Employment crisis or crisis of employment

The crisis, approaching slowly but surely its tenth anniversary, highlighted another time the severe and manifest negative consequences of the lack of employment on people’s and peoples’ lives. Talking about people’s and peoples’ lives means that we are facing a problem that concerns nation states and the citizens alike. It has to be added that the problems are really social problems, not just having devastating consequences for the socioeconomic dimension of life but for the entirety of the social as matter of the production and reproduction of daily life. At least in capitalist societies, the entire social fabric had been established on employment as fundamental pillar, being foundation of all dimensions of the social which are outlined according to the social quality theory along the following lines.

However, one of the major problems is that employment itself lost very much its function as a hinge — though it may be asked to which extent such function existed before, it is surely increasingly questionable to see society today as societies based in employment. Both, socio-economic security and inclusion in the widest understanding as well as societal wealth and soci(et)al integrity can be seen as matters linked to employment.

With the discussion of these changes we are facing various topics that are inherent part of the supposed shifts.

• (i)    The question of generating societal values and actually the definition of what is valuable is at the centre of the debate.

• (ii)    Though the relevance of the mainstream argument of an increasing commodification and marketisation cannot be denied, we should not overlook a hidden de-marketisation — the existence of a functioning market had been contested for a long time, not least as matter of concentration, centralisation and an ongoing accumulation by dispossession. However, it may be asked if we reached already a new stage, furthering the shift from market society to market economy to a new pattern which may be called socialised market entity, the market standing for a space of generalised exchange, going beyond commodity exchange. This is the answer to an emerging need to cope with long chains of interdependence.

• (iii)    This means as well that we have to revisit the concept of employment being the central building block — the concepts of labour and work need to be revisited.

• (iv)    Another issue is to revisit in this context the regulation mechanisms, taking a wide approach.

Tabel n.1

Constitutional, Conditional and Normative Factors

	Constitutional Factors	Conditional Factors	Normative Factors
Showing	Processes	Opportunities & Contingencies	Orientation
Factors	Personal (Human) Security Social Recognition Social Responsiveness Personal (Human) Capacity	Socio-Economic Security Social Cohesion Social Inclusion Social Empowerment	Social Justice (Equity) Solidarity Equal Valuation Human Dignity
Main Determinants	Each factor is an outcome of processes concerning the formation of a diversity of collective identities, strongly influenced by the interplay of processes of self-realisation across two main tensions and therefore also situated in one part of the quadrangle of the conditional factors.	Each factor is mainly influenced by aspects of the interaction between the two main tensions and is, therefore, especially situated in one part of the quadrangle of the constitutional.	Each factor is influenced by the dialectic relationship between conditional and constitutional factors and is therefore providing a thread, welding the different factors together.

1. Overview: Dimensions of the Social

Opening such perspective has to look at both, the blunt regulatory mechanisms — in the present case the mechanisms of providing welfare and social security are of special interest. But equally important are the underlying systems of hegemony including the determination of human identity. In a nutshell this may be defined as taking up the Weberian discussion about the protestant work ethics (Weber, 1904/05), which had always been discussed in particular in contradistinction to the catholic attitude, concerned with rules of the sacrament as prior to the secular requirements of performance. Indeed, the question is if we have another overall shift that we may see as move to a radical secularisation, concerned with selfrealisation.

Consequently the presentation provides only a framework and proposal — and major empirical research should follow. One of the foremost issues will then be about dealing with the asynchrony of the development in respect of at least the segments of the world system,1 sectors and the social strata.2

Towards a New Soci(et)al Contract

Interpreting the current situation in this light, we can highlight the following fundamental challenges: ◼ the nation state as central dimension of the still existing hegemony is facing a process of dissolution ◼ employment as cornerstone of the economic system is under threat

◼ not least as the determinants of economic value, as seen in the labour theory of value, are increasing loosing their foundation due to the shifts of the balance of private-public

◼ which includes the major overhaul of the ‘standing’ and social meaning of private entrepreneurship

◼ existing patterns of exclusion (gender, migration) loose fundamentally their legitimacy

◼ which includes a ‘shift of values’ though this should properly be seen as a revision of living regimes as response to changed accumulation regimes (see Herrmann, forthcoming).

Admittedly this presents a broad range of changes, traditionally approached by way of under-complex approaches, singling out the individual aspects though the new quality is decisively depending on the fact that we are dealing with new relationalities. This means in very simple terms not least that that a revival of any known contract, as frequently discussed as postulation for a revival of the so-called European Social Model is simply not an option for further discussion.

