Middle-Class Work

views updated

MIDDLE-CLASS WORK

Peter N. Stearns

Middle-class work is largely a modern topic, and indeed the class itself, as a self-conscious entity, dates back only to the eighteenth century in Europe. The middle class did begin to develop distinctive ideas about work at that point, and in some cases began to follow a distinctive work regimen as well. Gaps between assertion and reality, nevertheless, are an important aspect of the topic. Between the late eighteenth and late nineteenth centuries, the middle-class work ethic had palpable historical impact, not only on the class itself, including its children and the training they received, but also on judgments of other groups viewed as deficient in the work category. By the late nineteenth century, the topic became more diffuse because of growing leisure interests and the development of a lower middle class linked to middle-class standards but not defined by them. Historical analysis of middle-class work in the twentieth century is less well developed.

Regional factors play a role in the timing of more modern commercial and economic structures. A distinctive middle class did not emerge as fully in eastern Europe as in the western areas, and so its work definitions were both less clear and less significant. However, under communism, an implicit middle class linked with the upper echelons of the Communist Party developed some distinctive work and training habits.

Several historical debates are linked to the subject of middle-class work. The German sociologist Max Weber's (1864–1920) ideas about a Protestant ethic related directly to work; his argument has been disputed but remains an important focus for the early modern period. For the nineteenth century, there is inevitable debate about how fully the middle class lived up to its own beliefs, and evidence (and probably reality as well) is varied. Though it is not as clearly addressed, there is a gender issue. Most images associated with middle-class work are male, and mirror images of middle-class women as idly decorative (if repressed) used to be commonplace. This view has shifted, but exactly how women related to class ideas about work remains somewhat unclear. Finally, the complex issue of the lower middle class, which expanded in the later nineteenth century, significantly involves judgments about its work styles and goals.

THE EARLY MODERN BACKGROUND

As the number of merchants and professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, grew during the Middle Ages, at least two work characteristics distinguished them from the more familiar social groups around them. In contrast to the aristocracy, this new, largely urban bourgeoisie depended on work not only for support but also for identity. It did not carve out a distinctive leisure style, though individuals, once attaining great wealth, might imitate aristocratic opulence. More important was the fact that, in contrast to the masses of urban workers and peasants, this group did not work with its hands. Nonmanual labor could provide real status, and in some corners of Europe, such as the Balkans, clerks even grew their fingernails long to demonstrate their position. More commonly, special clothing, however sober, made distinctions clear. The prestige attached to nonmanual work would linger into contemporary society.

This said, it is not clear that this group shared any particular consciousness about the role of work or that it worked particularly hard. Individuals, eager to amass more wealth, put in long hours with great intensity. But no vividly defined ethic emerged at this point. The bourgeoisie was defined by legal status as well as occupation in many cities, but its self-perception did not necessarily involve work.

Then came the Protestant Reformation. Because Protestant leaders argued that salvation was predestined rather than acquired by holy efforts, they may have encouraged a new sense of the validity and importance of merchant endeavor. In the first place, the old Catholic suspicion of profit-seeking activities, which was declining as western Europe became more commercial, faded in light of the fact that, at least in principle, one's worldly pursuits did not have direct impact on salvation. In the eyes of the Protestant God, it was no better to be celibate than married, or to be poor than rich. Second—in that contradiction so often noted with Protestantism—the very fact that good works did not cause or predict salvation led some Protestants to seek other measures of God's will, prior to death and judgment. So an argument developed that hard work leading to economic success showed God's favor. In sober Protestant communities, leadership was provided by men of means who were assumed, by their worldly attainments, also to reflect God's grace. It was worth working hard to gain the rewards that would show God's favor, even though, technically, there was nothing one could do about salvation itself.

In his work on the Protestant ethic, Weber high-lighted these conundrums in Protestantism. He added that the package precluded frivolous spending of the wealth acquired, for that would detract from work and success as demonstrations of holiness. So hardworking merchants piled up profits that they did not fritter away in leisure pursuits or excessive luxury, thus accumulating capital that could be used for further expansion—and Europe's capitalist class was born. Distinctive work devotion is not the only component of this well-known Weber thesis, but it plays a considerable role.

The Weber thesis has, over time, faded noticeably, as it was found to have several flaws. First, European capitalist behavior predated Protestantism. Not only in Renaissance Italy, but in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century France, Catholic merchants could display a work and accumulation devotion not measurably different from their Protestant counterparts. Second, Protestant merchants were not always particularly zealous. A Protestant enclave in southern France, in the Cévennes area, saw a number of businessmen develop small textile firms, but there was no sign that they worked their operations with any noticeable vigor or zeal. Few studies now follow up on Weber directly. It is true, however, that the expansion of commerce and manufacturing in early modern Europe undoubtedly encouraged many businesspeople to step up their efforts. Protestantism for some may have furthered this general movement. No full-blown middle-class work ethic had emerged as yet. Many businessmen, once successful, hoped to emulate an aristocratic lifestyle, complete with buying a landed estate, rather than continue to keep nose to grindstone. But there were signs of change.

