Work and Its Representations: A Research Proposal

Author(s): Maurice Godelier and Michael Ignatieff

Source: History Workshop, No. 10 (Autumn, 1980), pp. 164-174
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4288317
Accessed: 29-05-2015 17:18 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History Workshop.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LANGUAGEAND HISTORY
Workandits Representations:
A ResearchProposal
by Maurice Godelier
Thismemorandumwas writtenby MauriceGodelieras an invitationto anthropologists, historians,linguistsand technologists,particularlyin Franceand England,to
acrosstimeand
join in a collectiveresearchprojecton workand its representations,
acrosscultures.As a first stage in the researchtherewillbe a seminar,beginningin
at the Laboratoired'Anthropologie
January1981, on workand its representations
Sociale of the Collegede France. Subsequently,it is hoped that there will be an
internationalmeetingon the subjectto be convenedby the FrenchAnthropological
Association,to be followed by a seriesof books assemblingresearchfrom as many
points of viewaspossible.If anyof ourreadersare workingin thisareaor havebeen
planningresearchof thissortand wouldliketo takepart, or wouldsimplyliketo know
moreaboutthesubject,out of generalinterest,theyshouldget in touchwithMichael
Ignatieffor RaphaelSamuelat the Journal.
THE AIMSOF THE INQUIRY
Ourobjectof studywillbe workandthewordsusedto representit. Thewords'work',
'to work',and 'worker'havea particularmeaningin our languageand appearedat a
certainmomentin the evolutionof our society. Theirmeaninghas since changed
severaltimesin thecourseof ourhistory.Ourobjectthenis a groupof wordsandideas
whichbelongto a cultureand to a periodand only makesensewithinthat culture.
In studyingthis field, historianshaveat theirdisposalwordsandthings,thatis to
say, texts and physicalobjects bequeathedby the past, while anthropologistshave
accessto words,thingsandalsoto livingpeoplewhocanreplyto theirquestions.As we
shallsee, thechoiceof workas theobjectof comparativeinquiryoughtnot to be taken
for granted,sincethe ideaitselfis not commonto all culturesor periodsof pasttime.
Obviously,no one whois workingin thisareaneedfollowthisresearchproposal.It
is simplyan attemptto sketchsomeconverginglinesof researchin orderto makeeasier
and moreprecisecomparisonsbetweendifferentinquiries.Everyoneshouldfeel free
to tacklethe subjectas theywishand also to criticisethe ideasin this proposal.That
will be to everyone'sadvantage.
SOMEPRELIMINARYQUESTIONS
In thissection,we wantto emphasiseonceagainthatthe words'work','to work'and
'worker'took on theirmeaningsat a certainperiodin our languageandhaveevolved
in differentcontexts-in ordinaryspeech, and, for example,in the discourseof a
sciencelike politicaleconomyin whichthe ideaof workbecamea centralconceptin
the 19thcentury.
A brieflook at the historyand originsof thesewordsmakesit apparentthattheir

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Workand its Representations

165

meaningsaredifferentin variouscultures.Wemusttrythento establish,beyondthese

ethnocentricstartingpoints and in spite of them, a domain which seems worth
exploringand for whichit seemsworthgivingup someof the ideaswhichour society
has conceivedof itself and others.
The wordsfor work in French and in other Indo-European Languages

