Speaking of Contradiction

Abstract

Whereas McGovern calls for a moratorium on the ever increasing (ab)use of the word ‘contradiction’, principally because scholars of work and employment fail to connect different levels of analysis and/or demonstrate how and why contradiction(s) lead to widespread instability and upheaval, it can be demonstrated how both can be achieved through the ‘system, society, dominance’ framework. In what follows, the empirical focus is on the safety-critical work of airport ground service providers (GSPs), where key elements of the employment relationship embody contradictions that can be traced to the (sub-)system (mode of production) of a Single European Aviation Market (SEAM) that is now dominated by low fares airlines (LFAs). Instead of a moratorium, scholars of work and employment need to reconnect with society and theoretically ground their analysis in a (capitalist) system beset with contradictions between the forces and relations of production.

Örgütsel Vatandaşlik Davranişi: Madalyonun Di̇ğer Yüzü

“…Some properties of the work environment are more conducive to excluding behaviors because employees copy these behaviors as normative (Hitlan and Noel, 2009). In collective groups, behaviors are viewed as social norms in which group members feel loyalty and belongings collectively towards others while actively disassociating themselves from "excluded employees" (Harvey et al, 2018). So, it allows us to foresee a collective effect on the relationship between citizenship behaviors and ostracism in the workplace.…”

Stressed, Depressed and Exhausted: Six Years as a Teacher in UK State Education

“…He describes working in poorly managed, unsupportive schools, suffering homophobic abuse, extreme work intensity and impossible demands created by a highly regulated, chronically under-resourced education system. He tells how teachers’ altruism is leveraged to plug ‘fatal flaws’ in the system (Harvey et al, 2019: 720), leading to disenchantment and unforeseen personal challenges (for Daniel) in the form of work-related mental illness. Through his story, Daniel helps us to understand why so many NQTs leave the profession so soon after qualifying, adding weight as he does to a growing body of research showing that the contemporary UK public sector is increasingly experienced as oppressive, excessive and unsustainable (e.g.…”

“…Principally discussed in the context of capitalism and the tension between capital and labour, what we see in Daniel’s story is the central contradiction of all state bureaucracies – the challenge of delivering low cost, high quality public services (Heydebrand, 1977). Daniel shows us how these ‘play out’ on the front line (Harvey et al, 2019) in the form of a stark choice between ‘bleed[ing] yourself dry’ and delivering educational opportunities. In doing so, we see how contradiction is experienced in state education in the UK, but also how basic antagonisms have been exacerbated by decades of neoliberal reform (Ball, 2017; Harris and Ranson, 2005) and austerity as a dominant policy paradigm (Jones, 2016).…”

“…In revealing the contradictory nature of contemporary teachers’ work, Daniel also reveals the ‘fatal flaw[s]’ (Harvey et al, 2019: 720) in the system. These slide into view in the single hour per week he is given to fulfil his role as Head of Department and in the 3.5 hours per week he is given to assess, plan and prepare lessons for 340 pupils.…”

“…Paradoxically, in gaming the system and working extremely, Daniel plugs the gaps in the system but disguises its ‘fundamental weakness’ (Harvey et al, 2019: 720): it ‘hits the target but misses the point’ that education is under-resourced and that the quality assurance mechanisms in place give little more than the suggestion that all is well (Green, 2011). Thus, while system-wide measures of students’ performance (and thus teachers’ performance) show improvements (Stevenson and Wood, 2014), consistent with Heydebrand’s theorising, we can see through Daniel’s experiences how these improvements come ‘without regard to the social and human costs of production and its consequences for the quality of life’ (Heydebrand, 1977: 90).…”