Part 2: The Discourses of Work through History

Written by

Sergio Caredda

Posted on

October 10, 2020

Edited on

July 1, 2024

The Discourses of Work through History

Based on the historical trends we have seen, we can identify a succession of several different discourses around the meaning of Work in human history. I borrow the usage of concept from Simon Western’s approach to Leadership, as it fits a few of the characteristics that I want to highlight.

Fig.1: A Student’s Strike in Vienna, 1953. The different Discourses of Work affected Society deeply in many ways. Photo by Austrian National Library on Unsplash

We can trace Six Discourses of Work that formed in Western history. Each of these Discourses has developed in a specific moment in time and a specific social and cultural context, but none of these have ever faded away completely. They are all still present, in some shape and form in human society today. Sometimes at the individual level. Sometimes as part of specific sections of society. Other as part of different discourses (like in politics). The result is that today, we see a stratification of meanings that increases the complexity of precisely describing what Work means because we need to apply a contextual lens to identify what Work means for a specific individual within a particular segment of society.

Moreover, a new Discourse is currently taking shape. All pieces of evidence are there, but it has not yet reached the status of a Generally Accepted Meaning for an ample portion of society. We will dedicate more room to this in the next article of this series.

An Introduction to the Six Discourses of Work

Fig.2: The Evolution of the Discourses of Work across History.

Let’s now see the essential characteristics of the six discourses I have identified, before digging deeper into the features of each Discourse. Before digging deep, I just wanted to underline a critical element. The succession of the discourses is not to be considered evolution. I’ve started developing a sense of reject for the many models that trace human history as an evolution from “bad” to “good”. The only definition of a direction that exists in this suggested framework is that of time. Based on my knowledge at the time of writing, this is how the different discourses developed in chronological succession. It is natural that in this succession, one Discourse grows on the shoulders of the preceding one; however, this does not give the latter an evolutionary advantage over the first.

Work as Sustenance is the historical origin of the meaning of Work. It is linked to primitive societies and agriculture and the rhythms of nature. In some cultures, this initial state of Work is seen as “heroic” and an “elevated” form or Work. For example, the myth of Arcadia has recurrently appeared, and we still see today people that suggest a return to this state of “origin” of Work.
Work as Punishment is not just in the content of the Bible. With the affirmation of a hierarchical society, the upper class developed a view that the mass should work, and the top-level should instead care and direct the others. Slavery is one of the most extensive products of this Discourse, but also the emergence of forms of “superior arts” can be attributed to these historic moments. Traces of this Discourse are still visible in societies with a caste system, but also in the way economic immigration is dealt with by many political parties.
Work as Salvation is a critical concept that has flourished in several cultures, but probably got its primary elevation in the so-called “protestant ethics”, which for many is at the basis of the future development of capitalism. In many ways, this Discourse affirms itself with the result of religions that needed following by the Masses and developed accordingly, still holding for some exclusion in terms of positive or negative Work. In the western world, this Discourse grew in the ancient monasteries, but developed consistently and is still present, for example in the call for “illuminated entrepreneurship” present in some evangelical movements in the US.
Work as Craftsmanship is a discourse that developed with cities and technology. We can probably define this as the first laic concept of Work, which focused on talent and competence. Guilds provided for the development of rules and regulations and created a system that still resists today in many areas, with the entire idea of some professions. Work and Individual Life become fully matching in this Discourse, that is still very present today. Just think about the taxi-drivers reaction to Uber in many cities.
Work as Process is a discourse that started with the Industrial Revolution and the development of factories. The concept of division of labour was not entirely new, it had also been applied to agriculture, but it is with the industrialisation and the quest by Taylor of developing scientific management that people become pieces into machinery. Probably best exemplified in Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Work, this Discourse is still dominant in many areas today, wherever efficiency is the central critical aspect. A big part of this Discourse is also the social juxtaposition between Employer and Employee, with all the criticality’s that this has triggered over recent history.
Work as Personal Realisation is probably the more recent Discourse which is still evolving. It started developing as of the Eighties in parallel with the realisation that motivation was a critical factor. I see this even as an evolving, multi-faceted discourse. The biggest realisation is probably linked to the knowledge worker, not “fitting” the idea of simple process optimisation, and the requirement to find and establish their path to completion, also in balancing leisure time and working hours.

