Sociology

Editorial Introduction
Copyright © The Author(s) 2009, Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
BSA Publications Ltd®
Volume 43(5): 811–828
DOI: 10.1177/0038038509341307

Editorial Introduction
In Search of the Sociology of Work:
Past, Present and Future
■ Susan Halford
University of Southampton

■ Tim Strangleman
University of Kent

A B S T R AC T
This paper traces relations between the study of work and the evolution of British
sociology as an academic discipline. This reveals broad trajectories of marginaliza-
tion, as the study of work becomes less central to Sociology as a discipline; increas-
ing fragmentation of divergent approaches to the study of work; and – as a
consequence of both – a narrowing of the sociological vision for the study of work.
Our paper calls for constructive dialogue across different approaches to the study
of work and a re-invigoration of sociological debate about work and – on this basis
– for in-depth interdisciplinary engagement enabling us to build new approaches
that will allow us to study work in all its diversity and complexity.

K E Y WO R D S
sociology of work / sociology / Marxism / feminism / inter-disciplinarity

Introduction

he study of work lay at the heart of sociology from its classical foundations

T and during its post-war expansion in the 1960s. Indeed it is possible to reach
back past Le Play to Scottish Enlightenment figures such as Adam Smith and
Adam Ferguson to see a proto-sociological concern for the effects of industrializ-
ing society. The organization and experience of (paid) work was central to

811
812 Sociology Volume 43 ■ Number 5 ■ October 2009

Durkheim’s thinking about social change, to Marx’s ideas about class and the
capitalist mode of production and to Weber’s account of bureaucracy and
rationality (Eldridge et al., 1991; Watson, this volume). Built on these founda-
tions, the study of work was central to the academic discipline of sociology that
emerged in the post-war period, such that a survey of British sociologists in 1966–
7 found ‘… industrial sociology/the sociology of work’ to be the most popular
area of research activity from 1945–60 (Brown, 1981). However, recent decades
have seen an erosion of work sociology from this position in the discipline, in
terms of both teaching and research. Fewer sociology undergraduate programmes
now include a module devoted to the sociology of work (Parker, 2000;
Strangleman, 2005; Watson, this volume). Meanwhile, the study of work has, to
a significant degree, become disembedded from wider social theory (Wolkowitz,
this volume) and eclipsed by other concerns within the sociological mainstream
(Ackroyd et al., 2005; Scott, 2005; Thompson and Smith, this volume).
This Special Issue asks: what happened and – more than this – does it matter?
Of course, the very existence of this Special Issue, chosen by the Editorial Board
of Sociology from the outcome of open competition, suggests that these ques-
tions matter to sociologists – for sociology as a discipline – and not just to those
of us who happen to have spent our working lives as sociologists studying work.
We can see this particularly acutely as we write from the midst of a severe global
recession. Every day we learn more about how the organization of work in
the banking and finance industries, driven by cultures of risk and profit, has led
to a global crisis that will impact on all of us for decades to come. It is certainly
not that work itself is marginalized in contemporary societies. With UK
unemployment at over two million (and rising) we are reminded every day of
the centrality of work – or the lack of it – to individuals, families, communities
and indeed the survival of governments. A host of sociological questions are
playing themselves out in public debate: questions about the morality of city
bankers’ bonuses; about how to support the long-term unemployed; about the
gendering of government-backed rescue packages to support (mainly) male jobs
in construction and manufacturing; and questions too about the nature of
unpaid work carried out in the home. Vital in and of themselves, these debates
remind us that understanding the world of work is also central to our wider
concerns as sociologists: to globalization, risk, identity and consumption – to
name just some of the topics that have ascended as the sociology of work has
moved the margins of our discipline. Or, at least, this is our assertion. For whilst
we may make this claim – one which, we hope, strikes a chord with readers of
Sociology – there remains some work to be done in reintegrating the study of
work with these other sociological agendas.
Our aim in this Special Issue is to explore relations between the study of
work and the continuing evolution of sociology as a discipline. This is not to
undermine or devalue the research on work that has continued to take place
within and beyond sociology over recent decades and it is certainly not to speak
against inter-disciplinarity (of which, more later). For whilst the study of work
may seem to have been marginalized in sociology by the emergence
 In search of the sociology of work Halford & Strangleman 813

of newer and more fashionable themes (Scott, 2005), the study of work and orga-
nization thrives beyond this and there are many excellent journals devoted to the
area of which – not least as a sister BSA publication – Work, Employment and
Society (WES) merits special mention here. Established in 1987 precisely because
the popularity of research on work during the 1980s warranted a separate jour-
nal, WES has taken a leading international role in publishing empirical research
on work and employment, specifically organized around the ‘big themes’ of
power, control and subordination/insubordination in economic life (Stewart,
2004). These themes clearly draw on and speak to the sociology of work and the
insights generated take a central place in our understandings of work and
employment. However, as Paul Stewart, the out-going editor of WES, remarked
in his outgoing Editorial the journal has acted less as a forum for exploring the
bigger picture or engaging with critical comment and theoretical debate about
work and employment. To this we would add that WES does not have the tradi-
tion (or surely the space) to reflect on wider questions still concerning the rela-
tions between the study of work and employment and the wider concerns of
sociology or indeed the discipline of sociology itself. And there is no necessary
reason why it should. However, as a generalist journal Sociology can provide this
broad canvas for disciplinary exploration and reflection. We hope that our
endeavour is understood as opening a space of dialogue for all those interested in
the sociology of work – past, present and future – whatever their perspective,
methodological approach or substantive concern. This, certainly, is our intention.
We begin by exploring how the sociology of work has moved to the mar-
gins of sociology as a discipline, whether in fact or in perception. For although
we can be sure that circumstances have changed since the 1960s, claims about
marginalization are overdue for some unpacking. In particular, we suggest that
the sense of marginalization is at least as important to sociology as a discipline
in the present time as any actual marginalization of work and that this may be
linked to a degree of historical amnesia coupled with an often myopic view of
what the field is. We begin, in this essay, by sketching some key issues in the his-
torical development of the sociology of work, drawing on earlier reflections by
key figures in the field (Brown, 1987; Castillo, 1999; Cornfield and Hodson,
2002; Eldridge, 1981; Eldridge et al., 1991; Pahl, 1988; Parker, 2000; Pettinger
et al., 2006; Salaman, 1986; Strangleman, 2005; Williams, 2007). This is not a
comprehensive review and nor can we present a neat, linear story. Instead, we
draw attention to the themes that resonate with the focus of the Special Issue.
It seems that the central concerns of earlier debates are as relevant today as they
were several decades ago. But of course, the world has changed since then.
There have been changes within the academy – in theory, methodology and
empirical pre-occupations. And there have been changes beyond the academy,
to patterns of work worldwide and in the emergence of new kinds of work, for
example. In the second part of this essay we explore how the sociology of work
has engaged and might engage further with these changes. In doing so we hope
to explore not only what sociology can do for the study of work but, more
ambitiously, what the study of work might to do for sociology.
814 Sociology Volume 43 ■ Number 5 ■ October 2009