Accordingto Lucien Febvre,it was in the 16thcenturythat the word 'to work'
(travailler)enteredFrenchvocabulary,replacing,in part,two earlierwords,labourer
(nowmeaningto plough),andoeuvrer(nolongerin useas a verb;as a noun,it meansa
workof art). Travailler
(to work)camefromthe latintripaliarewhichmeanttorturing
witha tripalium,aninstrumentmadeof threestakes.Beforethatin about 1120, labeur
(now meaningtoil), from the latin labor, becamecommon usage for agricultural
activity;also in the 12thcenturyouvrier(worker)madeits firstappearance,derived
fromthe latinoperarius(manof painor affliction),a termwhichitselfwentbackto
two words, opus (an action or piece of work)and operae,the tasks or obligations
whichhad to be performedin respectof someoneelse, as for example,those of a
liberatedserftowardshis old master,or thoseof theartisanin respectof thecustomer
with whomhe had a contract.But evenbeforethesewordshad appeared,travailler
in thiscasewasnot the
meantto torturean offenderon a tripaliumandthe travailleur
victimbut the torturer.Travail(the modernword for work)also meanta wooden
device to which horsesor cattle were tied when they were to be shod. In Spanish
trabajomeantthe samething. But travailand trabajoalso meant'to bringinto the
world'. In the middleof the 15thcentury,thereappearedone afteranothersalarie
(1450)(meaninga wageear" r) and in 1480proletaire(proletarian,worker),both of
whichremainedrareuntilthe mid 18thcentury.In the 14thcentury,beforesalarie
therewas also salaire(salary,wage)fromsalariummeaningmoneyto buy salt (sal).
Proletaire camefromproletariuswhichin antiquityhadmeanta poor manwho was
exemptfromtaxationandwhoonlyhadrightsto citizenshipbyvirtueof thenumberof
his offspring(proles).Artisanappearedaround1546andmeantwhatwe meantoday
by the two wordsworkerand artist.Artisansand workerspracticetrades(me'tiers),
whichderivedfrom ministerium,an inferioractivity(10thcentury)(minis,meaning
less, and sterium,meaningthe workof a servant);whilemaster(maitre)came from
magister,'theone whois thesuperior'in a trade(1150),andcompagnon(journeyman,
co-worker)meantsomeonewithwhomyou breakbread(cumpane, withbread).
Around1160,gagner(to earn)emergedfromthe Frankish(waidajan)whichmeant
both to pillageand to go in searchof food. The wordgage (wage)came from the
Frankishwaddi,meaninga ransomto be paid, a guarantee,and later paymentof
servants,whilein Englandthe samewordbecamewage.Around1120the wordprofit
appeared,derivedfrom profectus, meaningsomeonewho has advancedor made
progress,whilethe word beneffice(gain)appearedaround1190meaningprivilegeor
advantage.
These notes on the dates of birth of certain key words in Frencheconomic
vocabulary,the companionwordstodayof 'work',do not amountto a realhistory.
Theydo indicate,however,thatourvocabularyandourideaswereformedat different
moments:in the 12thand 13thcenturiesat theheightof the feudalperiodwhentowns
anddomesticmanufacturefirstbeganto emerge;at theendof the 15thcenturyandthe
beginningof the 16thwiththeriseof internationaltrade,thecolonialsystem,banking,
and.stateandprivatemanufacture;and finallyin the 18thcenturywhenthewordsfor

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

166

HistoryWorkshopJournal

wageearner,workerand capitalacquiredtheirmodernmeanings.
It is obvioushow interestingit wouldbe to reconstructthe evolutionof the ideas
for a largenumberof languages.
andwordsdealingwithworkandits representations
InEnglishwe havethewordsworkandlabour,andin Germanwerkandarbeit.Arbeit
posesa problemof its own. Itsevolutionis stillthe subjectof controversy.Somehave
suggestedthat it comes from an old Germanwordwhoseconnotationsincludedthe
ideaof anorphan,or a persondeprivedof aninheritanceandforthatreasonobligedto
dependon anotherfor theirsubsistence.
Insummarising
thedirectionwhichthemeaningsof thewordsfor workhavetaken
in thelastfewcenturies,wecouldsay,withLucienFebvre,thattherehasbeena shiftin
meaningfrom wordswhich first connotedpainfulactivitiesbringinglittle meritto
thosewhoperformedthem,andevendegradedthemandplacedthemin a conditionof
socialinferiority,whiletoday the rightto work, and the dignityof the worker,have
positivemeanings,at leastin certaintypesof discourse.
Theconceptof workin politicaleconomy
Whenpoliticaleconomywasconstitutedas a newdisciplinein the 18thcentury,one of
its key conceptswas the ideaof work. Workwas seenas the sourceof the wealthof
nations.Betweenthe Tableaueconomiquede la France(1759)of Quesnay,founderof
Physiocracy,and AdamSmith'sWealthof Nations(1776),thereemergedthe ideaof
workin general,thatis, workconsideredseparatelyfromall of its particularformsin
or commerce.Thisideaof workappearedat thesametime
agriculture,manufacturing
of
as the ideaof value.Whatdistinguishesthesetwo economistsis theirinterpretation
the source of wealth. For Quesnay, the only productiveform of work was in
agriculture,and he consideredthe industrialand commercial'classes' as sterile.
Natureaidedby humanlabourwas the sourceof all wealth.The othersocialclasses
dividedits fruitsamongthemselves.Thusat thesametimeandon thesametheoretical
terrainthe ideasof work,class, valuein use, and valuein exchangewereelaborated.
Ricardowas to link work and exchangevalue muchmorecloselythan Smith.This
raiseda difficultquestionbecausea halfcenturylaterMarxwasto maintainthatwork
certainlycreatedvaluebut it didnot itselfhavevalue.Onlythe labourforceitselfhad
exchangevaluesince, like all goods, it had a cost of production.But let us returnto
AdamSmithwhoin 1776achievedthetheoreticalrevolutionwhichMarxwasto define
in 1857in the followingterms:Smithmadegreatprogresswhenhe rejectedthe ideaof
a particularformof creativeactivityas the sourceof wealthin favourof a conception
of work in general, that is to say, in none of its commercial, agricultural,
manufacturing
forms,but all of theseformsof workin theircommoncharacteristics.
But Marxadded,
workmayseemto be a simplecategory... however,whenseenfroman economic
point of view, even this simplecategoryis as historicala conceptas the social
relationswhichhavegivenbirthto it. Itis onlywhenworkhasbecome,notonlyat a
theoreticallevelbut in realityitself, a meansof creatingwealthin generalandhas
ceasedto operateas a determinationin its singularand particularformsthat the
abstraction'workin general'becomesconceivableas a practicalreality,as the
point of departurefor moderneconomics.
ThusMarxwouldhaveconsideredit absurdto go lookingfor the ideaof workin