As I was summarising my findings, traces of these discourses started to pile up. I was, however, taken apart by the fact that all these discourses exist, in some shape and form, still today. At first, this puzzled me, but then instead of considering it a negative aspect, I now believe this is a positive feature of the framework I am suggesting. More research is required, and this is a “first rough draft”.

Building on a Parallel: Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs

As I wrote down these discourses, I realised a parallel with a world-known model: Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs. It is probably open of the most known models in management theory, yet the author, Abraham Maslow, never represented it as a pyramid. For him, the different types of motivation were not a hierarchical succession, where you’d fill one level and go to the next akin a videogame. Still, instead, he made clear “we are always going back and forth in the hierarchy, and we can target multiple needs at the same time”.

However, I have found a substantial conceptual correspondence between the different types of needs identified by Maslow’s model, and the Discourses of Work I have identified.

Fig.3: The Discourses of Work and Association with Maslow’s Needs.

In five cases, there is a one to one relationship. Only in the case of Work as Salvation, there is not a precise relationship. I will explore this aspect more in detail later on, but it is evident that the religious element present within this Discourse has an impact. That Discourse evolves therefore at satisfying multiple needs at once, particularly Safety, belongings but also a particular condition, that of self-transcendence which the late Maslow himself identified as the apex of his model.

The reason I am making this association with Maslow’s model explicit is that I also want to avoid the idea of building an eschatological path whereby humanity moves in the interpretation of Work from Sustenance to Personal Realisation. Instead, the discourses allow the individual to move from one meaning of Work to the other, sometimes along different moments of their lives. An element that I want to ensure is thoroughly understood in this post.

Let’s now see more in detail the different discourses.

1. Work as Sustenance

This is the basic Discourse of Work, whereby Work is the necessary activity needed to survive as an individual, or as part of an immediate social group (family or tribe). In the evolution of humanity, we see that the first communities of hunters-gatherers coalesced in small tribes, following the paths of their preys. The birth of agriculture, initially, did not alter the basic shape of these early human societies. The collaboration was essential as hunters, and the idea that first hierarchies converged around alfa-males, is a myth currently being challenged by many. When tribes started to settle with the agriculture revolution, these early forms of society continued to keep an egalitarian shape in nature, and their organisation type was typical of a Heterarchy (using Fairtlough’s Triarchy Theory as a baseline).

Fig.4: A shepherd in Norway. The Worker Metaphor of the Work as Sustenance Discourse. Photo by FOYN on Unsplash

The Metaphors

Probably the Worker Metaphor that is easier to associate to this work discourse I that of the Shepherd. The reason is simple. Pastoral societies are still very much present in many areas of the world. In the Mediterranean, for example, we always find strongholds of these societies in Sardinia, Spain, Greece, Turkey. Whereas agriculture has evolved in many ways due to technology impacts, herding still has a very much ancestral feeling in many areas of the world.

There is somewhat a romantic flair linked to this Discourse, with the idea of a Work that is fully and correctly integrated with the rhythms of nature. Up to the point that a metaphor that has been recurring over history is that of a return to the origins, to the Myth of Arcadia, a utopian state based on an idyllic vision of untouched wilderness. Present in greek mythology, but also restated during the Renaissance and back again during the Baroque period, this myth exists still today, in the narrative of going back to the Earth. How many successful people have chosen to buy a piece of land and go back to cultivate, as a specific choice for a portion of their lives?

The Workplace of this Discourse is the Village. Which is not just a physical entity, but comprises several circles around the traditional settlement. Communal land and a shared administration of resources were a characteristic of village life, and are still traceable in most cultures grounded on conventional agriculture and herding.