Past Reflections and Current Concerns

Work and the Emergence of Post-war Sociology

Although work takes a central role in the classical canon of sociological theory,
more recent foundations for the British sociology of work are located in the
emergence of sociology as a modern academic discipline in the post-war period.
Prior to this time few individuals were working as academic sociologists (Platt,
2003), although, of course, there were some notable studies of work, especially
in the US, including F.W. Taylor’s articulation of scientific management and
Elton Mayo’s experiments at the Hawthorne electrical plant, which laid the
foundations for human relations approaches to work. The circumstances of
the post-war period in Britain (particularly the need to rebuild and modernize
industry and the growth of state employment on the one hand and the rapid
expansion of higher education on the other) provided a fertile soil for the emer-
gence of academic sociology as an independent discipline and ground on which
the study of work flourished (see Brown, 1992, for an overview). We can see the
study of work as central to the construction of British sociology in (at least) two
important ways. First, sociology emerged, to an important degree, through
studies that took work as pivotal in understanding society more broadly: for
example, family and community (Dennis et al., 1956), class consciousness
(Lockwood, 1958), identity (Goffman, 1959) and a range of issues from friend-
ship to politics associated with the rise of the affluent worker (Goldthorpe et al.,
1968). Second, the interest in work and occupations helped sociologists to dif-
ferentiate themselves, and their discipline, from anthropologists and from social
policy researchers, who were vested in community and thus became an important
motif in the professionalizing project of academic sociology (see e.g. Hollowell,
1968; Tunstall, 1962; see also Savage, 2005, for a discussion of this period).
Studies of work in this period of disciplinary formation were driven by core
sociological concerns (of the time) and many of those who were doing research on
work saw themselves as sociologists first and members of a particular sub-disci-
pline second, if at all. Take, for example, John Eldridge’s Industrial Disputes (1968).
The title and a cursory glance at the contents page may reinforce a caricature
of a focus on male heavy industry – in this case shipbuilding, engineering and the
iron and steel industry. But this is a book about class, conflict, culture, norms and
values, which happen to be studied within a work context; the work of Brown and
Brannen (1970a, 1970b) would be another good illustration of this. The point is
that the sociologists of what Mike Savage (2000a) has called the ‘golden age’ of
British Sociology exercised their sociological imaginations within the workplace
with the aim of contributing to a wider sociological project first and foremost.
Indeed, according to Savage, the period from 1955 to 1975 witnessed:
… a remarkable wave of sociologically informed studies of work and employment that
claimed to represent a bright new future for social scientific research. ( 2000b, 25)

These were formal sociological studies concerned with core sociological

themes, the findings of which surely had significance in understanding the
 In search of the sociology of work Halford & Strangleman 815

changing nature of work and everyday working lives, but which also had value
beyond the study of work consequences for the very constitution of sociology
as a discipline.
Our first point then is to draw attention to the integration of studies of
work with sociology as a discipline during the 1950s and 1960s and to suggest
that this has been eroded over time by centrifugal processes which have effec-
tively ‘spun out’ the sociology of work from the centre of our discipline. But we
are getting ahead of ourselves. We must begin by turning our attention back to
the earlier times and take a more critical perspective.

Critiques of the ‘Golden Age’

The so-called ‘golden age’ was clearly a product of its time. The sociology of
work flourished, and took a central place within the emergent discipline of
sociology, because of particular social conditions. Not least, there were few
business or management schools in this period and the study of sociology was
limited to a relatively narrow range of topics and approaches. Particularly as a
consequence of the latter, the 1970s saw the emergence of distinct critiques
from feminism and Marxism, with profound consequences for the sociology of
work. Feminist interventions drew attention to two particular problems within
the extant sociology of work, namely the almost exclusive focus on paid work
and the strong bias towards (white) male industrial work (Wolkowitz, this
volume). Ann Oakley’s The Sociology of Housework, published in 1974,
demanded that housework be considered ‘work’ – despite falling outside of the
formal employment relationship – and that it played an important role both in
(many) women’s identities and in the life of the economy more broadly (a point
embraced by Marxist feminists such as Kuhn and Wolpe, 1978). Feminists also
critiqued the way that the sociology of work had privileged male industrial
workers as the norm, excluding work done by women whether inside or out-
side of the employment relationship. Miriam Glucksmann/Ruth Cavendish’s
Women on the Line (Glucksmann, 2009[1982]) has become a paradigmatic
example of how gender is central to understanding work and also vice versa
(and we might also cite Anna Pollert’s Girls, Wives, Factory Lives, 1981, and
Sallie Westwood’s All Day Every Day, 1984). Glucksmann’s study continued
the tradition whereby studies of work make a broader contribution to the
development of sociological thinking not least in its attention to intersections of
class, gender and race. Indeed, this was one of the first studies to redress not
only the gendered foundations of industrial sociology but the racialized norm
which underpinned post-war sociologies of work, excluding and/or othering
ethnic minorities (see Carter and Virdee, 2008).
Meanwhile, the 1970s also saw the ascendancy of academic Marxism and, of
particular relevance here, the publication of Harry Braverman’s Labour and
Monopoly Capitalism in 1974. Drawing directly on Marx’s labour theory of value
(that it is the additional value accorded by labour in production which enables
capitalism to extract profit from original capital investment), Braverman argued
816 Sociology Volume 43 ■ Number 5 ■ October 2009

