edition, Cambridge: Polity.
Walby, S. (2011) “Is the Knowledge Society Gendered?”, Gender, Work and Organization, 18(1), 1 – 29.

In this short treatise this author will initially discuss the research of Grint and Nixon (2015) followed by Walby (2011). This author will conclude the treatise with a brief evaluation of the theories presented.
Grint and Nixon’s (2015) reading investigates the concept of the Post Industrial Society as espoused by Bell (1973) and explores its evolution through the end of the 20th Century and through the first decade of the 21st Century. In doing so it also highlights the decline in the active male workforce and the rise in the active female workforce.
Bell’s argument that a post-industrial work environment would be characterised by knowledge-intensive work (the Knowledge Society) is counteracted by Braverman’s (1974) argument that a form of post-industrial Taylorism would serve to de-skill society rather than enhance knowledge. Braverman’s arguments are supported by Kumar (2005) who argues that information technology is more likely to proletarianize than professionalize, reducing knowledge and the level of control workers have over their work. Kumar (2005) cites Carlo de Benedetti, then the MD of Olivetti, who said “information technology is basically a technology of coordination and control of the labour force, the white collar workers” (Grint, p 275).
The authors cite Castells (2000) and others in their analysis arguing that the “Information Technology Revolution” has created a globalized and polarized work environment, most apparent in the UK and the USA, the countries with the greatest proportion of service workers. In this environment there is simultaneous growth of senior management positions and low level service positions. Profit is an essential driver of work practices and changes.
The theoretical views are linked to studies discussing the gender changes resulting from the changes in work practices. The studies highlight the increasing levels of male inactivity and this is amplified by a table compiled from OECD data showing how male activity dropped in inverse proportion to female activity up to about 2009, with subsequent activity for both genders moving in parallel, male and female activity rising and falling in tandem.
The area of service work (a favourite of Bell 1973) is further discussed by the authors and the issue of definition is raised. They argue that ancillary service work such as administration and cleaning are categorised according to the industry in which they are performed, rather than as actual services.
The issues of polarization and gender are raised in this context, the concept of a “white collar proletariat” (p 282) being juxtaposed with those working in the higher levels of the service industries. Both Kumar (1978) and Castells (2000) are cited in stating that “low-level nonmanual work has been ‘industrialised’”. Grint and Nixon argue that knowledge rich fields such as Health, Education and Public Administration are highly paid and tend to have a higher proportion of women. However, the Catering and Hotel industries are knowledge poor and have much more lower level jobs, the majority of which are also held by women. They further state that men tend to be employed in areas such as security, transport and distribution.
Hochschild’s (1983) theory of Emotional labour is discussed in the context of modern work with the authors arguing that emotional labour is an element of many modern occupations. They further argue that in service work, women are often hired for their emotion and aesthetic skills whereas men are found in service occupations where physicality is important, some men in atypical, emotional work suffering stress because of peer pressure.
Walby’s (2011) reading expands the argument of gender inequalities within the knowledge society, distinguishing between the gendering of human capital, networks and the definition of the knowledge society. The article uses data from the 2005 UK Labour Force Survey to illustrate the gender distribution among various occupations and sectors within the knowledge society arguing that the Knowledge Economy enhances the environment for those working within it.
Defining Human Capital as “the skills, qualifications and experience owned by individuals and embedded in their person, which can be sold on the labour market” (ibid. p4) Walby argues that younger women tend to be better educated and usually have better social skills than men suggesting that they would succeed better than younger men in the Knowledge Society. However evidence suggests otherwise.
Walby cites studies which find that gender imbalances in the areas of science and technology, education and training are impacting on the subsequent employment of women in these fields. Further studies cited find that women employed in science and technology tend to have low rates of motherhood and very low retention rates suggesting they find it hard to combine motherhood and work in this field. These findings tie in with other studies highlighting how stereotypy can be used to exclude women from specific IT fields, including some finding “prejudice, negative attitudes, discrimination and active hostility towards women from the ‘male culture of the workplace’ in science and engineering”.
Investigating the area of Networks Walby argues that this important aspect of the Knowledge Economy is linked to social capital and forms a more equal method of communication than traditional hierarchies or markets. However studies have suggested that traditional structures are more subject to political and legal intervention than networks and thus gender inequalities are visible and can be addressed.
The positive attributes of networks are discussed suggesting they facilitate norms of reciprocity, more open communication, easier conflict resolution and creativity. But others argue that power can be at the helm of networks, networks often being homogenous in areas such as gender, ethnicity and occupations. They may also form gendered subcultures within the work environment that hinder women.
Walby argues that the gendering of the Knowledge Society depends on definition. If the definition is based on the concept of Human Capital then it is gender balanced. However if Fixed Capital is included in the definition it becomes a male dominated field. Asking the question “Is the knowledge economy better for women than the old economy?” (p12) Walby analyses data from the 2005 UK Labour Force Survey coming to the following conclusions: * A greater proportion of women work in the Knowledge Sector and High Technology Manufacturing. * Flexitime working is more prevalent in the Knowledge Economy and women are more likely to use flexitime working. * Overtime tends to be more prevalent in the Knowledge Economy and more men tend to work overtime generally than women. * Unsocial Hours tend to be less prevalent in the Knowledge Economy and men tend to work more unsocial hours than women.
Walby concludes by arguing that the Knowledge Economy is better for everyone, not just women and that gender gaps appear to be narrowing within this area, a situation which benefits women. However when it comes to working time, men tend to benefit more than women.
Having evaluated both articles, this author argues that the workplace remains in a state of flux. Bell’s predictions appear to have been too utopian in nature and Braverman’s perhaps more realistic. Knowledge appears to be a dominant capital commodity and in so called post-industrialised societies, at least, the majority of work is “clean” rather than “dirty” in nature. Kumar’s (2005) arguments that white collar workers have become proletarianized, that in certain situations, upskilling is merely “credentialism” and technology is an instrument of control link well with the statistics cited by Walby. The author would argue that work has evolved and continues to evolve but gender stereotyping and patriarchal dominion within the workplace appear to still exist.