Essay #1
Unit II: Alienation And Control
Emily
Alienation: Above & Beyond
[1] In 1844, when Karl Marx wrote his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts the structure of industry
within society was very much different than it is today. It was at this time that the industrial revolution
was sweeping across Europe and people flocked to the centres of industry to work in factories, and to feel
a part of this great socio-economic change that was occurring. Where formerly people were involved in
agricultural jobs, now they became labourers on factory floors: spinning cotton, weaving thread etc.
When Karl Marx outlined his theory of workers' alienation in this text, these were the people whom he
was basing his theory on, and industry of this sort was a strong force in the world. This continued to be
true throughout the remainder of the 19th Century and into the 20th Century. However, after two World
Wars, Western society was overcome by a sudden change in structure, and industry went into decline, as
deindustrialisation and globalisation took their course. Yet what took it's place was a new phenomenon,
one previously unimagined by the people of Victorian times, that is the service sector. The service sector
offered up a whole host of new worker dynamics, in which workers would deal primarily with other
people, rather than machines, and in which the product of their labour was not always something tangible,
but often was simply a deed. It is because of these changes that have occurred in the workplace that the
theory of alienation initially proposed by Marx has over time become insufficient in describing the
situation of service workers, instead what has happened is that his initial ideas have been expanded and
built upon and have developed in ways that Marx himself could not have foreseen.
[2] Robin Leidner, in his 1993 study of McDonalds workers entitled Fast Food, Fast Talk, presents
examples of how McDonald's window workers reinforce the aspect of Marx's theory that deals with the
"estrangement of man from man", more specifically, on page 135 of this work, Leidner describes how
window workers at a McDonald's restaurant develop a great degree of efficiency over their work in order
to "serve management's and customers' interests". In doing so, it shows how the workers are becoming
alienated from each other, by putting the needs of management and the customers above their own, which
clearly is in agreement with how Marx describes "estranged labour"1 turning "one man... from the other"1.
Yet what is interesting is that, when Marx describes this alienation, he clearly defines it thus: "within the
relationship of estranged labour, each man views the other in accordance with the standard and the
relationship in which he defines himself as a worker"1. The customer plays no role in Marx's theory, since
the customer of 19th century industry, had no direct contact with the worker, yet in the 20th century, the
customer does, and so here we can see how the alienation suggested by Marx has been reinforced and
developed to encompass new models of work.
[3] However, Leidner also presents examples that appear to oppose this idea. He goes on to state (on page
137) that "the crew [members] seemed... to work together remarkably well" and this could be interpreted
as an example of how the workers are not fully alienated since they co-operate with each other. But,
several sentences earlier, he describes how "Workers certainly become annoyed with more experienced
coworkers who avoided their share of the work" and this idea of conditional co-operation leads in fact to
the conclusion that workers are in fact still alienated. They see only to make their work easier, which is
most often accomplished when the team works together well. When someone fails to do their tasks, and
therefore these must be done by someone else, this puts extra work on the person finally doing the task,
and therefore they appreciate it when they do not have to go beyond their required workload. Although
this confirms the intersocial aspect of Marx's theory of alienation , it is subtly different, in that the
alienation lies not in the actions themselves, but in th motives behind the actions. Workers are estranging
themselves from each other by only seeking to further their own interests, and not by seeking to selflessly
promote the needs of the greater whole. Marx implied a form of alienation that was apparent, here we see
that this is not always the case.
[4] Despite this alienation between workers, though, Leidner identifies cases, where workers have stated
that they would "rather hang out [at the store] than at home" in order to socialise with fellow crew
members. This further seems to contradict Marx's theory of alienation, since Marx states: "He is at home
when he is not working, and when he is working he is not at home"1 and these workers are neither at
home, nor working. Yet what clarifies this issue and further develops the theory is what Marx states in the
sentence prior to the previous extract: "[the worker] does not develop freely his physical and mental
energy"1, and Leidner offers up sufficient evidence in order to support this statement: "the company has
broken down virtually every task required to run a store into detailed routines with clear instructions and
standards". The workers cannot "develop freely [their] physical and mental energy"1 therefore they are
alienated from their labour. Yet they can be at work and not working, therefore not being alienated from
their labour, nor their fellow workers. These seemingly contradictory statements are the foundation of yet
another development on Marx's theory of alienation, in that the division between the workplace and the
home are not as strong as they once were, and so workers are now able to be 'at work' but not working,
thus clarifying the contradiction defined before.
[5] Nor does Leidner present only a one-dimensional view of alienation. In fact, he shows how in addition
to workers being alienated from one another, the managers also become alienated from the workers.