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WorkanditsRepresentations

167

generalin precapitalistsocieties. In this, he is close to modernanthropologistslike

MarshallSahlinswho in Tribesmen(1968), had this to say about work in tribal
economies:

Workis . . . intermittent,sporadic,discontinuous,ceasingfor the momentwhen

not requiredfor the moment.... Noris triballabouralienatedfrommanhimself,
detachable from his social being and transactableas so many units of
depersonalizedlabour-power.A manworks,produces,in his capacityas a social
person,as a husbandand father,brotherand lineagemate, memberof a clan, a
village. 'Worker'is not a status in itself, nor 'labour'a true categoryof tribal
economics.Saiddifferently,workis organizedby relations'non-economic'in the
conventionalsense... Workis an expressionof pre-existingkin and community
relations,the exerciseof theserelations.
In otherwords,whatwe westernerstodaymeanby 'to work', 'work'and 'worker'
will be representedin verydifferentwaysin those societieswhere
- labouris not a commoditywhichindividuals
areforcedto sellto othersin returnfor
subsistencebecausethey are dispossessed;
-resources come primarilyfromthe immediatenaturalhabitatof the society;
- the resourcesthemselvesare not the propertyof any particularindividualbut
belongto groupsor communitieswhichretaina certaincontrolovertheiruse;
- there are no units of productionorganizedas separateentitiesdistinctfrom the
socialgroups,kinshipsystem,or extendedor nuclearfamilieswhichmakeupthe local
group;
- themajorpurposeof productionis not to makea profitor accumulatewealthbutto
produceusevaluesnecessaryto thematerialreproductionof theindividualsandof the
socialrelationsin whichthey live;
-the reproductionof social relationsimplies the productionand circulationof
valuablecommoditieswhich are accumulatedas treasure(Indonesia),and are the
objectof giftsandcounter-giftswhichneverbalanceeachotherout andwhichserveto
legitimizethe claims of certainindividualsto acquireor maintainranks, titles or
privilegesin local, regionalor intertribalhierarchies(forexample,the Kulaexchanges
betweenthe islandson the southeasterntrip of New Guinea,the potlatchof the
NorthwestPacificcoast Indiansetc.);
-work itselfconsistsof tasksor operationswhichmostmembersof the societyknow
how to perform,even thoughthereis a divisionof labourbetweenthe sexes, ages,
orders,castesand classes.
Amongthosesocietiesin whichtheeconomyis basedon productionandgift of use
values,andthosefoundedon production,saleandpurchaseof commodities,thereare
many differenceswhich ought to be preciselystudiedin orderto understandwhat
would correspond,in each case, with how we use 'work', 'to work' and 'worker'.
Whatactivitiesshouldwe focus upon?
In the Westwe commonlygive the nameof workto all the activitiesby whichwe
extractfromnaturethe meansof ourexistence.Today,however,we havewidenedits
meaningsto includeall of the activitiesfor whichwe achievepayment.Thishasgiven
riseto controversysinceverydifferent,evenopposed,typesof economicrelationhave
assumedthe samesocialform. So workrefersat the sametime to relationsbetween
people and nature and betweenpeople and their fellow beings. Understoodas a
relationto nature,any work processis a sequenceof individualor collectiveacts