that the key to understanding work, and its place in wider society and economy
lay in understanding the organization of the labour process. Central to this,
Braverman argued, was the separation of hand from brain: the deskilling of work-
ers, separating the execution of labour from knowledge of the production process
to ensure managerial control. These arguments had tremendous resonance for
sociologists of work, some of whom had begun to argue that the eclectic and
diverse theoretical strands which had come to characterize the sociology of work
at the time failed to deal adequately with core questions of class, capitalism or the
role of the state (Hyman, 1981). Accordingly, Hyman (1981) argued that the soci-
ology of work was in no position to analyse the fundamental questions facing cap-
italist industrial societies (Eldridge et al., 1991). In other words, it was claimed
that the sociology of work had limited tools to understand how work was really
constituted or experienced. These powerful arguments led to the reinvigoration
of interest in researching and theorizing work through the emergence of a polit-
ical economy of the labour process or Labour Process Theory (LPT).
Both feminist and Marxist critiques have exercised powerful effects in shaping
the field of research on work from the early 1980s onwards. Both claimed that the
industrial sociology of the previous generation could not do the job either because
it was exclusionary and too limited in scope – for feminism – or because it lacked a
coherent theoretical perspective on capitalism – for labour process theorists.
The impact of feminism can be traced across studies of work from the 1980s
onwards (albeit to varying depths), particularly through the inclusion of women’s
work and questions of gender in empirical studies, as well as through the devel-
opment of feminist theoretical approaches to work, sometimes in concordance
with Marxist approaches but more often not. The establishment of the journal
Gender, Work and Organization in 1994 provided an important interdisci-
plinary platform for both empirical research and theoretical development.
Beyond feminist debates per se, the widening focus of the sociology of work also
led to a re-evaluation of the sociology of work more broadly. Ray Pahl’s influ-
ential Divisions of Labour (1984) and On Work (1988) called for both a wider
vision of the field of work (to include a range of non-remunerated forms of work
across the informal and formal sectors) and a wider understanding of the social
processes at play in studying work, from the subjective and emotional to the cul-
tural, historical and political as well as the economic. Similar themes are picked
up by Duncan Gallie in his edited collection Employment in Britain, where he
noted in the preface the way structural changes in the economy and in intellec-
tual trends in the field had ‘... combined to underline the need for a far more
comprehensive definition of the field of enquiry’ (1988: xii).
Part of this more general recognition of the limitations of the field can be
seen in the development of Work, Employment and Society in 1987 as a multi-
disciplinary journal for research on work, as the editorial by the inaugural edi-
tor Richard Brown makes clear:
We wish to provide a forum for all those concerned to understand changing patterns
of work, employment and unemployment, whether or not their own disciplinary
base is in Sociology. (1987: 1–2)
 In search of the sociology of work Halford & Strangleman 817

However, it could be argued that although this opening up of work sociology

enriched it enormously, it simultaneously created some challenges and potential
problems. First, it shifted attention away from sociology and the question of
what, if anything, sociology offers that is distinctive to the study of work; and,
second, this trend for widening definitions and perspectives stood in tension
with labour process theory. Whilst labour process theory offered a clear theo-
retical account of work, Salaman – with an agenda in tune with Pahl, Gallie and
others – argued that:
… in as much as the current sociology of work represents an attempt, or series of
attempts, to come up with some answers, they are answers to a limited series of
questions. (1986: 13)

Crucial though these questions are, Salaman made a spirited and empiri-
cally sustained case for the importance of other aspects of work structure and
process (1986: 25). More provocatively he suggested ‘… there are more
interesting sociological questions to ask of, and problems to resolve in, work
than Bravermania and the labour process dream of’ (1986: 107). These criticisms
were not confined to the UK. Writing from a US perspective Cynthia Epstein
argued:
Labor process theorists have emphasized the role of class power and economic
exploitation – valid concerns, to be sure – but in ways that have often yielded wooden
models of the wage-labor relation, divorced from the actual experience of work in
people’s everyday lives. Remarkably few of the major concerns that workers bring to
their jobs – security, conviviality, tradition, and opportunity, to say nothing of pay –
are given much room in the models of labor process theorists. (1990: 89–90)

Epstein’s critical remarks are interesting and go beyond noting the shortcom-
ings of LPT. She also draws our attention to the narrowness of US sociology of
work, positing, in addition to the dominance of LPT, the growth of survey
research on work attitudes and the rise of a new structuralism. In the case of
the former, the subject matter of sociological inquiry shrinks in order to accom-
modate the questions amenable to quantification; and, in the latter, the atten-
tion given to the macro means that questions about variations in income
inequality and labour market structures come to the fore while patterns of cul-
ture and the community at work are neglected (Epstein, 1990: 90).
Our second point then is that, in redressing the very real problems embed-
ded within the ‘golden age’ studies, new problems and challenges were pro-
duced for the sociology of work as a distinctive field of academic enquiry. The
tension between labour process theory and the expanded notions of work
promoted by Pahl, Gallie et al. seemed, at the time at least, to pose a choice
between the ‘watertight umbrella’ (Brown, 1981: 224) of labour process theory
– which offered theoretical certainty and coherence – and the larger but more
leaky umbrella (1981: 224) of a wider conceptualization for the sociology of
work that offered breadth and (greater) complexity, admitting a wider variety
of perspectives, topics and approaches but lacking an underpinning meta-nar-
rative. In the event, by 1991, Keith Grint claimed that labour process theory
818 Sociology Volume 43 ■ Number 5 ■ October 2009