Work is, as part of this Discourse, an innately individual fact. People collaborate on their own will, pushed by the need for survival. No wonder that Leadership plays here a minor role. Village chiefs were usually elected, and often were mere facilitators of the collaboration across individuals.

The two defining forces for this Discourse are Life and Death. Eating, as the primary physical need, is the main push that forces man to work and work together. The true meaning of Work in this Discourse is really to be sought in this antagonism.

The Discourse Today

In modern time, we still find this Discourse in several areas:

In the myth of Arcadia, or of life still rules by nature’s rhythm, with people buying a piece of land and abandoning somehow modernity to build a more eco-logic lifestyle.
In some trends around ecological conscience, which look at preserving an ancient idea of Work as matching the rhythm of nature, rejecting some parts of technology.
In the idea, for some, that Work is needed simply to satisfy physical needs, whereas the rest of life should be dedicated to other activities.
Whenever an individual finds themselves in a state of need, due to job loss, war, natural disasters, etc., many people have experimented the situations in which Work became a fight for survival, every day.

The last meaning shows that an idealistic view of this Discourse has some firm limits. Whenever personal or societal issues push the defining antagonism more towards the death polarity, we immediately see the harsh reality of a discourse deeply routed on survival.

2. Work as Punishment

The evolution of agriculture developed the first cases of appropriation of properties, both in terms of land and agriculture produce. This is the turning point that created the early forms of hierarchies, linked to the control of resources. Of course, there is not an exact moment in which we can observe the transition between the previous Discourse and this one, but we can for sure trace the development of this Discourse over the span of multiple centuries. Societies started to structure themselves in hierarchies often defined by worth. One of the defining characteristics of this Discourse is that Work starts to get also organised in an order, and identified as good or bad.

Fig.5: Slaves cutting Sugar Canes on the Island of Antigua, 1823. Photo by British Library on Unsplash

The Metaphors

The Worker Metaphor that is easier to associate to this Discourse is that of the Slave. Slavery is a concept that is difficult to define in short, as many different societies intended slavery in other terms, both as in the way to be enslaved, as in the role that slavery played in society. We often interpret slavery as the utmost example fo labour intended and administered as a factor of production, but that reading came at a much later stage. What is expected in slave-based societies is the perception that slaves are inferior, and are due to work on the more fatigue-linked activities of that society.

The organisation metaphor that probably best represents this Discourse is that of the Colosseum of Rome. A prominent theatre, where often slaves would combat among each other to satisfy the free time of a flourishing nobility. With the Emperor ultimately having the right to grant life or death to the individual. Despite the heroic narrative of some movies or novel, the critical element to underline here is the perception of superiority of certain classes of workers towards others.

Working is often perceived as a punishment for those that have to do it. Aristotle emblematically assumed that most people had to work so that a minority could excel in the philosophy and the arts. The same concept of Punishment we see in the Bible when Adam is expelled from Eden and condemned to work.

The defining antagonism of this Discourse is that between the polarity of “citizen” or “free man” and “slave“. A key characteristic of the establishing hierarchies is that Work is inherited from father into son. Mainly patriarchal, these societies build on the assumption that Work and status get inherited. Plus, the natural hierarchy of different types of Work, create multiple belongings between the two polarities. Different types of “slaves” will appear during history.

This Discourse will revolve around time, and often sit in parallel to the other ones we will examine. For example, there is going to be a permanence of some of this Discourse during the early stages of Christianity, because the Church established a ranking between Work that was good and bad from a salvation point of view. Its varying interpretation of slavery will bring most of this Discourse to be intact up to the edges of modernity, and even further, if we consider the situation fo Slavery in the United States.

If we want to establish a Leadership Metaphor for this Discourse of Work, probably the easiest on is that of the Emperor. Historically, many different political and organisational structures succeeded and prospered while this Discourse still dominated. Still, the idea of an Emperor, reigning over multiple populations and other types of cultures, continually trying to expand its power, very well complements this Discourse. On the top, the illuminated few are on Earth to dominate the many.