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168

HistoryWorkshopJournal

designedto extractor detachfromnaturesubstanceswhicheitherin theirimmediate

form, or after havingundergonea varietyof transformationsin their forms and
properties,becomeobjectsof use for humanbeings, meansof satisfyingdifferent
needs.
Weoughtthento exploresystematically
the differentwaysin whichsocietiesbring
togetherthe naturalresourceswhichtheyuse to producetheirmaterialconditionsof
existence: hunting, gathering, fishing, agriculture, animal raising, domestic
craftsmanship,specializedartisanalproduction,commerce,exchange,and of course
what we call 'domestic'work which involves the preparationof items for daily
consumptionandwhichis frequentlycombinedwithchildcare.Weoughtto addthat
all of theseactivitiescontainmomentsor aspectsof whatwe couldcall 'intellectual'
activityand that intellectualwork can also be a separateactivityof specialists(see
RaymondFirthPrimitivePolynesianEconomy,ch. 5 'Ritualin ProductiveActivity';
ch. 6 'EconomicFunctionsof the Chief'.)
All of these activitiesare based on differentforms of divisionof labourwhich
assigntasksto individualsaccordingto theirsex, age, rank,theirmembershipin an
order,casteor classetc.
It is importantto keepin mind,however,thatany studyof the 'status'of a given
task and of the personwho performsit, of the representations
of workand worker,
cannotbe confinedto whathappens'on the inside'of theworkprocess,thatis, to the
relationsand representations
of those doing the work. Thereare many societiesin
whichgroupsof individualswho do not participatedirectlyin the workprocesshave
certainrightsto theproduce,thelandor someof its resourcesetc. At theextreme,as in
the caseof someof theslavesocietiesof antiquityin whichthemasterdelegatedpower
to an overseer,oftena slave,withouttakinganypartin the workprocess,therecanbe
a total separationbetweenthe worker,ownershipof resourcesand the productof
labour.
It is a mistake,therefore,to confusetheworkprocessandtheproductionprocess.
The productionprocessmeansnot only the relationsbetweenpeopleandwithnature
withinthe workprocess,butalso the relations(of externalactors)to theworkprocess
itself and theirrightsoverits product.
Anystudyof the statusof workandtheworkermustgo beyondtheconcretedetails
of the work processitself. If thereare relationsof subordination,dominationand
eventuallyof exploitationamongthesexes,orders,castesandclasses,theseappearnot
onlyin the wayworkactivitiesareorganizedandrepresented.Theserelationsarealso
presentbeforeandaftertheseactivitiestakeplace,in therelationof the 'actors'to the
conditionsand resultsof theiractivity.
Workas a philosophicalvisionof manand his history
SincetheEncyclopedists
of the 18thcentury,orat leastsinceBenjaminFranklin,there
has been a philosophicalcurrentwhichdefinedman as homofaber, as a makerof
tools, andwhichinterpretedhishistoryintermsof hisparticularcapacityto transform
naturethroughlabourand in doingso to transformhis own socialbeing.
Historiansof ideashaveyetto tracetheexactoriginsof thisideathathumanbeings
transformnatureand their own nature. This idea cannot be found in antiquity.
J.P.Vernanthas shownthatsuchan ideawouldhavebeenconsidereda scandal,both
philosophicallyand morally,as a profanationof the sacredorderof things. This
materialistconception of man as the maker of his own history in the act of

