Szymon Amałowicz The Ethical Implications of Commodifying Emotional Labor In modern society, work culture often requires employees to behave in a certain way while interacting with co-workers or clients of the company. Many job listings include “positive attitude” or “being hospitable” requirements from the candidate, especially if the position will be working directly with customers. The phenomenon when workers must manage their emotions to fulfill their job requirements, either by suppressing their feelings or expressing false ones is called emotional labor (Hochschild, 1983). This is particularly visible in serviceoriented industries like hospitality, social work, media, or childcare. Emotional labor raises concerns about the commodification of personal feelings, which may have a significant impact on perceiving the authenticity of human interactions as well as on the psychological well-being of workers. The commodification of emotional labor presents significant ethical challenges, examined through arguments of coercion and corruption. Michel Sandel refers to coercion in the context of commodification as a situation when market transactions that may look voluntary are made with an unequal balance of power (Sandel, 2012). In the commodification of emotional labor, coercion manifests clearly when workers are directly or indirectly asked to manipulate their emotions to fulfill the customers’ demands, irrespective of their true feelings. Since the balance of power between the employer and the employee is usually unequal to the benefit of the first one, even if one employee decides not to conform to those requirements, he would just be replaced with another one willing to do it because of the overall high supply of workers given demand. An illustrative example of this can be found in the hospitality industry. The study by Grandey (2000) highlights how customer service employees are compelled to maintain a façade of cheerfulness, despite personal discomfort or emotional distress. This not only abuses workers' right to emotional autonomy but also imposes an expectation to constantly perform emotional labor as a part of a job requirement. Such occurrence clearly shows external coercion where people are forced to surpass or fabricate their emotions for monetary compensation. This may lead to an emotional dissonance where a person experiences opposite emotions to the ones expressed, leading to potential burnout and psychological problems in the long run. It is worth noting that this kind of coercion is hidden under the unequal employer-employee power dynamics, which is part of a larger issue. This leads to a question of whether such kind of coercion can be perceived as directly resulting from the emotional labor commodification or from the external power imbalance that would have existed without emotional labor. The origins of coercion, however, do not change the fact that it exists in correlation with emotional labor. The corruption argument refers to markets expanding into areas earlier ruled by non-market norms. When goods that have unmeasurable, non-monetary value are given a tangible price tag, their intrinsic value eventually becomes completely repressed (Sandel, 2012). In service jobs, where employees are expected to show false emotions and suppress genuine ones, the authenticity of human feelings is reduced. The commodification transforms genuine emotions into tradable goods which are used to the benefit of companies using emotional labor. The most important consequence of this is the change in workers’ perception of their own emotions. When employees display emotions opposite to their true feelings, it can lead to a Szymon Amałowicz sense of separation from their own emotional experiences. The requirement to continuously manage and manipulate emotions for commercial purposes can eventually lead to a severe mental problem with expressing true emotions. The commodification of emotional labor can also have a broader impact on the whole society. As the authenticity of human emotions is questioned by an increasing number of people, this may affect how individuals relate to each other in all social situations. The moral evaluation of commodification can be challenging. One primary concern with condemning it outright is that employees consent to perform these jobs, often having specialized in this field previously, usually aware of the emotional labor involved. Even if their consent is under some form of coercion, they typically know the job's requirements. Employees have the option to choose employment in different environments that do not demand emotional labor. If they are properly informed about the potential consequences to their psychological well-being before engaging in such work, then, according to the Common Law doctrine of 'Volenti non fit iniuria,' it should be permissible. The coercion argument is not completely decisive, because the degree of coercion is moderate and comes from the external dynamic of employer–employee relations. Another consideration is the extent of emotional labor expected from employees relative to their salary. Fair compensation should be set by the regulatory body, particularly when the job could risk an employee's psychological health. In my opinion, if the governments were to mandate minimum bonus requirements for jobs that include emotional labor, then the issue would be addressed fairly. The argument for corruption, on the other hand, is more convincing. The degradation of the value of emotions is a serious issue and should not be disregarded. If emotional labor is fully permitted and not regulated, then the intrinsic value of human emotions may be replaced with the monetary one. It shows the importance of protecting the intrinsic value of human emotions and interactions. It risks creating a culture where emotions are seen primarily in terms of their economic utility, rather than as fundamental aspects of human experience and connection. Implementing regulations preventing employees from being expected too much emotional labor and educating society about it and the intrinsic value of emotions can be seen as the most appropriate solutions to this issue. In summary, I believe that emotional labor should be permitted as it is not completely destructive and immoral. However, it should be heavily regulated to compensate for the coercion and health risks to employees performing it. Society should be educated about the intrinsic value of human emotions in the early stages of education which will allow many people to acknowledge it and not allow it to be traded for money in the future. Szymon Amałowicz Bibliography Grandey, A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95-110. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press. Sandel, M. J. (2012). What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