I have already mentioned that Safety is probably the need that this Discourse fulfils the most. For sure we see the coexistence of also physiological conditions, but the reality is that, in many cases, Work is now sought to establish a sense of protection. Masters feel they need to protect their slaves as property from others. Artisans, builders and so on will strive to maintain their status through inheritance, stimulating a sense of Safety and belonging within the frameworks of the higher political structures.

The Discourse Today

Today, we still see most of the remnants of this Discourse. Nobility still exists in a few countries, as well as cast systems that are specifically linked to a hierarchy of Work. But there are also other elements of this Discourse that, unfortunately, still appear to exist today.

When talking about immigration, many (especially some populist parties) still point out the possibility to regulate the entry of immigrants to do the jobs that natives don’t want to do anymore. This implicitly even recognises a perceived hierarchy of Work and the fact that some work is not “good” for all.
On the same line, si the idea that there still are ranks of the population that are untouchable and marginalised because of the Work they do. Mutating from the Indian casts system, we can even recognise this type of people in the cleaners, the sewage operators and many more professions that are essential for our life, but delegated to the people that deserve such Work.
A narrative about inheriting Work still exists today in many areas of the world. Although this idea is common also to other discourses, here I want to underline its massive influence among the lowest part of the population. If you come from a poor black neighbourhood in the US, your chances of finding a nice work are very tiny, often because there is a self-fulfilling prophecy that gets built.
Finally, there is an element of this narrative still present in the way some jobs are paid. Compensation structures, especially of large collective contracts, always carry the hierarchical mindset that originated from this Discourse: you’re not paid for what you produce, but for what you’re worth.

3. Work as Salvation

With the advent of Christianity, a new phenomenon would appear that of mass religions. Until that moment, beliefs where, essentially, a practice also limited to the few “elected” people. Even in societies where religious sentiment expanded across a broader part of the population, there was still adequate segregation, often reflected also in the plurality of deities and hierarchies among them. To pursue its Purpose of building a “universal church”, the Catholic Church had to create a new framework of reference also for Work. The Process was, however, not easy, as the early years of the catholicity were still marked by a rooted reverence in Aristotle’s ideas. Plus, let’s remember the concept of Work as a punishment, embedded in the Bible.

The change took time, and can probably be traced to the first monasteries. As they built their rules, they framed Work, for the first time, into a regulated and organised activity. Doing the planned Work well could help the Salvation of the soul. This is also a society that completed the transition to a hierarchy defined by the divine. Right, already emperors of the past had created a close link with the supernatural. Still, the Catholic Church made something new, an entire organisation based on this principle, and probably, to date, one of the longest living ones. The work discourse, however, paradoxically reaches its apex through the Protestant Reform movement. Officially, the Catholic Church still condemned several professions, such as trade and credit, a position that was not challenged by Martin Luther but would be challenged by John Calvin.

It is not by mistake that Max Weber traced back to the Calvinist point of view a defining origin of modern capitalism. Every person should use the resources that God made them available and invest them for their greater good, to achieve Salvation. Salvation through Work becomes a key foundational pillar of many protestant communities, and one of the founding elements of the United States tradition, still well established in many Evangelical communities across the continent.

Fig.6: St. Joseph and the Cathedral Builders. Mosaic by Christopher Hobbs in St Joseph’s chapel in Westminster. Photo by Lawrence OP on Flickr

The Metaphors

The Worker Metaphor that is easier to associate is that of the masons working to build a cathedral. These multi-decades projects needed not only practice and Mastery but a sense of devotion and achievement. We all have in mind the tale of the two masons, originated by Saint-Éxupery, and also used by Simon Sinek to explain the concept of Purpose, as a way to clearly understand the characteristic of the mindset. The difference to the modernised version that is named cathedral thinking, however, comes from the external direction of this contribution imperative.