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WorkanditsRepresentations

169

transformingnature,as creatingsocietiesin theact of reproducingthematerialmeans

of his existence, was a new idea, constitutedin a critical encounterwith the
philosophiesandreligionswhichprecededit. Thisconcept,on theotherhand,didnot
necessarilysignifyanoppositionbetweenanactivehumannatureanda passivenatural
world, as westernthoughthas tendedto assume,even thoughtoday an 'ecological'
viewof workandproductionhasbegunto temperor evencriticizethemythof manas
lord of nature.
Hereagain,we mustlook to historyfor the originof theseideas.It is fromMarx's
pen, in Capital,thattherecomestheidea,not originalto Marxor theMarxistsfor that
matter,thatmodernindustrybasedon the directapplicationof scienceto production
had 'tornawaythe veil whichhid frommanhis own socialprocessof productionand
whichrenderedthe differentbranchesof productionwhichhad beenspontaneously
divided,into so manyenigmas,evenforthosewithintheproductionprocessitself.' He
pointedout in the samepassagethat until the 18thcenturythe differenttradeshad
been considered'mysteries'requiringthe initiationof apprenticesinto the secretsof
production.
We have left to one side the idea of work developedin the naturalsciences:the
'work'of a machineetc. Butthisbriefresumeof threeusagesof theconceptof work,
in ordinaryspeech,socialscience(politicaleconomy)andin the philosophyof human
natureandhistoryhasbeensufficientto revealtheimplicitor explicitmeaningswhich
a western anthropologistbrings to bear on the problem of work and its
representations.
With these historicaland theoreticalprovisosin mind, what exactlyis the area
whichwe wishto explore,beyondand in spiteof this ethnocentricstartingpoint?
WORKAND ITS REPRESENTATIONS:
THE AREAOF STUDY
Therearetwo areasto explorea. The activitieswe call workand the representations
whichmembersof society
give of them. These representationswill vary accordingto age, group, sex, and
accordingto whetherparticulargroupstake partin the workwithoutcontrollingit,
controlit withouttakingpart,controlit andtakepart,neithercontrolit nortakepart.
b. The representations
of the actorsthemselves,those who 'do' the work.Three
possibletypescan be envisaged:representations
formedby the actorsthemselvesby
virtueof theirtakingpart;representations
of theseactorsby thosewho eitherdo not
take part or are excludedfor reasonswhichenhanceor devaluetheirsocial status;
finally, the representationsof membersof other societies (neighbouringgroups,
foreignobservers)who evaluatetheseactivitiesandthosewho takepartin themfrom
the outside.
The connectionbetweenthesetwo domainsis obvious.It is the negative,positive
or neutralsocialvalueattachedto a taskwhichdefinesthe statusof thosewhocarryit
out, and thussimultaneouslydefinesthe statusof those who do not takepart,either
becauseit degradesthem or becauseit would raisethem above theirnormalsocial
position.
The representations
of activitieswe wouldcallworkarenot limitedby andcannot
be reducedto the socialvaluesattachedto theirperformanceor non-performance.
We
need to examinethe ways in whichhuntingand agricultureare conceivedin given
societies.Is huntingseenas a waragainstthe animals,and is warconceiveditselfas a
This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170

HistoryWorkshopJournal

hunt,or is huntingseenas an exchangepermittedaccordingto a religiousagreementor

understanding
withthe 'lordsof theanimalkingdom'as in Amazonia,NorthAmerica
or Siberia,or accordingto a pactwiththe Forest,the benevolentdeitywho watches
over its children,the animalsand the Pygmies?How are agriculturalactivitieslike
seeding,planting,harvestingconceived- as an actof unionwiththe EarthMother,or
as an actof aggressionwhichmustbe compensatedby sacrifice?Howis animalraising
Thecastrationof pigs?Helpingmaresor camelsto givebirth?Milking?
represented?
Killingbeasts?In antiquity,only sacrificialmeat was eatenin the city and butchers
wereconsideredalmostlike priests.
At the sametime, in everysocietythereexistsa socialhierarchyamongactivities.
Huntingis often heldin higherregardthangatheringor agriculture.Thereis a whole
whichdefinesthe hierarchyof thesevaluesand whichboth
systemof representations
explainsandlegitimizesthe socialeffectswhichresultfromthishierarchy.Insocieties
wheremen dominate,women'stasksare often consideredinferiorand unworthyof
men. The dominantsocial representationsfrequentlyare intendedto 'prove' the
inferiorityof women'stasks,whenin fact theyareinferiorsimplybecausetheyhave
beenconsignedto women.Thisis not alwaysthecase,however,andamongthePueblo
Indians,for example,pottery-making,a woman'sactivity,was not consideredan
inferiortask. It was the same with porcupinequill embroideryamong the Plains
Indians.In general,it is a mistaketo take the divisionof labourin a societyas the
therepresentations
whicha societyor certainpartsof
startingpointfor understanding
it constructof thatdivision.Thedivisionof labouris an effectof the socialhierarchy,
not its cause.
Thuswe are not only workingtowardsa 'semantics'(the scienceof meaning)of
work and the social relationsof production,althoughthis is an essentialpoint of
departure.Instead,we hope to makea contributiontowardsthe scientificanalysisof
the forms of thoughtwhichorganizesocial realityat the same time as they give it
expression.It is an analysisof the roleof meaningandideas('ideel) in socialreality.
Whereshould we look for data for this analysis?In languagefirst of all, in
individualand collectivediscourseas recordedby the anthropologistsor as written
down in texts or embodiedin objects which the historiancan then make 'speak':
proverbs,mythswhichspeakof hunting,agriculture,tools, the tasksreservedto men
and women, the clusterof ideas which constitutethe religious,philosophicaland
politicalinterpretations
of theorderof theworldandits disorder,whetherin 'popular'
or 'scientific'discourse.
It is obviousthatour inquirywillrequirethe participationof linguistsandexperts
in technology.Linguistswill be neededbecauselanguagedoes not consistsimplyof
words distributedin varioussemanticfields, but of a grammaras well. It seems
difficultin factto understandhowin Japanworkis thoughtof asa poeticandreligious
activity,requiringclose collaborationbetweenman and nature,unlessone refersto
the grammaticalcategoriesof the languageitself and to the fact that they makeno
distinctionbetweenan active subjectand a passiveobject, as is the case in IndoEuropeantongues.Expertsin technologywill be essentialbecauseso manymaterial
activitieswhichwe take for grantedareperformeddifferentlyin othersocieties.For
example,the Japanesecarpenterworkshis sawandplanein the oppositedirectionto
our own. Technologistscould help us to explainthe connectionwithin a culture
betweenthe waya materialoperationis carriedout andthe natureof the rawmaterial
whichis beingworked,whetherwood, leather,boneor iron.Perhapsthesedifferences
in rawmaterialhelpto explainessentialaspectsof the divisionof labourin particular