had ‘approached de rigueur status for any self respecting non-conservative aca-
demic’ (1991: 189; also Salaman, 1986). Indeed, as Thompson and Smith point
out in this volume, since this time Work, Employment and Society has itself
developed a strong orientation to labour process theory. This is not to say that
everyone researching in the sociology of work identified explicitly as a labour
process theorist, but at least that labour process dominated theoretical debate
and informed areas of empirical research.
However, in the wake of resurgent academic Marxism came a stream of
critiques of the underpinning assumptions of Marxism and the labour theory
of value; for example, from feminist theorists (Adkins, 2008; Stacey, 1981;
Westwood, 1984), post-foundationalists (O’Doherty and Willmott, 2001;
Parker, 1999), and even Marxists themselves (Wright, 1997). These tensions
(further) fragmented the sociology of work, with increasingly distant and
separated approaches which seemed to have few ways of achieving constructive
dialogue. The subject matter of the sociology of work has spread across
(sometimes complementary but often competing) sociologies of labour process,
management, the professions, organization and gender studies (for example).
There are two particular problems with this. First, there is the lack of construc-
tive communication between sub-fields (apparently a long-standing feature of
the field – Deem, 1981). We return to this below. The second problem concerns
relations between what has come to stand for the sociology of work and the dis-
cipline of sociology itself. Unlike the 1960s where the study of work was one
of the planks of sociology, today this is no longer the case.

The Evacuation of Sociology?

Our contention here, and one of the spurs for this Special Issue, is the fact that
much debate within the sociology of work is conducted outside sociology and
is peripheral to mainstream sociology (however diverse this has become). This
may be partly a matter of intellectual fashion or ‘choice’ on the part of those
within sociology departments, opting out. But – as sociologists – we can put this
into a wider intellectual and political context. Particularly important here is the
rise of the business and management schools during the 1980s, such that many
of those active in the field today work in these settings (Rainbird and Rose,
2008). It is important to see sociology itself as an historically located product
(see Watson in this volume), whereby ‘the sociology of work’ is a contextually
produced body of knowledge. Earlier concerns that business or management
schools would produce only employer-orientated sociologies of work (Deem,
1981) have proved only partially founded, as critical management studies
and labour process theory have been produced alongside human resource man-
agement and mainstream management perspectives. Nonetheless, sociologists
should ask what knowledge is produced under these conditions and what type
of sociologist is produced in such circumstances? In business schools what
comes to stand for the sociology of work is largely a mix of human resource
management, labour process theory and critical management studies, alongside
 In search of the sociology of work Halford & Strangleman 819

empirical studies of labour market and employment conditions. Whilst this

may be partial it is, of course, important for the sociology of work. However,
Ackroyd et al. are concerned that this may be ‘a generational and institutional
peculiarity’ (2005: 7; see also Rainbird and Rose, 2008). The danger here is that
the sociological imagination that exists in business schools is almost bound to
be diluted through generational shifts, organizational structural development,
and recognition and reward strategies (Elger, this volume). If we look to the
business schools to produce future generations of sociologists of work then we
would be complacent to expect a set of people interested in, and with a com-
mitment to, a wider sociology. What then for the sociology of work?
Who then is left to teach the sociology of work in sociology departments?
Without doubt there has been an erosion of work as a topic of study within
sociology. Ackroyd et al. lament the ‘dramatic and deleterious effect’ of the
cultural turn within sociology and suggest that:
Few university departments have any expertise in the area, the bookshelves are full
of studies of culture and consumption rather than production and work. (2005: 7)

This view of the field is a caricature, but one that nonetheless reflects a power-
ful perception of mainstream sociology and the sociology of work in business
school environments. There are of course both individuals and research group-
ings based in sociology departments carrying out excellent and innovative
research on work and while this activity may not be to the taste of those working
in business schools one cannot deny its existence (see Elger, this volume). Whilst
Ackroyd et al. draw our attention to a decentring of the focus on economic life
within sociology, their perspective may also reflect a widening gulf between
sociologists of work in sociology departments and those working in business
school environments where the one is largely disengaged from the other.
Our third point then is to ask: where is the sociology of work? To be clear,
we do not mean to suggest that there is no sociology of work going on in soci-
ology departments, or that sociology can only be done within the bureaucratic
boundaries of sociology departments. There are many excellent examples of
quantitative and qualitative writing to refute both suggestions. Nonetheless,
there are some broad trajectories of marginalization and fragmentation in the
sociology of work – past, present and future – that seem to be important.

What Now? Where Are We Now?

In sum, we are suggesting that we can learn the following from the past: that
work was central to the emergence of post-war (British) sociology; that this has
been replaced by a range of more specialist approaches to work which, whilst
strong and important in their own right, are increasingly fragmented and do not
speak to – or are not listened to – by mainstream sociology; and that a significant
proportion of the study of work is increasingly conducted outside of sociology
departments, raising questions about the importance of these conditions of
production for the sociological output.
820 Sociology Volume 43 ■ Number 5 ■ October 2009