The Church easily symbolises the organisational metaphor for this Discourse: a hierarchy by God’s will, that is, however, capable of adapting to local realities and social constructs. Its subsidiarity principle is a novelty in terms of organisation perspective. Which still brought to a very modern success in ecumenical activities across different churches separated through history.

The workplace that better describes this Discourse is that of the long-lasting building site. Not only of a cathedral but also of a castle, of a bridge… Communities of masons and other workers would be working on-site for decades, if not more, each owning their tools, each passing its profession to their sons. For a greater good.

The Leadership Metaphor here is that of a priest, or a pastor using the protestant terminology. A conductor of souls focused on nurturing its disciples. I can’t avoid noticing the immediate reference to the Acadian Shepherd we have seen before. This element is essential because a big part of Discourse is linked to the continuous reinforcement done by the network of the religious hierarchy in ensuring that the people would all pursue the same salvation goal. Not dissimilar from today’s pastor, still supporting the unemployed in their remit to find Work. All this, as a continuous reminder of “paradise – hell” as the defining antagonist polarities of this Discourse, expressed in term of transcendent meanings of good and evil. As such, we can see this as an evolution of the Discourse of Work as Punishment, whereby a distinction between good and evil work still exists, but with the difference that the reward is positioned in a divine setting.

This Discourse is the one more iterative in the association with one precise need. As seen above, observing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the Work as Salvation discourse has the potential to fulfil three variegated needs: that of Safety (“I’m doing good work”); that of belonging (“I am Christian therefore I work”); that of Self-Transcendence (“I work for the greater good”).

One more aspect to consider is the social construct that this Discourse has brought along. First, is the necessary separation between Church and State, that, despite not being evident, has been brought by the development of Christianity, opening up future secular views of Work. The second is the establishment of “Nations” as a symbol of belonging for individuals. This is important because it is around this concept that changes one of the meanings more lasting around Work in history, that of the military. Being part of the Army, combating was not different from other types of Work for most of humanity. You would protect your community, or be part of the “ranks” that constituted the Army, together with slaves. Then you would serve towards the greater good of God, through the knighthood principles and in the Crusades, for example. At a certain point, however, also being a military transformed itself into a profession. Until, national states started to emerge, with their powerful attraction, and the ability to attract millions of soldiers.

The Discourse Today

Today, significant portions of this Discourse are still present.

In the preaching of some evangelical churches, whereby work “in the name of God” is still a deep root for Salvation. This principle is also present in other religions, and there are still pockets of specifically established clusters of Work whereby people consider themselves on a mission. Besides the clergy, a good example is the Swiss Guards that always protect the Holy See in the Vatican.
In the seeking of contribution for a greater good that many people try to establish, looking for holistic aspects for their lives build around Work.
In the idea that some work and professions are coming from a metaphysical “call” that transcends life. An element that has been historically present in many areas, and often exploited by several ideologies. Think about the sacrifices for science in the name of Communism. Yet this Discourse is very much present in many works where the voluntary component is still present (doctors, firemen, etc.).

4. Work as Craftsmanship

This discourse in many ways overlaps historically with the one just seen, as it follows the development of professions. To a certain extent, the same example of the cathedral builder would not be present, if it wasn’t for the existence of masons, stonecutters and the likes. Yet the discourse around Craftsmanship needed to evolve on two very specific fronts. First, the evolution towards a model whereby work would not be simply inherited from father into son, but where work can be learned through the acquisition of skills. Second, the detachment from religious zeal, developing a more secular view of work.

The (re)birth of cities that happened towards the end of middle age and the beginning of Renaissance, created the right situation for this to happen. Commercial Guilds where the first to be formed, followed then by other professions. This process was made possible also because of the distance that the official Church still positioned itself against trade and credit, two of the elements that instead made the fortune of a few republics: Venice and The Netherlands above all.

