‘The Meaning of Work: producing work ethics’ explains the history of work ethics, from pre-industrial society, to transitional periods, to industrialised world. Bauman argues that work ethic actually control the workers’ freedom to exercise their free will.
Bauman holds a negative attitude to the emergence of work ethic. Work ethic is a product of factory system and a "moral crusade" that drives people to work. It is regarded as a destruction to the attitude of the traditional craftsmen. They were used to set their own work goals, control their workload a day and add meaning to their works. As a result, they denied the repetitive work in factory system, which the goals are set by the factories owners or supervisors, the vivid example was given in the reading, ‘the nature of their employments is such that “they are taught to act, not to think.”‘ (Bauman, 1998, p.8) As the traditional attitude of craftsmen would affect the labour supply in modern industrialisation, hindering the development of economy. Work ethic is constructed to counter this attitude of life.
Working under factory system, applying Marx’s argument, it is an “alienation” ( Marx, 1844) , that people’s characteristics are separated from their products, but it is believed that it can increase efficiency. The entrepreneurs train the workers to work mechanically, repeating work, asking them to obey without thinking. As a result, even if the workers finished their work, the mechanical work will not make the workers proud. As long as the workers are constantly engaged in these meaningless tasks, workers no longer feel that they have anything to do with production and production. They are only part of a large production machine. Gradually, workers are accepted work ethics. In the end, they should feel that "what can be done" is more important than "what needs to be done."( Bauman, 1998) There was no freedom to speak.
However, it seems that “work ethic” is just another name and sustain of tight grip of freedom under factory system. People in traditional society used to have subordinate position under landlord, especially the peasants. They worked on the farmlands that was owned by the landlords. The farming skills were repeating, almost the same patterns for their landlords, only with shorter working hours and longer breaks. Similarly, in factories, they had to accept the ways to do their works with similar patterns—repeating work—under factory system, in order to get money for food. Whether there was work ethic or not, the former peasants were deprived of freedom in doing what they want as the policy were made by government inclined to favour the rich nobles, later favoured the entrepreneurs. Work ethic was just another way to inherit the subordinate and control relationship of the past in the new name of entrepreneurs and workers, instead of landlords and farmers.
It is not difficult to see that Bauman’s view towards work ethics is sharp and hostile. He reveals the moral pressure of modern work ethics for the so-called poor people, and the poor's recognition of modern work ethics will inevitably aggravate the embarrassment of its survival.
The traditional craftsmen and farmers could resist by not working, asking for social financial assistance. However, to solve the labour shortage problem in a new era of industrialisation and motivate people to work, it was claimed that work is the only way to obtain the right to subsistence and is morally acceptable. The result is nothing more than placing the poor in an immoral situation, put people in scare of poor living conditions in poorhouses rather than in factories, as if the poor deserved the poor condition as they were not responsible for their lives the poorer they live, the more the workers and the poor want to work— the work ethic has won quite a victory. In surface, "work ethics" is the "discipline ethics" of modern society's self-beautification, but the true purpose is "abandonment to freedom" and obedience to the modern industrial system. Although Bauman describes only the development of work ethic in European transitional period, it is also apply in Hong Kong, for example, people with Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme are discriminated and regarded as lazy and rely on government support. That idea also push the poor to work pool in order to get rid of poverty. Bauman’s argument is justified for this point.
Paradoxically, there was contradiction of governments and liberalism. On one hand, the government had to promote the free market, to let the economic growth, many policies made favourable to the merchants, for example, Mercantilism in 16th century was promoted, that gold, money became what people must need instead of food. The government also allowed landlords to the encircle the lands when they knew agricultural products made less income than pastoral products, and even sold the land to the merchants and privatised the lands, causing the maldistribution of resources. The peasants no longer secured their lives by farming. As free market allows people to make the prices as they want, the unemployed peasants found jobs in factories. In order to cut the cost, the entrepreneurs made the salaries as low as they could and the working time of workers as long as they could. The exploitation was made, creating social injustice, some people gained few resources, was poor.
However, the government had dilemma in coping with the problem, as “lazzie-faire” policy, the government should not intervene the economic growth, if some social welfares were introduced to help the poor, for example introducing the maximum working hours to protect workers rights, this might affect the economic growth, as the labour cost rose. As a result, putting the poor in a name of immorality, could shred the responsibility of the government — allocator of public resources, as well as making the poor in a injustice condition — mis-recognition.
Therefore, if freedom and equality are what the society upholds, then work ethic is actually not ethical. This again proved Bauman’s own belief that freedom is not hold by everyone, instead somebody’s freedom is based on others’ sacrifice of freedom.
Moreover, Socialism regards “He who does not work, neither shall he eat” ( Lenin, The Sate and Revolution, 1917) as a battle slogan against capitalism — capitalist exploitation and parasitic life, and the elites who produce society, including politics, Culture and business elites use work ethics and related measures as a means of recreating workers and driving work. The common ground is that they all recognize work ethics, or both recognize the moral hypothesis and social foundation of work ethics, and recognize that work ethics is the need of social division of labor and social roles.
He also mentions that “work ethic” as it is “a surrender of freedom” (Bauman, 1998, P.7) not only in factory system or work places, but only in society. He also points out the crucial effects of constructing work ethic in terms of social, family structure and system. He even says “ The work ethic was thus crucially instrumental in bringing the modern arrangement about.” (Bauman, 1998, p.19) For example, men have the leading role in society and families. the work ethic further reinforce the social characteristics and roles of men, masculinity that they must work outside and be the dominant one to lead the family, like the supervisor in factory. Even nowadays, women are regarded as inferior to men in workplace and they got lower salary compared with men. Therefore, work ethic is control of freedom in aspect.