Does this matter? One answer to this question is that it depends what kinds
of questions we want to ask. If we simply want to see work studied then the
proliferation of sites of study may be something to celebrate. If, however, one
starts from the position of sociology then the current situation may not be quite
as attractive. The fragmented and specialist approaches that have developed
operate with their own questions, quite rightly, but these questions may limit,
exclude or even ignore others of wider sociological interest and resonance. For
example, how will these paradigms engage with an ever-evolving sociological
canon, with theoretical perspectives and approaches to culture, the body,
subjectivity, power, space, time, the economy/economic, gender, race, class? Can
they simply be accommodated within existing paradigms? As Thompson and
Smith point out (this volume), labour process theory pays increasing attention
to the body and emotions, for example, and this is a productive engagement both
for those interested in the body and/or emotions and indeed for labour process
theory itself. On the other hand, O’Doherty and Willmott (this volume) suggest
that framing the approach to new themes and questions within the existing
paradigm of labour process theory restricts our understanding – not least our
understanding of emerging modes of capital formation, let alone, it could be
added, a range of other elements of work which may not even be concerned with
the dynamics of capitalism (see Wolkowitz, this volume).
If we only celebrate the fact that work is being researched and it is of little
consequence where this is done we lose the possibility of the broad ambition of
the sociological imagination for the study of work. It is unlikely, for example,
that those researching work in business schools will pay equal attention to non-
paid work. Where then is the space to discuss the expanded notion of work that
took hold in the sociological imagination during the 1980s? Where is the space
to reflect how work touches all aspects of social life – beyond the employment
relationship? Tony Watson, writing in this volume, reminds us that fragmenta-
tion gets in the way of the raison d’etre of sociology ‘that of relating detailed
aspects of human lives to broad patterns of society and social change’. Equally,
Glucksmann calls for us to look beyond how labour is organized in the work-
place to wider scales and politics: for example, the moral and ethical questions
raised by global divisions of labour, raising in turn implications for political
activism and consumption practices; or how consumption practices shape work
(Korczynski, this volume).
We asked above, should the circumstances that we have described in the
previous sections matter to us as sociologists? And we have argued that it
depends what kinds of questions we want to ask. It also depends whether we
think that sociology has something distinctive to contribute to the study of
work. If not, then it really does not matter who is studying work, or how. So,
is there a distinct sociological contribution to the study of work? In his book
Working (1986), Salaman argued that this amounted to a focus on the social –
in all its mess and complexity – and how the social is produced, reproduced and
changes across time and space. This interest in the social raises also the poten-
tial for basing our work in a humanistic concern that has been central to a more
 In search of the sociology of work Halford & Strangleman 821

general sociology (Plummer, 2005). In Working (1972), Studs Terkel reflected

on his craft, talking about the violence – spiritually and bodily – work enacts
on people. But, he goes on to observe that work:

… is about a search, too, for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition
as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather
than a Monday through Friday sort of dying. Perhaps immortality, too, is part of
the quest. To be remembered was the wish, spoken and unspoken, of the heroes and
heroines of this book. (1972: xiii)

It captures, to paraphrase Sennett and Cobb (1972) the hidden rewards as

well as the hidden injuries of work. We can see this in the work of American
photographer Lewis Hine who spent the first part of his career exposing through
his pictures the abuses of capitalist work but then later, most notably in his
images of the Empire State Building under construction, reflected the positive
aspects of work. As he said of his work ‘I wanted to show the things that had
to be corrected. I wanted to show the things that had to be appreciated’
(Langer, 1998: 20). Our point is not to endorse the binaries presented here,
which we see more in rhetorical terms, but – taking our lead from Salaman
(1986) – to pay attention to both extremes of work as well as all the social
messiness found in between that constitutes ordinary life. Indeed, this is a
critical distinctiveness to the sociology of work, allowing us to understand how
social forms are embedded in work and in turn what work tells us about the
social more widely. It provides us with the methodological and theoretical tools
that allow us access to the lived experience of work in all its richness, diversity
and complexity.
But, how to move forward? Looking back is instructive but if we are think-
ing about the place of work within sociology as a discipline, the ‘golden age’ of
the 1960s cannot be our model. The emergence of academic sociology during
the post-war period took place at the conjunction of some particular circum-
stances. Now things are quite different. The discipline of sociology has diversi-
fied, such that it is now far less possible to claim a clear centre to the discipline
(Urry, 2005). The growth of new areas for sociology over the last 40 years has
produced breadth and depth in our understanding, way beyond that which was
possible in the immediate post-war period. Because of this, or at least alongside
it, we increasingly recognize the affordances of inter- and trans-disciplinarity,
that ‘emergent social forms need insights, formulations and theories produced
in diverse sites’ (Urry, 2005: 3). In this context we are certainly not suggesting
any kind of isolationism for sociology. We are not arguing against multi-
disciplinarity. Indeed, we are all in favour. But we believe that good work of this
type emerges from a strong sense of what different disciplines can bring to
debate, not the collapse of disciplines into indistinctiveness. As Urry (2005: 1)
argues, interdisciplinarity:

… must be based on strong and coherent disciplines. There is nothing worse than
lowest common denominator inter-disciplinarity.
822 Sociology Volume 43 ■ Number 5 ■ October 2009

It is multiple social and humanistic concerns that give sociology its power and
reach. Without a strong sense of discipline the danger is that sociological ways
of thinking get lost in contemporary discussions as well as future ones. Here it
is vital to stress the way both the intellectual and the structural can combine in
either a virtuous or corrosive way. We believe that it is important to be atten-
tive to both and in this Special Issue of Sociology we reflect on the history, pre-
sent and future of the discipline by way of a wide-ranging debate.

What Next? What Way Forward?

