Dirty work designations: How police officers account for their use of coercive force

Abstract

The concept of ‘dirty work’ has much potential to offer insights into processes related to the construction of organizational identities and work-group cultures. In this article, I use a social constructionist framework, to argue that ‘dirty workers’ perform their identities in two conceptually distinct contexts: ‘front regions’ and ‘back regions’ (Goffman, 1959), each producing its own subjective challenges. I use a critical discourse analysis to explore how, within the research interview setting, police officers deal with the moral dilemma of their use of coercive authority. I argue that what is designated as ‘dirty’ within any specific role differs according to the perspective of the observer, revealing the boundaries and landscape of different moral and social orders and how these overlap and compete. It is further argued that, within specific interactional contexts, occupational identity comprises a site of contestation for these different moral and social orders. The utility of the dirty work concept is explored in relation to its ability to illuminate the dynamics of ideological reproduction and transformation.

The Exercise of Moral Imagination in Stigmatized Work Groups

“…Consistent with Hughes's (1951) definition, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) establish that, in a physically dirty occupation, workers deal directly with some disgusting material (e.g., janitors, exterminators, gravediggers); in contrast, ''an occupation is socially tainted when [it] involves regular contact with peo ple or groups that are themselves regarded as stig matized'' (e.g., AIDS worker, psychiatric assistant, police officer) (Dick, 2005). Finally, occupations are tainted morally if they are regarded as somewhat sinful or of dubious virtue (e.g., pawnbroker, casino croupier, stripper).…”

“…The peculiar nature and stigma of dirty work, as well as the need to reconsider some aspects of managing these occupations, also represent frequent subjects in ethnographic and organizational identity literature (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999;Ashforth et al, 2007;Dick, 2005). These studies analyze dirty work as a social construction and offer ideological techniques and social practices that might enable workers to achieve social affirmation.…”

Normal Deviants and Erving Goffman: Extending the Literature on Organizational Stigma

“…From the view of the stigmatics, there is also what Goffman refers to as front regions, where people risk being 'held morally accountable for their activities by other individuals who may actively or potentially disapprove of those activities, and hence, of the person performing them' (Dick 2005(Dick , p. 1373. In contrast, there is the back region, 'where the suppressed facts make an appearance' (Goffman 1959, p. 112) and people can relax.…”

Contextualizing dirty work: The neglected role of cultural, historical, and demographic context

“…Swan (2012, quoting Anderson, 2000, for example, notes that in Victorian England domestic workers served 'as a foil to the lady of the house' (p. 187), and that cleanliness to this day remains a cultural code for a classed form of femininity. In short, to secure high status, people were and are motivated to avoid physical dirt in their personal and professional lives (Dick, 2005).…”