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WorkanditsRepresentations

171

societies.Whyis it, afterall, thatin Africacertainrelatedactivitieslikeweaving,dying

and sewinghave becomespecializedamongdistinctsocial groups,distinguishedby
sex, casteor pseudo-caste?
Finally,we need hardlypoint out that the studyof work-relatedactivityand its
representationscannot become rigorous without a minute, qualitative and
quantitativeobservationof the workprocessitself.
We wantto offer threeexamplestakenfromhistoryand anthropology.
a. AncientGreece
Here we will simplysummarizethe exemplaryresearchof J.P.Vernant.In Greek,
therewas no termto designateworkin general,or workerin general.Therewerethe
wordsponos, designatingpainfulactivity,and ergon whichmeanttask and which
appliedto agriculturallabourand warfarealike. The verbpoein meantto do, while
prateinmeantto makeor to act. Vernanthasconcentratedon theusesof techne,from
whichwe derivethe wordtechnique.He has shownthat in the 8th centuryB.C. the
craftsof blacksmith,potteryandweavingwereconsideredin the samelightas thatof
priests,bardsanddoctors(therearesimilarexamplesin Africa.)All of theseactivities
werecalledtechnai,that is, activitiesimplyingthe use of secretprocesses,specialized
and an initiationritualtakingplaceoutside
knowledgebasedon long apprenticeship
the oikos or familygroup.Whiletheseactivitieswereconductedfor the benefitof all
membersof the community,they wereparticularlydirectedto the richestand most
powerful among then, the aristocratswho liked to be surroundedby artisans
producingluxurygoods, or musiciansand singerswhose presenceenhancedtheir
patron'sstatus.Agriculturewasnot consideredas a craftor techne.All citizenswere
both able and obliged to devote themselvesto it. It did not require a secret
apprenticeship
but, rather,a virtuousattitudetowardshumanbeingsandpietytoward
thegods. Suchwasthemessageof Hesiod'sepicpoem, WorksandDays.Agriculture,
like war, was the responsibilityof free men, artisanalwork, the task of a few.
Agricultureenabledmento remainfreefor it madeit possiblefor themto providefor
theirneedswithouthavingto dependon others,whiletheartisanwasforcedto depend
on his customersin orderto live and prosper.In short, agriculturelike warwas an
activitywhichbroughtprestigeto thedoerbothin thecityandwiththegods. Itwasnot
- says
conceived as a transformation of nature. 'This transformation'
J.P.Vernant-'even if it had been possiblewould have been seen as unrighteous.
Workingthe earthwasa formof participationin an ordersuperiorto humanbeings,
both naturaland divine... an act of personalexchangewith natureand the gods,
ratherthana trafficwithmen.'
Vernantshows that the statusenjoyedby craftsmenchanged;from beingsemidivinefiguresin the 8thcenturyB.C. theybecamecitizensof inferiorstatusby the 5th
of thecraftsmenandof his artformedpart
century.Thisevolutionin representations
of the evolutionof the citytowardsdemocracy,withthe aristocracylosinga largepart
of its power, leadingto the disappearanceof the luxurycraftsmenwho had been
dependentupon them. The status of the craftsmanchangedas he took up a new
functionwithina new society. Agricultureitself, whichhad been celebratedin the
earlyepochsof the city'shistoryas the educationof the citizen,becamelittleby little
an occupationunworthyof freemen, andwhicha citizencouldconsignto his slaves,
limitinghimselfto the givingof ordersto an overseerhiredto watchoverthem.The
of agriculture
andcraftsmanship,
evolutionof representations
andthetransformation