So, what if anything might be the way forward? There is certainly no sign that
the structural and intellectual divisions within the fields that study work are
declining. We could see this as an inevitable function of academic specialization,
the structuring of intellectual fashion and the necessities of career. But our aim
in embarking on this Special Issue was to begin a dialogue about sociology’s
relationship with work. We work on the assumption that we have choices about
our field, the nature of it, to whom it is addressed, how and what we teach. We
also recognize that it is important to periodically stand back and reflect on
previously held beliefs and positions.
In terms of disciplinary matters we see it as essential that there is a revival in a
self-conscious and confident sociology of work, one that is rooted within main-
stream sociological intellectual life as well as engaging in cross-disciplinary debates.
There is no contradiction here. It is important to recognize that real interdisci-
plinary research and writing comes best from those secure in their own field. It is
essential that in any discussions of work the sociological imagination, with all that
that entails, be brought to bear upon the object of study. For a model of intellec-
tual revival with sociology we could do worse than to look at the recent renaissance
of sociological discussions of class. This model of renewal is instructive: the delib-
erate opening of a space to draw on new theoretical approaches and concepts – par-
ticularly taken from Bourdieu – while not ignoring traditional approaches, concepts
and theories (see Crompton et al., 2000; Devine et al., 2005; Savage, 2000b;
Skeggs, 2004). Thus, cultural approaches combine with an interest with economic
patterns, and new approaches and methods are used to explore old problems. We
see no reason why this should not be the case with the study of work, and indeed
there are already signs of this (Pettinger et al., 2006). Interestingly, however, whilst
the earlier decline in the study of class has been linked by some to the marginaliza-
tion of the study of work (Crompton, 2008; Thompson and Smith, this volume) the
newly revitalized class debates have so far focussed on education, consumption and
identity and are only just beginning to make connections with work (Atkinson, this
volume; Hebson, 2009; Huppatz, 2009).
So what might this sociology of work look like? We should not forget that
there is a valuable legacy with which we can engage, as well as newly emergent
perspectives and debates. Our first step therefore is to seek dialogue: between
past and present sociologies of work, between contemporary divisions in the
 In search of the sociology of work Halford & Strangleman 823

sociology of work and between work sociology and the wider discipline of
sociology. As we noted above, the revival of class analysis within and beyond
British sociology has occurred because of organized discussion and debate –
seminar series, special issues of journals, edited collections and a series of books.
New dimensions to debate and add momentum to this field have been created
by this dialogue to the point where class is again at the centre of the sociological
agenda. We believe that there is no reason why this should not be the case with
work. The economic crisis that framed our introductory remarks offers a critical
moment to explore the social in the context of work.
But we also want to think about how to incorporate a whole series of stud-
ies and fields where sociologists are engaged with work but who perhaps do not
see themselves as work sociologists per se and, indeed, beyond this to engage in
trans-disciplinary dialogue. We are calling for dialogue both within sociology –
between researchers on work and those with related concerns and also beyond,
with anthropologists, geographers, historians, those in cultural studies, educa-
tion and health science amongst others. Although we have argued for a strong and
coherent sociological approach to work, we cannot ‘erect boundaries around
something that cannot be bounded’ (Urry, 2005: 2), in this case the study of work.
We would like to draw in emerging interests such as the cultural study of work,
embodiment, and identity, discussions of the visual, work on the spatial and on
flows of labour. Some of this is going on already but is fragmented and appears to
be talking to constituencies other than our own. We could choose many examples
here, but just to illustrate our point we might draw attention to the following. For
example, in his study of booksellers David Wright (2005) combines an older tra-
dition of work sociology with theories of consumption and taste, heavily indebted
to Bourdieu’s writing. This allows him insight to complex notions of control, iden-
tity and orientation to work, linking work and non-workspaces in a highly origi-
nal way. Similarly, Andrew Sayer’s (2005) long-standing interest in moral economy
and class is another instance of innovative writing in the field of work, one that
combines detailed analysis of micro interaction with questions about neo-liberal-
ism. Meanwhile, from geography and cultural studies, in Tim Edensor’s (2005)
research we see someone directly talking about industrial change and its con-
sequences and legacies. In Industrial Ruins he brings together a reflection on
space, aesthetics and materiality in discussing abandoned places of labour. While
labour is now absent Edensor conjures up its presence in the legacy left behind by
adopting a wide range of contemporary social theory. We gain new insights into
the meaning of work and its absence. Similarly, geographer Jane Wills’ work
(2004) on new social movements around work tells us something very important
about the social in and around work, charting the way new alliances are struck
and work is embedded in particular communities, drawing on theories of race, eth-
nicity, gender and religiosity. Finally, US labour historian Jefferson Cowie (1999)
offers up new insights to areas of industrial change and capital mobility. The point
we want to make about all of these examples, and there are many more, is that
this is all work about work within sociology and from other disciplines that some-
times informs the field but often does not. This leads us to suggest that what is
824 Sociology Volume 43 ■ Number 5 ■ October 2009

needed is a more organized discussion about the nature of the field and how the
research and writing in it link. This observation also makes more complex the
charge that sociology has vacated the space of work to others (see Ackroyd et al.,
2005; Thompson and Smith here). This reaffirms our first point on the need for
dialogue and organization in the field to highlight the research and writing occur-
ring in order to tackle the perceptions of decline that are abroad.
Finally, we ask the question here, what might a revived sociology of work
offer to a wider sociology? As we argued clearly above we are not seeking to
return to a ‘golden age’ of the 1950s and 1960s even if that were possible.
Instead, a lively sociology of work has enormous potential to shape and con-
tribute to wider sociological discussions in areas such as gender, class, race,
religion, community, family, globalization and identity. If there is something to
be salvaged from the ‘golden age’ it is this sense of those working in the field
using work as a way of understanding abstract social forms in concrete settings;
being able and confident to extrapolate from such settings to apply their find-
ing to other social contexts. In the process of such a revival one might equally
imagine a more self-consciously confident sociology of work helping in turn to
define the nature of the wider sociological ambition in the 21st century.

