Richard Sennett: In the world of labor and work, the phrase dis­pos­able life” refers to a new wrin­kle in neolib­er­al cap­i­tal­ism. And that wrin­kle is that it’s cheap­er to dis­pose of work­ers in Europe and America than it’s ever been in the past. It’s pos­si­ble to find much cheap­er work­ers in the devel­op­ing coun­tries who can do work at the same lev­el as work­ers in Britain, Germany, or France, or the United States. And the advent of new tech­nolo­gies of man­u­fac­tur­ing as well as of data orga­ni­za­tion and stor­age in the white col­lar sec­tor means that there’s not the need for the num­bers of work­ers who could expect to be employed before. 

So this is a struc­tur­al prob­lem. It means that there are more peo­ple than there are jobs. Unemployment is a very poor mea­sure of this prob­lem, since what hap­pens is that even in a full employ­ment econ­o­my, work­ers are con­tin­u­al­ly being dri­ven from the mid­dle towards the bot­tom, middle-level jobs done by peo­ple abroad, or by machines. Lower lev­el jobs are face-to-face ser­vice jobs, and that kind of work is some­thing that has no real future in it. It’s short-term. It’s dull. It’s not like­ly to build up a per­son­’s sense of hav­ing a life course in work, or an iden­ti­ty in work. 

So this phrase for us, for peo­ple who study labor, is a very very preg­nant one. And it’s a prob­lem with­out an obvi­ous solu­tion. It’s possible…you, know the cliché doing more with less” means doing more eco­nom­i­cal­ly, with less human­ly. And the solu­tion to that prob­lem is not clear. 

The Dutch have tried to give every­body some­thing to do, to res­cue peo­ple from the specter of use­less­ness, by divid­ing up a full-time job into two or three part-time jobs. So that at least peo­ple have some part of the week in which they can feel they’re gain­ful­ly employed, they have the self-respect of hav­ing an iden­ti­ty at work. And the rest of the time, they’re on income support. 

There have been minor attempts to do that in Britain and the United States. But it’s seen as—horror of hor­rors—social­ism. And so the result is that peo­ple fall back on real­ly impos­si­ble dreams. That every human being would become some­thing like an entre­pre­neur. That every middle-class per­sons per­son would become a con­sul­tant. Which sim­ply means that there are lots of peo­ple with­out work who are chas­ing an ever-more-scarce commodity. 

I know that you’re inter­est­ed in the sub­ject of vio­lence as it relates to dis­pos­able life. That does­n’t relate to this kind of use­less­ness or dis­pos­abil­i­ty. There have been the occa­sion­al protests against this, like the Occupy move­ment. But their essence is not vio­lent. And the idea that vio­lence could do any­thing to solve this prob­lem is absurd. Most peo­ple know that. There has to be anoth­er domain of polit­i­cal and social engage­ment in which peo­ple become useful. 

One sad thing to me about this is that what we’ve seen in the past five years with the finan­cial cri­sis is, obvi­ous­ly, a high lev­el of unhap­pi­ness as well as of mate­r­i­al unem­ploy­ment, which isn’t how­ev­er trans­lat­ing into social action. It has­n’t spurred the growth of unions, for instance, among the unem­ployed. Or oth­er forms of coop­er­a­tive activ­i­ty among unem­ployed peo­ple. People are sort of pas­sive­ly suf­fer­ing. And that’s a prob­lem in civ­il soci­ety for which you know, we don’t have any easy answers. The notion of going on strike or protest­ing is way down the line in terms of what peo­ple might do. The prob­lem is to rouse them in the first place to think that the answer to being a dis­pos­able per­son is, in the first place, think­ing in the plur­al, think­ing col­lec­tive­ly. And through unions, oth­er civ­il soci­ety insti­tu­tions, church­es. Community orga­ni­za­tions. But that’s the first step that peo­ple need to take. That the answer to dis­pos­abil­i­ty is not auton­o­my, it’s some­thing social and collective. 

One exam­ple of dis­pos­abil­i­ty which would­n’t come to most peo­ple’s minds imme­di­ate­ly but which I’ve been fol­low­ing with my stu­dents for the last five years are unem­ployed workers—back office workers—in Wall Street. These are peo­ple who lost their jobs as a result of the finan­cial crunch in 2008. They were peo­ple who were doing well before. Account audi­tors, peo­ple who were rec­on­cil­ing files, lower-level com­put­er infor­ma­tion offi­cers and so on. 

And what hap­pened to them in 2008 were actu­al­ly two things. One is the finan­cial indus­try in New York shrunk overall—the esti­mates are between 7 and 11%—its work­force force shrunk, and shrunk in the mid­dle. Some of these jobs were off-shored to places like Bangalore or Singapore to get this back office work done more cheap­ly by English-speaking, high­ly com­pe­tent workers. 