It is also important to note that, from the sixteenth century on, judgments of poverty increasingly included concerns that many poor people were to blame for their lot because of inadequate attention to work. A growing distinction between worthy poor—people who because of infirmity or family status literally could not maintain themselves—and the unworthy—defined in terms of failure to work properly—began to enter into poor-law policy and into growing concerns about begging and other manifestations of idleness. Here was another seedbed for middle-class values.

Finally, while the Weber thesis no longer seems to explain either the timing or the reasons for a definitive middle-class work ethic, the Reformation had one further impact that began to affect work values by the late seventeenth century. A host of religious minorities were created. While these may have been influenced by the larger implications of Protestantism, they seem to have been still more affected by minority status. This status left groups like Quakers in England barred from political office, though tolerated sufficiently to operate in the business world. Minority conditions also limited contacts children had with other groups, tightening their relationships with adults in ways that could produce a distinctive work zeal. Whatever the precise mix, it was becoming clear by the eighteenth century that a disproportionate number of some of the most hardworking and successful business families (though by no means the whole set) were emanating from minority segments. Quakers and Nonconformists in England and Protestants in eastern France formed two classic cases. Jews, once legally emancipated, formed a similar component in the business and professional spheres where they concentrated. Later in the nineteenth century, Old Believers played a comparable role among early Russian industrialists. Hard work could be a ticket to success amid discrimination, as well as a personal badge of identity.

A CLEARER TRANSITION: THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Several factors associated with the emergence of the class in other respects combined to produce a more definitive middle-class work ethic during the eighteenth century. Commercial growth continued in western Europe, augmenting business ranks and their self-confidence alike. An increasing number of manufacturing operations began to separate management from the producing labor force. Woollen production in Yorkshire, England, for example, had seen artisan masters working alongside their journeymen in 1700. With expanded market opportunities, by 1730 a clearer division occurred, which meant that the erstwhile masters moved away from manual labor while also differentiating themselves in other respects from their labor force. Population growth was a factor. Many businessmen were faced with growing numbers of children, mainly because more began surviving than had traditionally been the case. Camille Schlumberger, a manufacturer in Alsace, began to work harder than his own father had, converting his artisanal operation into a full-blown manufacturing enterprise, essentially because he had twelve children to support. If he were to do the right thing by each, in terms of dowries for daughters, schooling and jobs for sons, he needed to expand, and that meant work. (His own sons would then, in the first half of the nineteenth century, move into the ranks of early industrialists, not only in textiles but also in railroads and other areas.) Several developments, in sum, produced situations in which businesspeople probably did begin working harder than had been the case before, to take advantage of new commercial opportunities and to deal with family demands.

The Enlightenment also played a role. Enlightenment theorists praised the value of work, legitimating the pursuit of earthly rewards. They also used work as the basis for virtue and productive citizenship, contrasting it to the idleness of the aristocracy. This line of argument showed up in the early phases of the French Revolution, when classic definitions of the Third Estate insisted that working people (if they were also property owners) manifested the essence of citizenship, and should not be outvoted by parasitic aristocrats.

Then came the industrial revolution, the final factor in creating an articulated middle-class work ethic that became a badge of honor for the class. Industrialization quite simply provided many middle-class people with a growing array of tasks. Early factory owners had to organize appropriate technology, supervise a labor force, and arrange for marketing. Ultimately, of course, bureaucracies would be organized to take care of some of these specialized functions, but in many early factories the practical burdens on individual proprietors could be considerable. Similar pressures could affect people responsible for expanding commercial outlets. Shopkeepers became increasingly adept at a variety of marketing techniques, beyond traditional displays of wares; but these took time and effort. New work demands spilled into the professions a bit more diffusely. But claims of extensive work could be part of professional self-justification in an age in which, increasingly, work was king.

Industrialization also put middle-class people in intimate contact with other groups whose work habits seemed demonstrably unsatisfactory. Many factory owners contended with former peasants or artisans who did not voluntarily adapt themselves to the more intense speed and coordination demands of the new machines. These workers had an ethic of their own, but it did not fully conform to the demands of modern industry, or to the expectations of the managers themselves. A common belief held that workers labored only about 60 percent as hard as they could. And many workers lacked a keen sense of the connection between work and time, which was becoming a vital link in the middle-class view. Bending work to the demands of the clock was not automatic, and this perceived failure or reluctance too could increase a middle-class sense that the lower classes were deficient in work drive. The middle-class home provided another class confrontation—between husbands and wives with strong work expectations and lower-class servants who lacked the motivation to measure up. Industrialization, in other words, created a growing array of situations in which middle-class people could take pride in their distinctive work habits and judge other groups disparagingly on the strength of seemingly different performances.