Introduction to the Articles

From the start we hoped this Special Issue would stimulate debate within the
sociology of work and make a wider intervention in the field of sociology. We
wanted to reflect on the historical work that has created the field – its shape and
trajectory – and to offer a snapshot of possible other directions. We envisaged
this Special Issue in a slightly different way from recent previous examples. We
hoped sociologists who have not concentrated on the study of work would be
able to pick up the issue and quickly learn more about the field and we have
tried to facilitate this in a number of ways. Unlike in other Special Issues, we
have commissioned a series of extended reviews on various aspects of the field,
reflecting on new aspects of older debates – see Jane Parry’s essay on class and
work, Ben Fincham’s essay on ethnography and work and Tony Elger’s essay on
teaching the sociology of work. Other extended reviews consider recent debates
about the end of work (Ed Granter) and visual methodological approaches to
work ethnography (Jon Hindmarsh). These short essays, and the longer articles
that accompany them, all tell us something about the way that the sociology
of work has developed and how it might evolve in the future.
We begin the Special Issue with John Eldridge’s autobiographical piece,
which reflects on research writing and teaching in the area across half a century
or more. Weaving personal experience, intellectual fashion and structural change,
Eldridge brings into focus the structures that constrain as well as the intellec-
tual possibility that enable. In Tony Watson’s essay we are reminded of the debt
owed to C. Wright Mills and the possibility of the sociological imagination in
the sociology of work, and the consequences of its neglect. Miriam Glucksmann
 In search of the sociology of work Halford & Strangleman 825

explores the division of labour and offers an ambitious account of the possible
reach of work sociology. In Thompson and Smith’s essay we have a spirited
defence of Labour Process Theory – one that presents challenges for sociologists
of work. O’Doherty and Willmott provide a critique of labour process themes
and ask questions both of LPT and sociology. Wolkowitz reflects from a femi-
nist perspective on a career teaching and writing about work, exploring the
strengths of being based within a sociology department while drawing on other
forms of support and inspiration. Atkinson links the revival of class analysis to
discussion of work. Korczynski calls our attention to the relationship between
customer and worker in service work, while Gatta looks at the rise of new types
of jobs in the US and the challenges they present.

Acknowledgements

With grateful thanks to Graham Crow, Geoff Payne, Mike Savage and Iain Wilkinson
for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Ackroyd, S., R. Batt, P. Thompson and P. Tolbert (eds) (2005) The Oxford Handbook
of Work and Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adkins, L. (2008) ‘From Retroactivation to Futurity: The End of the Sexual Contract?’,
NORA 16(3): 182–201.
Braverman, H. (1974) Labour and Monopoly Capitalism: The Degradation of
Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brown, R.K. (1981) ‘Sociologists and Industry – In Search of a Distinctive Competence’,
The Sociological Review 29(2): 217–35.
Brown, R.K. (1987) ‘Editorial Introduction: Work, Employment and Society’, Work,
Employment and Society 1(1): 1–6.
Brown, R.K. (1992) Understanding Industrial Organisations: Theoretical Perspectives
in Industrial Sociology. London: Routledge.
Brown, R.K. and P. Brannen (1970a) ‘Social Relations and Social Perspectives amongst
Shipbuilding Workers – A Preliminary Statement’, Sociology 4(1): 71–84.
Brown, R.K. and P. Brannen (1970b) ‘Social Relations and Social Perspectives amongst
Shipbuilding Workers – A Preliminary Statement’, Sociology 4(2): 197–211.
Carter, B. and S. Virdee (2008) ‘Racism and the Sociological Imagination’, British
Journal of Sociology 59(4): 661–79.
Castillo, J.J. (1999) ‘Sociology of Work at the Crossroad’, Current Sociology 49(2):
21–46.
Cornfield, D. and R. Hodson (eds) (2002) Worlds of Work: Building an International
Sociology of Work. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.
Cowie, J. (1999) Capital Moves: RCA’s Seventy-year Quest for Cheap Labor. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Crompton, R., F. Devine, M. Savage and J. Scott (eds) (2000) Renewing Class
Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Crompton, R. (2008) Class and Stratification. Cambridge: Polity.
826 Sociology Volume 43 ■ Number 5 ■ October 2009

Deem, R. (1981) ‘The Teaching of Industrial Sociology in Higher Education: An

Exploratory Analysis’, The Sociological Review 29(2): 237–51.
Dennis, N., F. Heniques and C. Slaughter (1956) Coal Is our Life: An Analysis of a
Yorkshire Mining Community. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.
Devine, F., M. Savage, J. Scott and R. Crompton (eds) (2005) Rethinking Class:
Culture, Identities and Lifestyles. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Edensor, T. (2005) Industrial Ruin: Space, Aesthetics and Materiality. Oxford: Berg.
Eldridge, J.E.T. (1968) Industrial Disputes: Essays in the Sociology of Industrial
Relations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Eldridge, J.E.T. (1981) ‘Questions about Industrial Sociology – Introduction’, The
Sociological Review 29(2): 213–16.
Eldridge, J.E.T., P. Cressey and J. MacInnes (1991) Industrial Sociology and Economic
Crisis. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Epstein, C. (1990) ‘The Cultural Perspective and the Study of Work’, in K. Erikson and
S.P. Vailas The Nature of Work: Sociological Perspectives. New Haven, CT: Yale.
Gallie, D. (ed.) (1988) Employment in Britain. Oxford: Blackwell.
Glucksmann, M. (aka Cavendish, R.) (2009[1982]) Women on the Line. London: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Penguin.
Goldthorpe, J., D. Lockwood, F. Bechhofer and J. Platt (1968) The Affluent Worker:
Industrial Attitudes and Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grint, K. (1991) The Sociology of Work: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity.
Hebson, G. (2009) ‘Renewing Class Analysis in Studies of the Workplace: A
Comparison of Working-class and Middle-class Women’s Asperations and
Identities’, Sociology 43(1): 27–44.
Hollowell, P.G. (1968) The Lorry Driver. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Huppatz, K, (2009) ‘Reworking Bourdieu’s “Capital”: Feminine and Female
Capitals in the Field of Paid Caring Work’, Sociology 43(1): 45–66.
Hyman, R. (1981) ‘Whatever Happened to Industrial Sociology?’, in D. Dunkerley
and G. Salaman (eds) International Yearbook of Organisation Studies. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kuhn, A. and A.M. Wolpe (eds) (1978) Feminism and Materialism: Women and
Modes of Production. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Langer, F. (1998) Lewis Hine: The Empire State Building. New York: Prestel.
Lockwood, D. and R. Glass (1958) The Black Coated Worker: A Study in Class
Consciousness. London: Allen and Unwin.
Oakley, A. (1974) The Sociology of Housework. Oxford: Blackwell.
O’Doherty, S. and H. Willmott (2001) ‘Debating Labour Process Theory: The Issue of
Subjectivity and the Relevance of Poststructuralism’, Sociology 35(2): 457–76.
Pahl, R.E. (1984) Divisions of Labour. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pahl, R.E. (ed.) (1988) On Work: Historical, Comparative and Theoretical Approaches.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Parker, M. (1999) ‘Capitalism, Subjectivity and Ethics: Debating Labour Process
Analysis’, Organization Studies 20(1): 25–45.
Parker, M. (2000) ‘The Sociology of Organizations and the Organization Of Sociology:
Some Reflections on the Making of a Division of Labour’, The Sociological
Review 48(1): 124–46.
Pettinger, L., J. Parry, R. Taylor and M. Glucksmann (2006) A New Sociology of
Work? London: Routledge.
 In search of the sociology of work Halford & Strangleman 827

