“You can’t say ‘orange’ to your boss.” Wait a minute, what?!?
Is “orange” some kind of offensive slang I’m not aware of? I don’t think so…so
taken in isolation, this sentence from David Graeber’s book Bullshit Jobs (p. 282) seems odd. But
it’s actually quite important. “Orange” is being used here as an example of a
safe word analogous to what someone would have in erotic role-playing involving
bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, and sadomasochism (BDSM). Graeber
is right—you don’t have a safe word at work, but you should.
It’s easy to envision a sadistic boss who enjoys humiliating
or inflicting pain on others. We might also joke that only a masochist could
put up with certain bosses or jobs that look painful to us. But at a more
fundamental level, many, if not all, jobs can be seen as having a (non-sexual) sadomasochistic
nature because of the dependency nature of the employment relationship. In her book Sadomasochism in Everyday Life, Lynn Chancer argues that “many
workers, like the masochist, find themselves subject to chains of command that
induce extreme dependency and a tendency toward the experience of oneself as
inferior relative to an allegedly superior authority” (p. 106). And for bosses,
“perpetually insecure himself or herself (why else would the capitalist need to
figuratively bind and restrict the freedom of the worker?), no level of control
really satisfies” (p. 109) so there is a sadistic-like (in psychological terms)
continual push for dominance. Chancer further argues that the feeling of power is
more satisfying or authentic when the subordinate exhibits some resistance or
independence (hence bosses want employees with initiative), but not so much as
to threaten the hierarchy.
So paid work in a hierarchical system with economic, legal,
and other inequalities has important elements of a sadomasochistic
relationship. But (non-pathological) BDSM role-playing has other critical
features (Elena Faccio et al., Forbidden Games: The Construction of Sexualityand Sexual Pleasure by BDSM ‘Players,’ Culture,
Health & Sexuality, 2014). Specifically, BDSM players design the rules
of the game, are aware of their roles, and can withdraw their consent at any
time by the use of an agreed-upon safe word. As Graeber notes, “This is
precisely what’s lacking in real-life sadomasochistic situations. You can’t say
“orange” to your boss. Supervisors never work out in advance in what ways
employees can and cannot be chewed out for different sorts of infractions, and
if an employee is…being reprimanded or otherwise humiliated, she knows there is
nothing she can say to make it stop” (pp. 121-2).
You might say, but a worker can say “I quit.” But this is
only a safe word if a worker can easily find similar work and pay elsewhere—an assumption
frequent in mainstream economic (neoliberal) thought and associated public policies, but
often not a reality for many workers.
Graeber argues that a universal basic income would turn “I
quit” into a safe word because at least some level of income would not be
dependent on a particular job. I would add that there are other things that could also be
done to make work more like BDSM role play that fulfills the BDSM “safe, sane and
consensual” (SSC) code:
· Require employers to provide a written statement to all employees disclosing all terms and conditions of employment, including
being able to be fired at any time for almost any reason. This might not change
the actual terms and conditions of employment, but it would at least give workers
more clarity about what they are signing up for.
· Enact statutory protections for employee free speech in which private and public employers are not allowed to violate an
employee's freedom of expression either in or out of the workplace. Again, this
might not change the actual terms and conditions of employment, but it could give
workers more power to articulate their desires and object to certain things.
· Grant workers the right to meet with their employer to request a flexible work schedule, a certain number of hours, or
other scheduling items. This could help workers be part of designing at least
some of the “rules of the game.”
· As Steve Befort and I have argued in Invisible Hands, Invisible Objectives: Bringing Workplace Law and Public Policy Into Focus, the United States should enact an American
Good Cause Termination Act in which employees can only be fired if there is
“good cause” for such an action. A just cause standard is nearly universal in
U.S. union contracts, and in CEO contracts. By outlawing both bad and
irrelevant reasons for dismissing employees, this could give workers greater
power to object to onerous conditions without having to quit, and could also
better protect them if they wanted to form a union to improve their power.
None of these would necessarily fully solve the dependency
issues inherent in the modern employment relationship. That is, work for many might be hopelessly sadomasochistic. Which means that it's important for us to think about ways
to create a better balance to promote what I've called "employment with a human face." Or as provocatively put forth by Graeber (p.
283): “What would be the equivalent of saying “orange” to one’s boss? Or to an insufferable
bureaucrat, obnoxious academic advisor, or abusive boyfriend? How do we create
only games that we actually feel like playing, because we can opt out at any
time?”
Perhaps surprisingly, then, making the employment
relationship more like (non-pathological) BDSM role-playing with its SSC
principles would be a good thing. You should be able to say “orange” to your
boss. And many other things, too.
Note: ICYMI, in last month's blog post I wrote about some of my other reactions to Graeber’s Bullshit Jobs.
No comments:
Post a Comment