Elements of Dissolution — Elementsof Solution

Some hints had been already given in the brief outline of the previous paragraph. In some respect we may say that all these elements have never been absolutely stable and rigid. It is exactly the concurrence that marks the major turning point. Without going into details of the individual points — namely changing role of nation states, changed character of work/labour, changed determination of value, changed character of entrepreneurship and role of enterprises, changing parameters of inclusion/exclusion and shift of living regimes — we find at the centre stage of the development a dissolution of the market as regulator of the economic sphere.

We may propose as thesis a development of the patterns of social contracts following three stages:

The first stage is characterised as the emergence of capitalist market principles (see the discussion in Frank/Gills (Eds.), 1993). Taking such perspective means not least to acknowledge that capitalism evolved over a long time and germinated

The second stage can be characterised as the penetration of society by the market principles and emergence of the market society, replacing the market economy as ‘exchange segment’ of society (Polanyi, 1944). In this context it is worthwhile noting that also the various mechanisms of de-commodification, as they had been especially brought into play by Gøsta Esping-Andersen (see Esping-Andersen, 1989 and 1990), had been still fundamentally based in the functioning market-system — though being in some way taken out of the market, they remain dependent on the pre-existence of the market system as such, in fact flanking the market society exactly due to temporarily and/or occasionally loosening the bond.

As third stage we can see the current phase where market principles are formally in place, though in actual fact they are to a large extent and in very different ways suspended under the rule of private monopoly. To be sure, such suspension is not entirely new, on the contrary we find many of the relevant patterns much earlier and perhaps even harsher: today we read frequently about accumulation by dispossession (Harvey, 1982/1999/2006), however the very same fact is already looked at by so diverse economists as Adam Smith (see Smith, 1775: 82, 276) and Karl Marx (Marx, 1887: 704 ff.); the complete or partial expulsion from ‘paradise of employment related socio-economic security’ within the capitalist market system is reality for a long time and precarity is not a fundamentally new issue though it may well be that the forms changed and these conditions are now widespread, not least reaching into the middle classes (see Castel, 1995; Herrmann/ Bobkov/Csoba [eds.], 2104; Hepp [ed.]. 2009); the dissolution of democratic and legal rules appear to be new phenomena, though it is surely wrong to look at previous times by way of understanding them as monolithic national bastions of democratic rules and legal rights (see for instance Herrmann, 2010/2012).

Still, it would be wrong to stop here and accept the current situation as representing the end of history. In actual fact we find various patterns of the dissolution of the capitalist economy not only by way of austerity and retrenchment but also by way of the search for new and sustainable ways. Major issues are at least (i) an implicit search for overall sustainability, (ii) the ventilation of new values and valuations, (iii) the need for new mechanisms of regulation and (iv) the need for global equity — these issues are not emerging as matter of new value systems but as requirements and opportunities emerging from the given developmental stage of the socio-productive forces. And as such they are characterised by extreme tensions and fights — including international wars and oppressive rules.

Of course, this stands strongly against the contemporary overwhelming dominance and further progress of the economisation. However, we should actually be more circumspect when it comes to characterising these processes. Privatisation, commodification, marketisation, managerialisation are main features frequently referred to when analysing the current state of capitalism (Herrmann, 2011). Of course, there are various definitions of capitalism, and various ways choose the reference point for any of them. For instance one could also refer to a reference points as for instance aims of productivity, profitability, effectiveness and manageability/accountability. Two points are of major importance for the current considerations: First, there is no societal formation that stands in a pure form — we may apply Max Weber’s notion of the ideal type, though not seeing it as idealist construct; instead, the more likely reading of Weber suggests that it is about a set of elements in an undisturbed combination which in reality does not exist due to imbalances in internally and externally defined power relations.

Having mentioned accumulation regime, living regime, mode of regulation, and mode of life as matter of possible life style and taking them in a wider understanding, not limiting accumulation to the process of capital accumulation but relating it to the general process of generating value, we arrive at another scheme which provides a useful point of reference, namely the concern of praxis with appropriation and power, characterised in a non-linear way. Appropriateness is about

◼ ‘availing of property’ and

◼ adequacy.

On the other hand, power is about

◼ generating and maintaining propriety on the one hand and

◼ the execution of control on the other hand.

Important is to note that the momentum of control has itself again two dimensions, namely

◼ contestable legitimacy (‘control of the system’) and ◼ empowerment in terms of developing capabilities

(‘control of the own life and development’).