Leidner recalls thinking that "the manipulative and exploitative aspects of management's relations with
workers seemed dominant", and therefore the position of a manger must be separated and alienated from
that of a worker for the to be able to exert such control. He also states how "Managers also tried to make
workers identify with the interests of the store" and goes on to quote a manager detailing "the importance
to management of keeping labour costs down". These both show that the manager's interests lie
predominantly with McDonalds, as opposed to themselves or their workers. Now, corporations are also an
aspect of the modern economy that were not apparent in Marx's time, and so, they offer a new way in
which the theory of alienation can be explained. That is, as corporations have become stronger and
stronger and have developed such that they exert more and more control over their workers by their
managers, the managers have begun to align their interests with the corporation, thus alienating them
from the workers. Marx was unable to foresee this managerial allegiance and so here it is clear that
managers are estranged from workers in a way that is both concordant and beyond Marx's initial theory.
[6] Managers, are also seen to be the people that enforce what Leidner refers to as "the routine":
"managers played a major role in keeping crew people hard at work", and Leidner goes on to demonstrate
how "[some workers] saw the routine as a protection against intrusive conversation". What this means is
that by being alienated from the workers, such that they can exercise control and restraint over them, the
managers are actually enforcing the source of alienation between the window workers and the customers
and in doing so further estrange themselves from the window workers. This idea of one group of people
being able to indirectly control the alienation of another from a third group, is something not seen in the
Marxist definition, since he based his conclusions of models of work seen at the time, which involved,
again, no direct contact between customers and workers, and also did not employ as extensive
routinisation. Leidner quotes Garson in observing "the preposterous extreme to which McDonald's takes
Taylorism" yet Taylorism, or the theory of scientific management, was not formalised until 1911, when
Frederick Winslow Taylor wrote his The Principles of Scientific Management. Therefore Marx could not
have foreseen the extent to which routinisation could have occurred, and also how this would develop
such that it alienated workers from both their managers and their customers.
[7] The routine, in fact, has become so ingrained into the working habits of the window workers, that
Leidner describes how "Most window workers valued predictability in customers' behaviour" and earlier
on, he talks of how "For many customers, then, ordering at McDonald's is as routine an interaction as it is
for the window worker". McDonald's therefore offers a new take on autonomy, one that goes beyond the
workplace and directly influences the customers, such that they too become part of the routine structure.
Workers, having had the routine so deeply ingrained into their behaviour, also come to expect the same
degree of automation from the customers, which further alienates them from these customers. In sticking
to a routine, with the only control being that the workers can phrase certain things differently when
directly addressing the customer ("[the workers] were able to personalise the routine, thus exercising
some discretion"), the workers alienate themselves from the customers, since they are not addressing
them out of any personal desire, but they have become so estranged from their own labour, that they
address the customers solely out of routine. Marx talks of the estrangement of man from man, but as
shown previously, he did not account for the inclusion of customers into his definition, and so by being
alienated from the customers, the window workers develop the theory of alienation in a similar way to
that seen above, yet, what makes this instance even more interesting, is the extent to which the
corporation's control has reached, i.e. beyond the workplace to the customers, and that this is a root cause
of this specific alienation.
[8] The McDonald's window workers described by Leidner offer a fresh perspective of the Marxist theory
of alienation. They can be shown to fit the theory, with regards to their relationships to one another, yet
when it is further looked into, we see that the estrangement is not as clear cut as originally intended by
Marx. We see subtleties developing in the nature of the alienation itself in these cases, and we see how
alienation has gone beyond simply happening between workers and has now encompassed the
management, who have become so tied to corporate desires, that they have removed themselves further
from the workplace, despite being "virtually always present". They also impose a routine that is utilised
by workers to alienate them from the customers they serve, and which by transcending the workplace to
involve the customers, further alienates the customers from the workers. It is these evolutions and
developments on Marx's original definition of alienation that have only been able to take place due to the
rise of the service sector, and also the rise of other factors, such as Taylorism and the idea of the
corporation, and so they not only validate Marxist alienation as a concept, but they go on to take their
own slants on these definitions. Just as Marx was unable to predict the extent to which his theory of
alienation would develop over 150 years, so to we can only see how the theories continue to develop in
the future.
Works Cited
Unless otherwise noted, all quotes and citations are with regard to the following text:
Leidner, Robin. 1993. Fast Food, Fast Talk. Berkeley: University Of California Press.
1 - Marx, Karl. 1964. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. New York: International
Publishers.