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

HistoryWorkshopJournal

of the statusof those engagedin them, werelinkedto the evolutionof the ancient
economytowardsan evermoreintenseuse of slavesand servilelabour.
Vernant'sanalysismakesanotherimportantpoint:the makingof an objectwas
not conceivedin antiquityas a transformationof nature.Theact of making(poiesis)
wasa formof movement(kineses)whichembodieda form(eidos)in a materialopaque
to the spirit.Thisactivitycalledupona capacitywithinthe individualwhichhe putto
use in his techne,an ensembleof secretprocesses.Now the form(eidos)of an object
wasdefinedby its use, andits utilitywasdefinedin turnby a need.Thecraftsmanwas
thus doubly dependentupon the consumer.He worked for him, and it was the
consumerwho understoodthe object'sessencein expressingthe needwhichled to its
beingmade. For a Greek,the necessarycauseof an objectwas not the artisan,who
figuredonly as the instrumentalcause.The necessaryor finalcausewas beyondthe
objectandthe artisanas well, in the formwhichwasat onceits essenceandpurpose,
thatis, its formal,necessaryand finalcause.Now the formandthe knowledgeof the
formwerein the mindof the consumer,not in the makerof the object.Accordingto
Vernant'sapt expression,in termsof social meaningthe Greekartisanwas not a
producer.Theactof makingsomethingwasnot productivein itself.Inthismentaland
socialsystemhumanbeingswerenot awareof acting(pratein,praxis)whentheymade
things,butratherwhentheyusedthem. 'Therealproblemof action.. . wasnot in the
makingof objects or the transformationof nature;it was in the controlof other
humanbeings,in defeatingand dominatingthem. The highestformsof praxiswas
politics,the activityof freemen, membersof a community,a citywhichcreatedthem
and whichtheyin turnworkedto perpetuate.'
One mightsay that the only activityworthyof a free man was politicalactivity,
whichimpliedleisureandseparationfrommanuallabour.It is interestingto recallthat
in Rome the citizenenjoyedotium (leisure)while those who had to work lived by
negotiumfrom nec-otium(withoutleisure)which later was transformedinto the
Frenchwordfor trade,negoce.
When,whereandhow didthe westernideathatworktransformsbothhumanand
non-humannaturebegin to take shape?Whendid this idea begin to supplantthe
traditionalnotionof manualworkas beingbaseand unworthyof a freeman?These
arethe questionswhichhistoriansand anthropologistscould beginto ask, and their
answerswouldhaverelevancebeyondthe past.
b. AncientChina
In a bookdueout soon, MichelCartiertriesto reconstitutethewayin whichworkwas
conceivedin ancientChinathroughthe worksof the philosopherMencius.As among
the ancientGreeks,the Chinesepeasantsweresoldiersbut theydid not livein the city
anddid not enjoyrightsof citizenship.Thesocialhierarchydistinguisheda governing
class,theshih, officers,administrators
andjudgeswho ruledwitha sovereignat their
head, a son of the gods, both lordof agricultureand warriorchief;beneaththisclass
therewerethe nung, peasantsoldierswhose manuallabourproducedthe food and
wealthof the kingdom;andbeneaththemthe kung,theartisans;andfinally,themost
despisedgroup, the lowest of the free men, the chang or merchants.Now in the
Chineselanguageit seemsthatthe sametermlao is usedboth for the activitiesof the
governorswho workwiththeirheadsand the peasantswho workwiththeirhandsin
agricultureand on the field of battle.Lao designatedboth intellectualand manual
work,in contrastto westernthought.It referredto all suchactivityas laboriousand