We start seeing the foundations of a new discourse, where competence and mastery above all reigns, where professions are subject to regulations, where a new relationship is established between the apprentice and the master, but also where political and social norms are challenged and bent. It is in this context that the first modern enterprises will be created, and some of the most important pillars of the contemporary’s economic model laid bare: currencies, lending rates, financial accounting, all elements we can still trace today, and are associated with a very specific idea of value.

Fig.7: Traditional Stone Mason in India. Photo by Andrew Moore on Flickr.

The Metaphors

The Worker Metaphor that is easier to associate is that of the free-masons. It’s interesting to notice the partial overlap with the discourse we have just seen and the cathedral builders. There is, however, a profound difference, due to the absence of the eschatological view of work. Here masons are focused on their own mastery, through standards and knowledge, with a focus on sustaining their own lives and that of their family. This difference in thought, however, has had, historically, huge consequences. It’s not a coincidence that most of what we consider today’s liberal roots are deeply embedded in the history of the masonry movement, which sought a way to disenfranchise itself from the belonging to a christian church mindset.

Another worker metaphor that well describes this archetype is that of the merchant. And it is not a coincidence either that the first guilds where made of merchants.

The Guild easily symbolizes the organizational metaphor for this Discourse: a hierarchy based on competencies and knowledge, that is established on the concept of “belonging” to the guild or not. Either through exams, or apprenticeship or other ways, there is one legitimate way to be either part of the knowledge based community, or be an outsider, often unable to practice a specific job.

The workplace that better describes this Discourse is that of a workshop. Imagine a specialized artisan, think of the lives of great artists like Giotto. They all have started as apprentices in a great workshop. A unit strongly built on the concept of “mastery” of a specific discipline of knowledge, and that framed the way to achieve it through an institutional learning process based on practice.

The Leadership Metaphor here is that of a master, which achieved its status based on a constant nourishment of a competency primacy. Competency that is defined as tangible, visible from the outcomes of the work, but also in terms of economic standing that is achieved.

This Discourse moves specifically to a relationship need, that of belonging. I adhere to standards of knowledge and practice, i am “certified” to belong to a guild, I can practice a chore because I’m “in” an organisation and not outside it.

The Discourse Today

Today, significant portions of this Discourse are still present.

The first and foremost sociological construct that is heavily influenced from this discourse is that of the importance of Trade and Banking at the core of capitalism. Both activities had long been seen as problematic by some religions, yet this discourse, by legitimizing their role in society and attaching it to the core concept of mastery, still owes a lot of focus.
The same concept of Modern Education is deeply rooted in this discourse. Professional education, but also University are deeply rooted into providing competencies for specific jobs designed around mastery. A number of professions still exist today around the world, all still linked to standards elaborated modern guilds. Think of lawyers, accountant, engineers etc., all professions with standards that define who can be part of the “job” and who can’t.
Incidentally, this discourse, because of the need to create more fluidity in how the professions developed, demanded new roles for society, and ended up developing a fertile soil for democratic principles. Think of the freedom of association.
It also brought up concepts that are at the basis of the mitigation of issues within capitalism, such as anti-trust legislations.

An Initial Conclusion

Through this post, we have seen the general framework of the Discourses of Work that I have clustered and a somewhat more in-depth analysis of the first four discourses that developed over history. In the next two posts on this series, I will be analysing the Discourse five, When Work became a Job and the New Discourse that is evolving.

We can, however, already draft an early conclusion. First of all, each of these discourses is still present and influencing parts of society, despite maintaining its own identity. Second, even if there is a clear historical progression between one Discourse and the other, there is no deterministic progression between one and the other. They are all relevant within their framework of reference, and they all seem partial to a contemporary eye. Within each Discourse, we can find different shades and interpretations, often linked also to the historical progression that specific forces plaid in distinct parts of Europe at different moments.

As we examine the remnants of these discourses in modern society, I cannot avoid noticing that a specific Discourse might apply to different stages of the life of an individual.