THE WORK ETHIC

Industrialization thus provided the context in which the full-blown middle-class work ethic was articulated, building on Enlightenment precedent. By the 1820s and 1830s publicists in most Western countries trumpeted the common message. Samuel Smiles (1812–1904) was the most famous spokesperson in England, but he had counterparts in France and elsewhere. Lessons about the value of hard work crept into schoolbooks, for example, in Prussia from about 1780 on.

Hard work was the chief good in life, according to this argument. With work, people were protected from damaging frivolities, from excesses that jeopardized health or morality or both. Work would also allow people to better their station in life: the relationship between work and mobility, and the positive desirability of advancement, were crucial components in the work ethic. Samuel Smiles's stories were filled with the virtuous lives of hardworking ordinary men, but also with stories of people who, through hard work alone, managed to move from humble to exalted station. The rags-to-riches story was a middle-class work-ethic classic.

The praise for work had a harsher flip side, already prepared in some of the earlier attacks both on the aristocracy and on the poor. Commentary on the idleness of the aristocracy diminished in the nineteenth century, as the middle class gained greater power and even, in its upper reaches, merged with the aristocratic group. But novels continued to berate idle aristocrats. Another group was singled out for unjustified idleness and dissolute work habits: the bohemians, taken to represent many artists and intellectuals, some of whom had abandoned respectable middle-class origins. But the clearest brunt of work-ethic judgments fell on the poor. Many cities, under middle-class administrations from the 1820s or 1830s on, attempted to ban begging on the grounds that people who did not work did not merit support. Revisions of the English poor laws (in 1834) also attempted to distinguish between poor people capable of working and thus undeserving of help, and those unable to work and thus deserving, hoping to discipline and reform the former group. Habits like drinking were blasted for their erosion of the capacity to work. Clearly, the new work ethic had some of its greatest impact by undergirding evaluations of and policies toward others, including, in Europe's colonies, "native" peoples viewed as insufficiently industrious. In Europe itself, the nineteenth century witnessed a persistent, if implicit, debate between middle-class and working-class individuals about what work was supposed to be like, and while neither group fully persuaded the other, the middle class disproportionately framed the debate. Factory owners who argued that their workers put forth only two-thirds the effort of which they were capable felt comfortable in limiting wages and conditions accordingly.

As an ideal, the valuation of work served to unify diverse segments of the middle class, who could at least agree on the standard and its applicability in judging social worth. While hard work was pushed particularly by some of the newer, upwardly mobile segments of the middle class, professionals and more traditional commercial sectors could agree at least in principle. Shopkeepers, though usually far less affluent than merchants and many professionals, also subscribed to the ethic, providing among other things an extensive readership for the manuals that praised hard work.

MYTHS AND REALITIES

How much did the middle class itself live up to its own cherished self-image where work was concerned? Inevitably, there was variety, and inevitably there has been some historical debate. During the early decades of industrialization, some factory owners really did seem to live to work. Sixteen-hour days were common—indeed, one of the reasons some factory owners failed to realize the impact of the hours they imposed on their workers was that their own work time matched or exceeded them. They suffered pangs of conscience when they were too ill to work; they shunned vacations and were clearly uncomfortable off the job. Not only work itself, but also the intensity devoted to the process, marked this pattern of behavior.

Still later, in the final decades of the nineteenth century, significant middle-class groups lived lives filled with work intensity. The training process began early. Leading technical schools in France featured heavy demands on time and attention, and diligence counted at least as much as brains. From school, engineers moved into positions where long days with few if any vacations continued to be expected. Many came to work even on Sundays, to keep up the pace. So the work ethic could be very real. Some of the diversions that were most popular in the middle class, such as sports, thrived because they seemed to drive home work habits, not because they diverted from them.

Professional groups often turned to greater work zeal as part of their redefinition in an industrial society. With stricter licensing standards and examinations, preparation in law and medicine required new levels of discipline. But other groups in the middle class, without officially renouncing the new work values, treasured a more balanced life. Some engaged not only in extensive leisure, but also in some of the less respectable forms of leisure, such as drinking, womanizing, and gambling, some of which clearly detracted from the work process. Historians are just uncovering those areas where behavior did not measure up to work-based codes of respectability. For many, students' days, work-related travel, and, even later, age provided periods and occasions when zeal might particularly slacken, even in the mid-nineteenth-century heyday of the proclaimed commitment to work.

