Alienation in a Marxist Context
Work may be defined as an ‘activity that provides a socially valued product or service’ (Krahn, Lowe and Hughes, 2007). This meaning, however, is not so simple in the modern climate - work has evolved into an institution of alienation, causing harsh effects on the majority of the population. Work affects all beings as it has become necessary to survive (Rinehart, 2006). The estranging effects of work have not gone unnoticed; advances have been implemented, particularly in the form of human relations to counter the consequences of bureaucratic, controlled and industrialized work. Alienation in the form of sacrificed autonomy and self-fulfillment has become co-existent with the institution of work. Although, human relations programs such as participatory management incentives claim to alleviate these effects, they fail to successfully recognize and focus these issues, and in fact, by doing so, cause further, coerced alienation of labour. To Marx, alienation is manifested when one gives up control of their destiny (Matheson, 2007). He poses that the separation of conception and execution of ideas fails to allow the ‘human-essence’ to be established and maintained. He notes that this is the circumstance evident in modern, capitalist work environments. Alienation is present in the work force due to the private ownership of the means of production, the markets of land, labour and commodities and the extreme practices of division of labour (Rinehart, 2006). The labour force no longer works for themselves as evident in feudalism or simpler modes of production; they are forced to adhere to social establishments (i.e. industrial capitalism and bureaucracies) where they must sell their labour for wage, and in this give up entire autonomy. From the hours of 9 a.m. on Monday to 5 p.m. on Friday, workers give up their rights as a person and render themselves a slave to the labour process. They are not individuals, but members of the workforce, operating in alien
Cited: Anton, Frank R. (1980). Worker Participation; Prescription for Industrial Change. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Limited. Bovee, Courtland L and John V. Thill, et al (2006). Business in Action: Canadian Edition. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. Das, T.P. Hari and Keith Davis (et al) (1982). Canadian Personnel Management and Human Resources. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited. Grant, David and John Shields (2006). Identifying the Subject: Worker Identity as Discursively Constructed Terrain. In Hearn, Mark and Grants Michelson (Eds.) Rethinking Work; Time, Space and Discourse (page 285-307). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hatcher, Tim (1995). Worker Participation Programs in U.S. Industry: A Unionist’s Perspective. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas. Krahn, Harvey J., Graham S. Lowe and Karen Hughes (2007). Work, Industry and Canadian Society. Canada: Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Matheson, Graig (2007). In Praise of Bureaucracy? A Dissent from Australia. Administration and Society, 39(2), 233-261. Rinehart, James W. (2006). The Tyranny of Work: Alienation and the Labour Process. Canada: Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Wennerlind, Carl (2002). The Labour Theory of the Strategic Role of Alienation. Capital and Class, 77, 1-22.