But some of these jobs were replaced by new tech­no­log­i­cal sys­tems that were able to use big data—that is amass huge amounts of data—and makes not sim­ply com­pi­la­tions of it but judg­ments on it. For instance, judg­ments on whether the rec­on­cil­i­a­tion of accounts at the end of the day was rea­son­able or not. It’s a big issue in a finance firm. These pro­grams were writ­ten, anoth­er ver­sion of them, to mea­sure the pro­duc­tiv­i­ty of lawyers, some­thing that seemed to be entire­ly a qual­i­ta­tive call before the crisis. 

We’ve been fol­low­ing what hap­pened to these work­ers. Because these are peo­ple that you would­n’t have shed croc­o­dile tears for before 2008. Some of them had amassed enough sav­ings to strike off on their own. Often they were leav­ing the finan­cial indus­try entire­ly because they were tired of work­ing twelve or fourteen-hour days. They left New York go to small­er towns or to go into oth­er forms of busi­ness. Many of them became teach­ers, odd­ly enough. And as I say, they had the where­with­al to do that. 

I would say anoth­er third, who were not as well-endowed, were peo­ple who were strug­gling try­ing to make it as con­sul­tants, where­as before they had been employ­ees. And these were downwardly-mobile peo­ple. But you know, they had less work, they were one or two men, or a three-person offices, com­pet­ing against huge con­sult­ing firms like McKinsey. They had very short net­works, very weak net­works of asso­ci­a­tion. But still they were man­ag­ing. They were doing much less well, but they were able to par­lay the skills work­ing in an orga­ni­za­tion into just hang­ing on by their fin­gers in Wall Street. 

The third group, which we found to be the most trag­ic, are peo­ple for whom the shock of sud­den­ly not being need­ed, of being dis­pos­able, was some­thing they could­n’t han­dle psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly. These are peo­ple who after four or five months of unem­ploy­ment began drink­ing heav­i­ly. Marital prob­lems began on the increase. Many of them were spend­ing lots of time in the gym—the men—thinking that some­how build­ing up their bod­ies would some­how deal with the fact that they’d been discarded. 

And these peo­ple were unreach­able. They tend­ed not to be think­ing strate­gi­cal­ly, but real­ly almost suf­fered a kind of body blow. They had been… I can’t make… We only have eighty-four cas­es, so this is no vast soci­o­log­i­cal study. But in talk­ing to these peo­ple (and we do so inten­sive­ly over five, sev­en one-hour ses­sions), these are the peo­ple who were the true believ­ers before­hand. The sort of peo­ple who would have joined the Tea Party if the Tea Party had exist­ed dur­ing the boom years. And they’d had the stuff­ing knocked out of them. Oftentimes they worked very hard. But they found… It’s not just an ide­o­log­i­cal blow. They found that employ­ers they thought they could trust no longer want­ed to hear from them. They faxed a thou­sand resumes to peo­ple, putting on one of those lit­tle please acknowl­edge receipt,” to find that only say fifty out of a thou­sand would go so far as to just flip the acknowl­edge” thing. They would spend—they do spend—hours a day with phones not ring­ing, or lit­tle show­ing up at the com­put­er screen. These were peo­ple who before were harassed by communication. 

So, that’s a group that has gone under. Now, they’re a minor­i­ty. They’re a dra­mat­ic minor­i­ty. But they are the peo­ple for whom the expe­ri­ence of being dis­pos­able has I think been the most pro­found. Only because they had before so much belief in the sys­tem. And…I mean, this rais­es to me a very gen­er­al prob­lem. And the prob­lem is that the peo­ple who believe in this new cap­i­tal­ism are the peo­ple most like­ly deep­er hurt by it. That the begin­ning of tak­ing a step towards being resis­tant to the sys­tem is no longer to think that this is a sys­tem which will reward you, not peo­ple in gen­er­al, but you. And that’s hard for peo­ple to do. It’s very hard to put in four­teen hours a day and think, I’m being exploit­ed.” It’s very hard to do that if for your four­teen hours a day you’re being paid large sums of mon­ey. And then in an instant, you’re gone. 

So this is a com­plex prob­lem. Learning how to man­age through dis­trust, which is what I’m talk­ing about, through unbe­lief, is not some­thing that sim­ply is a style of rad­i­cal will. That’s an intel­lec­tu­al’s par­lor game. This is a pro­found expe­ri­ence that these peo­ple are hav­ing to work through. And as I say, the believ­ers tend to be the peo­ple who have the most trou­ble work­ing through it.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.