Platt, J. (2003) The British Sociological Association: A Sociological History. Durham:

Sociology Press.
Plummer, K. (2005) Documents of Life: An Invitation to a Critical Humanism, 2nd
ed. London: Sage.
Pollert, A. (1981) Girls, Wives, Factory Lives. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Rainbird, H. and M. Rose (2008) ‘Work, Employment and Society 1997–2007:
Becoming a Sociologically Oriented, International, Multi-disciplinary Journal’,
Work, Employment and Society 22(2): 203–20.
Salaman, G. (1986) Working. London: Tavistock.
Savage, M. (2000a) ‘Sociology, Class and Male Manual Work Cultures’, in A.
Campbell, N. Fishman and J. McIlroy British Trade Unions and Industrial
Politics. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Savage, M. (2000b) Class Analysis and Social Transformation. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Savage, M. (2005) ‘Working-class Identities in the 1960s: Revisiting the Affluent
Worker Study’, Sociology 39(5): 929–46.
Sayer, A. (2005) The Moral Significance of Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Scott, J. (2005) ‘Sociology and its Others: Reflections on Disciplinary Specialism
and Fragmentation’, Sociological Research Online 10(1), URL (consulted June
2009): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/1/scott.html
Sennett, R. and J. Cobb (1972) The Hidden Injuries of Class. London: Norton.
Skeggs, B. (2004) Class, Self, Culture. London: Routledge.
Stacey, M. (1981) ‘The Division of Labour Revisited or Overcoming the Two
Adams’, in P. Adams et al. (eds) Practice and Progress: British Sociology 1950–
1980. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Stewart, P. (2004) ‘Work Employment and Society Today’, Work Employment and
Society 18(4): 653–662.
Strangleman, T. (2005) ‘Sociological Futures and the Sociology of Work’, Sociological
Research Online 10(4), URL (consulted June 2009): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/
10/4/strangleman.html
Terkel, S. (1972) Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How
They Feel About What They Do. New York: Pantheon Books.
Tunstall, J. (1962) The Fishermen: The Sociology of an Extreme Occupation.
London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Urry, J. (2005) ‘Beyond the “Science” of Society’, Sociological Research Online 10(2),
URL (consulted June 2009): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/urry.html
Westwood, S. (1984) All Day, Every Day: Factory and Family in the Making of
Women’s Lives. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Williams, C. (2007) Rethinking the Future of Work: Directions and Visions.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Wills, J. (2004) ‘Campaigning for Low Paid Workers: The East London Communities
Organization (TELCO) Living Wage Campaign’, in W. Brown, G. Heely, E. Heery
and P. Taylor (eds) The Future of Worker Representation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wright, D. (2005) ‘Mediating Production and Consumption: Cultural Capital and
“Cultural Workers”’, British Journal of Sociology 56(1): 106–21.
Wright, E.O. (1997) Class Counts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
828 Sociology Volume 43 ■ Number 5 ■ October 2009

Susan Halford

Is Professor of Sociology at the University of Southampton and co-founder of the Work

Futures Research Centre, a new cross-disciplinary initiative at Southampton University.
Her research interests centre on everyday work and organization particularly in rela-
tion to social and organizational change. She has long-standing interests in gender for-
mations and identities at work and has published widely on this including Gender,
Careers and Organizations (with Mike Savage and Anne Witz; Macmillan, 1997), Gender,
Power and Organizations (with Pauline Leonard; Macmillan, 2001) and Negotiating
Gendered Identities at Work: Space, Place and Time (with Pauline Leonard; Palgrave, 2006).
Her most recent research builds on these interests in identity, power, space and time to
explore new technologies in work and organization. She is currently researching these
interests across a variety of fields in healthcare including telemedicine in Norway, com-
puter decision support systems in the NHS and the scientific development of a new
nanotechnology device for blood testing.
Address: Division of Sociology and Social Policy, School of Social Sciences, Southampton
University, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.
E-mail: susan.halford@soton.ac.uk

Tim Strangleman

Is Reader in Sociology at the University of Kent, Canterbury. He is interested in a wide

range of areas around the sociology of work and economic life. He has carried out
research in the railway, engineering, mining, construction, brewing, banking, and teaching
sectors as well as NHS Direct. These studies examine questions of work meaning and
identity, deindustrialization and the experience of industrial change, oral history, visual
methods and approaches and nostalgia. In addition,Tim is researching the historiography
of sociology and in particular its use of visual methods and material. He is the author
of two books: Work and Society: Sociological Approaches, Themes and Methods, with Tracey
Warren (Routledge, 2008); and Work Identity at the End of the Line? Privatisation and
Culture Change in the UK Rail Industry (Palgrave, 2004).
Address: School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent,
Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF, UK.
E-mail: t.strangleman@kent.ac.uk