Work and the Politics of Misrecognition

Abstract

In this article we examine the idea of a politics of misrecognition of working activity. We begin by introducing a distinction between the kind of recognition and misrecognition that attaches to one's identity, and the kind of recognition and misrecognition that attaches to one's activity. We then consider the political significance of the latter kind of recognition and misrecognition in the context of work. Drawing first on empirical research undertaken by sociologists at the Institut fu¨r Sozialforschung in Frankfurt, we argue for a differentiated concept of recognition that shows the politics of misrecognition at work to be as much a matter of conflict between modes of recognition as it is a struggle for recognition as opposed to non-recognition. The differentiated concept of recognition which allows for this empirical insight owes much to Axel Honneth's theory. But as we argue in the section that follows, this theory is ambiguous about the normative content of the expectations of recognition that are bound up with the activity of working. This in turn makes it unclear how we should understand the normative basis of the politics of the misrecognition of what one does at work. In the final sections of the article, we suggest that the psychodynamic model of work elaborated by Christophe Dejours and others at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Me´tiers in Paris can shed light on this matter; that is to say, it can help to clarify the normative significance and political stakes of the misrecognition of working activity.

Recognitive arguments for workplace democracy

“…As an initial observation here, one can see a certain form of suffering—exertion—as intrinsically tied to work, which is an activity requiring the application of physical and mental forces and which is met by resistance from the objective world (see, e.g., Dejours, 2007, p. 73; Deranty, 2009, pp. 79–80; Smith & Deranty, 2012, p. 60). The reality of work is full of all kinds of mishaps, accidents, and failures experienced when trying to realize prescribed tasks in practice (Deranty, 2009, p. 80).…”

“…For better or worse, the social standing of persons has become “roughly proportional to their market value” (Anderson, 2017, p. 138). Parallel to this, there has been a shift in the standards of esteem from “appreciation” to “admiration” (Smith, 2012b, p. 101; Smith & Deranty, 2012, p. 57). Appreciation entails a long‐term form of esteem for the sacrifices made by individuals for the work organization's internally shared goals.…”

“…Moreover, while Honneth has focused on the market as a sphere of cooperation, there has been a lack of focus on the workplace as such and a concomitant lack of awareness of the firm as a form of private government. Third, when recognition theorists have focused on the workplace per se, they have been concerned with the experience of the work process itself and the potential misrecognition involved in it (see, e.g., Smith, 2009; Smith & Deranty, 2012). Although the recent literature also includes positive estimations as regards workplace democracy (Dejours, Deranty, Renault, & Smith, 2018, pp.…”

“…11These include Dejours, Deranty, Renault, and Smith (2018), Deranty (2009), Jütten (2017), Smith (2009; 2012a), and Smith and Deranty (2012). …”

“…22See, for example, Honneth (2014; 2017, Chapter 4), Hirvonen (2016), Hirvonen and Laitinen (2016), and Thompson (2006) for discussions on recognition and democracy. Work and recognition are discussed in detail, for example, in Smith (2009) and Smith and Deranty (2012). …”