The following puts this into a schematic presentation:

We can take this as reference point and link it to one of the tensions highlighted by the social quality approach, namely the tension between biographical an societal development (see Beck/van der Maesen/ Walker, 2012). One of the issues that needs further elaboration is the twofold character of the tension. On the one hand we face the tension between the two poles; on the other hand there is a tension within

Tabel n.2

Tension of Power and Appropriation

appropriation property adequacy ф о о. о о о с ф Е ф о Q. Е ф each of the poles, namely due to the fact that the development of each is on the one hand a win-wingame, i.e. the development is positively influenced by the development of the other pole, on the other hand it is a zero-sum-game, i.e. the development is a matter that follows the rule of competitive exclusion. This is just another formulation of the interplay of propertyadequacy and as well the interplay of controlempowerment. It is important to emphasise that this generalised process of balancing is concerned with the generation of value as multiple process — this can easily be shown when we look at individual processes, e.g. the fact that wages are on the one hand cost factors for enterprises, on the other hand purchasing power for their products. Most pronounced examples for this tension are club goods, public goods and common goods, different constellations of production and/or consumption depending on some kind of immediate social (re-)productive interaction. Such approach allows not least defining in a clearer way the antagonist character of social relations in a historical perspective, highlighting the diverse tensions within the larger clusters.

We are dealing with the fact that on the one hand societies are increasingly inclusive, i.e. more people are as individuals obtaining citizen status, at the same time the status of the citizen is increasingly limited as the sovereignty shifts factually away from the individual and is transferred to the ‘socialised I’, as such an abstract instance. — This had been proposed by Norbert Elias as matter of sociogenetic and psychogenetic development (see Elias, 1939). One has to resist the temptation to discuss this as matter of quantitative reversal. Instead, we are dealing with a qualitative shift that in actual fact reverses the relationship. This may well be seen as one aspect of the definition of work in relation to the dimensions of self-determination and self-realisation versus heteronomy and alienation.

Work, Labour or Praxis

Indeed, ‘[t]he English language has the advantage of possessing different words for the two aspects of labour here considered. The labour which creates Use Value, and counts qualitatively, is Work, as distinguished from Labour; that which creates Value and counts quantitatively, is Labour as distinguished from Work.’ (Marx, 1887: op.cit.: 57).

This characterises activities in terms of a relation to nature — as immediate part of the interaction with nature — and as matter of a social relationship. Though we can take this analytically as distinct issue, we have to see it as well as an entity of mutual determination. It is decisive to recognise that the dual character of labour power is actually a multiple one. Beyond humans engaging with nature and individuals engaging with others there are at least the following dimensions: the production of use value and the production of exchange value; the value generating and the value-draining character; finally the production of goods and services and the production of the producer. The current stage of historical development is exactly at the stage of such a developmental shift of redefining work and labour. In the heading of this section praxis had been added as it allows adding a qualitative moment: earlier, the characterisation spanned from use value and exchange value; however, using praxis as an intermittent allows referring to a new redefinition of value, i.e. reassessing the question of what is seen as socially valuable activity. Inherent in such shift is the development of a new foundation of valuation. With this general outline, this presentation will end with (i) establishing a brief link between social valuing (what is valuable) and valuation (how is it assessed and recognised) and the historical/formational stages and then (ii) discussing briefly the shift we see currently especially in connection with precarity.

• (i)    Stages of Valuing and Valuation

  Whereas the emergence of capitalism and its development is economically very much a matter of a shift from use value to exchange value, and further an increasing length of the mediation,³ this is linked to the sociological process of civilisation n the interpretation by Norbert Elias. There we find increasingly long chains of interdependence as a core moment of the process (see Elias, 1939). A major challenge, dealing with the process of socialisation is its dual character: the lengthening of chains of interdependence means an increasing de-substantialisation — in sociology and also in political economy it is discussed as alienation, characterised by stating that ‘[t]he worker therefore only feels himse lf outside his work, and in his work

  feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home.’ (Marx, 1844: 274)

Earlier, four stages of development had been outlined, namely the emerging capitalist market principle, the penetration of the market principle and its emergence as dominant principle in the market society, the factual suspension of market principles under the hegemonic ruling of private monopoly and the enhanced socialisation. Also mentioned had been the ongoing accumulation by dispossession. Inherent is in both processes a tension between the increasing number of people and the increasing substantial range of activities and items that is subdued by the principle of economic calculability on the one hand (the dimensions of inequality of control and property) and an increasing inclusion (as matter of accessibility, empowerment and appropriateness) on the other hand.