Almost certainly as well, work commitments diminished somewhat over time. Once the hardest tasks of establishing an industrial economy and a solid family position were completed, by the later nineteenth century, leisure activities became more openly acknowledged. Work was not rejected, but the single-minded devotion decreased. Revealingly, after about 1870 the sales of works by the most blatant work advocates, like Samuel Smiles, declined precipitously. In later age, increasing numbers of middle-class people also began to seek retirement, which spread first in these ranks. Intense work could be capped by a formal period of non-work, again a modification of the original vision.

Women's relationship to the work ethic was not always clear. Middle-class standards increasingly urged removal of respectable women from the labor force. Factory owners who began with their wives keeping accounts, in the early nineteenth century, soon pulled back when they won greater success. The growing confinement of women to domestic duties diluted formal commentary about applying the work ethic to women. Expectations that women would be decorative and also accomplished in certain family leisure skills, such as piano playing, also diverted attention from work. In comments on the poor, it was men, not women, who were criticized for unjustified idleness. In practice, however, the demands of the middle-class home might prompt an increase of work pace not totally unlike that experienced by many men. Living up to new standards of health, cleanliness, and child care, assisted on average by a single servant, had its own work requirements. The full intensity of the male pattern might still be missing—among other things, women's work was less constrained or limited by clock time—but women's lives and outlook might shift in similar directions.

THE LOWER MIDDLE CLASS

The rise of the white-collar segment, from the 1870s on, raised additional questions about work. Many clerks, and their employers, were at pains to establish links with middle-class work values. Their occupations were nonmanual; they depended to some degree on education, at least on literacy, they required middle-class attire on the job. And many clerks undoubtedly aspired to upward mobility, based on hard work, for themselves or their children. It was a sense of commitment to work that helped keep most white-collar employees from joining unions, which constituted an admission that work might be sacrificed in favor of protest.

Yet white-collar work was not standard middle-class fare. It was often repetitious. It involved taking directions from others. It did not necessarily generate upward mobility. Employers might talk of middle-class values and assume enough discipline to warrant salaries rather than working-class wages; they were eager to separate white-collar from blue-collar to limit protest, but in fact they regulated and monitored clerical work closely. One German employer in the 1920s even installed steam jets in clerks' toilets, timed to go off after two minutes, to prevent lingering. For female clerks, work was often a temporary status prior to marriage, which further diluted a work-based identity. Many white-collar workers gravitated toward new leisure interests, as a relief from the limitations of their jobs. Here, as in other respects, the relationship of the rising lower middle classes to larger middle-class standards was ambivalent at best. Correspondingly, the growth of the lower middle classes contributed to the implicit loosening of the work ethic around 1900.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Middle-class work in the twentieth century has been less extensively studied than the patterns in evidence during the heyday of industrialization. Several trends deserve note nevertheless. A basic commitment to work as part of self-definition and self-worth remained. Middle-class people were much more likely to profess satisfaction with their jobs than their lower-class counterparts. Pressure on children to perform well in schools maintained socialization toward the work process within the middle class. Condemnations of other groups for inadequate work zeal abated somewhat, but persisted to a degree.

There were signs of increased work interest in some sectors of the middle class. The rise of a managerial middle class, often within the Communist Party, during an active industrialization process in Eastern Europe, involved some echoes of the kind of work devotion that had flourished in Western Europe earlier on. In Mediterranean Europe, including France, from the 1950s on devotion to clock-based work began to cut into traditional long lunches. The movement of married women into the labor force (though hardly confined to the middle class) reduced some of the appearances of gender difference in work values.

But limitations on excessive work zeal gained ground as well, differentiating the European middle classes from their American counterparts in some key respects. Formal retirement spread more widely. While some European countries, as in Scandinavia, delayed retirement until age seventy, others pushed it earlier. The middle classes were characteristically less eager to retire than blue-collar workers, but the sense that a final stage of active life should be free from formal work was widespread.

The most striking change involved the growing commitment to extensive vacations. Again, various social groups participated in the expansion of vacations, which began in part as a response to unemployment but spread much more widely after World War II. The middle classes, however, led the way during the Great Depression, if only because they could afford to make more active use of free time. Vacations of four to six weeks became common in countries like France and Germany, in marked contrast to the United States and Japan in the same decades. This development was not a surrender of the devotion to hard work. Indeed, the alternation of time off with employment was thought to facilitate work intensity. But it did indicate considerable distance from the values and behaviors characteristic of the nineteenth-century middle class.