Contextualizing dirty work: The neglected role of cultural, historical, and demographic context

Abstract

Although perceptions of physically, socially, and morally stigmatized occupations – ‘dirty work’ – are socially constructed, very little attention has been paid to how the context shapes those constructions. We explore the impact of historical trends (when), macro and micro cultures (where), and demographic characteristics (who) on the social construction of dirty work. Historically, the rise of hygiene, along with economic and technological development, resulted in greater societal distancing from dirty work, while the rise of liberalism has resulted in greater social acceptance of some morally stigmatized occupations. Culturally, masculinity tends to be preferred over femininity as an ideological discourse for dirty work, unless the occupation is female-dominated; members of collectivist cultures are generally better able than members of individualist cultures to combat the collective-level threat that stigma inherently represents; and members of high power-distance cultures tend to view dirty work more negatively than members of low power-distance cultures. Demographically, marginalized work tends to devolve to marginalized socioeconomic, gender, and racioethnic categories, creating a pernicious and entrapping recursive loop between ‘dirty work’ and being labeled as ‘dirty people.’

Congruence work in stigmatized occupations: A managerial lens on employee fit with dirty work

“…The centrally defining feature of many dirty work jobs is the interactions with those whom society has marginalized; for example, correctional officers must be around prisoners and bill collectors must contact debtors. Previous research has found that a typical defense mechanism for those in dirty work jobs is to blame these stigmatized clients for their problems and then distance themselves from them (Ashforth & Kreiner, ; Juhila, Hall, & Raitakari, ). We found, however, that dirty work managers attempted to foster not blaming or distancing but, rather, taking the perspective of clients, that is, empathizing with them.…”

“…The centrally defining feature of many dirty work jobs is the interactions with those whom society has marginalized; for example, correctional officers must be around prisoners and bill collectors must contact debtors. Previous research has found that a typical defense mechanism for those in dirty work jobs is to blame these stigmatized clients for their problems and then distance themselves from them (Ashforth & Kreiner, 2014a;Juhila, Hall, & Raitakari, 2010 Other managers reported coaching newcomers to act in a manner that was contrary to occupational stereotypes so as to diffuse clients' antipathy. For example, Manager 1 of exterminators told us how he trains his workers in entomology so that they are very knowledgeable about potential bug problems and can counter the prevailing stigma of the job:…”

“Embodying” dirty work: A review of the literature

“…There is thus an “overlap” between forms of low status dirty work and categories of socio‐economic and/or demographic status. Here, Ashforth & Kreiner, : 430) refer to a “recursive loop” whereby “questionable essentialist stereotypes” take on a normative slant and where low‐prestige dirty work is devolved to marginalised demographic categories, reinforcing the relationship between the two.…”

Dirty Work, Dirty Resistance: Digital Warfare in the Era of Precarious Labor

“…In the present context, it is unwanted jobs that are socioeconomically unhygienic. Against the liberal discursive background of individualism and choice, there is a fundamental association between “perceptions of dirty jobs and dirty people” (Ashforth and Kriener :432). These are chiefly the poor and the racialized who suffer from the perception that they somehow choose lesser jobs or simply do not work hard enough to advance.…”

“…More and more Canadians—including those with postsecondary qualifications—are finding themselves in (often multiple) part‐time, temporary, and precarious jobs to make ends meet (Fuller and Stecy‐Hildebrandt ; Lewchuk, Clarke, and de Wolff ). Most of these jobs are, put simply, extremely dirty—not only physically dirty, but also rife with moral and social “dirt.” Collectively, sociologists and psychologists have insisted that we must make sense of dirty work within wider racialized, gendered, and classed matrices that construct certain types of work and workers as immoral, demeaning, disgusting, or otherwise subordinating (Ashforth and Kreiner , ; Ashforth et al. ; Dick ).…”