• (ii)    Precarity — Searching for a New Mode of Accumulation

An accumulation regime can be characterised as coherent correspondence between generating value and consumption, linking the conditions of general socio-economic production and the reproduction of the population. The present definition is very much paraphrasing the definition given by Alain Lipietz (see Lipietz, op.cit.: 19), but goes beyond by generalising it, instead of applying it only to the capitalist formation. The decisive aspect is the coherence at a certain moment in time; subsequently not all systems of accumulation are possible. At the same time, the mere possibility of a regime is inadequate to account for its existence since there is no necessity for the whole set of individual capitals and agents to behave according to its structure.

(ibid.: 19)

In this light it is important to look at employment — and in particular precarity — at the current phase not only in terms of changing patterns of the workforce: there we find simply a dissolution of the known structures of societally recognised labour and with this the dissolution of societally established mechanisms of socio-economic security. In short — and showing the negativity of this pattern: in OECD-countries it had been reasonably well captured as normal working day (it had been about 40 hours per week) of a normal working life (a general approximate value is 40 to 45 years), providing a stable income, allowing securitisation during non-working times via derived social benefits (as sick-pay, unemployment benefit, special allowances, old-age pension …). One can also say that within this normality the work dimension actually played a subordinated role — on the labour market as on the commodity markets the exchange value had been more important than the use value.

It had been emphasised earlier that the dual character of the labour power is a multiple one — and the process of accumulation is as such permanently caught in the tension that the balancing of the contradicting dimensions is necessary for the sake of its own survival.

One of the most pronounced mechanisms is the process of technological change and rationalisation — the work on long waves, notably connected with Nicolai Kondratiev (Kondratiev, 1926) and Joseph Schumpeter (Schumpeter, 1942), provides a major input for the interpretation on a macro scale. The settlements on a new stage are not simply about finding a new level on which the same pattern of the previous stage can be reproduced. The creative destruction and the ‘Schumpeterian entrepreneur’ are not least about a qualitative shift.

Looking in this light at work/labour issues can open some new perspectives — by no means denying the problematic side, we have to look seriously at the outlined process of socialisation and recognise the positive moments that are germinating in the present formation (see in this context Bloch, 1959: 258-288). The following tries to outline some of the elementary forms, referring to the crisis of the modèle anthroponomique (cf. Boccara, 2010) on the one side and to the resources of civilisation on the other hand — only few elements can be outlined. The presentation follows the dialectical principle of viewing the ‘opening’ of structures, the closure in terms of the destabilisation of an existing balance and the options for a stabilisation on a higher level.

Tabel n.3

Changes of the Hegemony of Employment Societies*

	Opening	Closure	Escape
1	Rationalisation and automatisation reaching levels of complete replacement of ongoing need for human input (perpetuum-mobile-like, self-referential systems)	Displacement of variable capital from the process of value generation	Production of value beyond commodity production — humanisation and shortening of labour
2	Dissolution of the nation state as point of reference and stronghold of societal integration I: Suspension of separation of power as it had been founding modern democracy	Governance and stakeholder principles as mechanisms of concentration of power based on economic strength	Consumption as productive process that fosters spaces for civic rights xzy
3	Accumulation of private wealth beyond the possibility of private (productive or consumptive) realisation	Increasing inequality with the tendency to widened absolute exclusion	Distribution of wealth within socialised paradigms
4	Extended requirements and provisions of education	Caught in the tension between skills training on the one hand and learning to understand and deal with complex relationships	Exchange as free, creative, participatory and solidaristic praxis, independent of processes of generating economic values
5	Individualisation as matter of increasing responsibility and control of social processes (with the different dimensions) by citizens	Erosion of citizenry and hyper-individualisation/individualist isolationism	Emergence of self-confident, socially responsible actors as matter of a new dimension of production
6	Tension of inclusion-exclusion, not least emerging from ‘new claimants’	Radical and absolute exclusion, dismantling of social security systems	Emerging citizenry independent of formal belonging as matter of new forms of consumption
7	Dissolution of the nation state as point of reference stronghold of societal integration II: Internationalisation of regulatory mechanisms	Legitimation crises of the political systems with increasing civil protests, abstention and civic resignation but also statutory noncompliance for instance as form of nationalist movements, religious fundamentalism, re-regionalisation	Space for an emerging glocal citizenry as framework for new forms of distribution
8	Dissolution of the nation state as point of reference stronghold of societal integration III: Privatisation of power	Establishment of new global hegemonies that enforce a globally harmonised accumulation and living regime, including the explicit utilisation of centre-periphery inequalities (“austerity policies”)	Re-conceptualisation of the public and the private also as re-emergence of commons as new framework of and for exchange

* see in this context Marx 1857 where he elaborates on the entity of production, consumption, distribution and exchange.