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WorkanditsRepresentations

173

difficult but honourable.In contrast,the work of artisansand merchantswas not

consideredas workin the sense of lao, but in the senseof ch'in, meaningactivities
whichdemandedonly skill and patience,creatingartificialgoods whichbroughtno
particularmeritto those who performedthem.
It is interestingthat all femaleactivitieswereconsideredas ch'in, that is without
merit,like the work of artisansand traders.One wonderswhat the formationof a
'working'classmustmeanin Chinatoday, if in ancientand medievaltimesartisanal
and industriallabourwererepresentedas dishonourableactivitieswhencomparedto
agriculturaland peasantlabour.
c. TheMaengeof New Guinea
In an articlewhichcomplementsthe workof Vernant,MichelPanoff has shownhow
the Maenge,an agriculturalpeoplelivingtodayin New Britain,use threeverbswith
differentconnotationsto designatewhatwewouldcallagricultural
labour:legewhich
meansto 'order'or 'balance'relations;kuma,whichmeansto 'expendenergy'in a
useful way; and vai whichmeansto do what is necessaryto achievea determinate
objectiveand, morebroadly,waysof acting,customs.To cultivatethe earth,to grow
arrow-root,to raisea good gardenfor the Maengeis not to 'produce'somethingor to
'transform'nature.It is an actionconceivedof in termsof theintersectionof thethree
semanticfields describedabove. Now what determinesmeaningamongthese three
differentlevelsis the ideathatraisingplantsis makingan exchangewiththe ancestors
and with the gods. It is not transformingmatter, but rather exchangingand
maintainingby meansof exchangea fundamentalconnectionwiththeinvisibleforces
of naturewhich includethe still living dead and the all-powerfulgods. Whenthe
Maengeareworkingon thebeauty,theorder,eventhe fragranceof theirgardens,they
areaccumulatingmarksof honourlikethe ancientGreeksand the Chinesepeasants.
Theyinterpretthe abundanceor povertyof theirharvestsas signsof their'virtue',a
capacitywhichtheirancestorsand theirgods have given them to honourthem and
themselves.
Whatthendidthe Maengethinkwhena colonialpowerforcedthemto buildroads
or offeredthem 'work'for moneyin a cocoa or rubberplantationownedby whites
whohadinvadedtheirisland?Howdidtheirrepresentations
of traditionalagricultural
labourenablethem to becomeawareof their exploitationin theirnew productive
activity,in its new social formof wagelabour?
Thesethreeexamplestakenat a distancefromus, in thepast, in the antipodesand
in the presentought not to give us the impressionthat the study of work and its
representationsshould be confinedto the exoticismof past or present.Clearlyan
anthropologyof industrialor peasantwork in our societiesought to be developed
usingthe samemethodsof participant-observation
usedin Africaor in New Guinea.
Whatsenseof himselfandof hisworkwouldwe findin a Bretonworkerwhoyesterday
was a peasantand who still probablyaddsto his wageby continuingto worka small
allotment?How does he thinkof himself,as a peasantor as a worker?
Today, in capitalistsocieties,it seemslikely that therewill soon be no possible
passagefrom the peasantryto the workingclass. The countrysideis no longerthe
reservoirof the workingclassthatit was in the 18thand 19thcenturies.Wagelabour
from now on is beingreproducedamonga populationwhichhas been workingfor
wagesfor generations.But today wagelabouris losingor has alreadylost all of the
positiveaspectswhichit stillhadin a periodwhenindustrialandurbanworkerscould

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

HistoryWorkshopJournal

contrastit, consciouslyor unconsciously,withthe constraintsof peasantlabourand

the familyand communalformsof servitudewhichweighedon the freedomof the
individual.Manuallabourseemsto be valuedless and less by workersthemselves,in
part because there is scarcelya trace left of that autonomywhich peasantsand
craftsmenusedto enjoy,butalsobecausemanuallabouris morevisiblythananywhere
else the nexus of relationsof subordinationand exploitationwhich many social
groups,the youngamongothers,are resisting.Work,manualor otherwise,is more
and more being pushedto the peripheryof personalexistence,hasteninga process
whichwas widelyrecognizedand denouncedeven in the 19thcentury.Beyondthe
individuallevel, work has been displacedfrom its centralrole in social relationsin
general. It is still unclear what will be the consequencesof this profound
transformationand displacementin the role of work.
MichaelIgnatieff
Translation:

4ii

A People and a Proletariat

Essays in the History of Wales 1780-1980

edited by David Smith
There is a crisis of Ulsh national identity.Itcan only be
understood by an explanation of the two hundred years that have
made modem Wales:a history of industrialand urbangrowth, and
latterly,of decline; of changing pattems of community and belief;
and of continuous self-definition within, and against, British
history and culture.
The authors, David Smith, Gwyn Williams,leuan Gwynedd Jones,
Brian Davies, L.J. Williams, David Jenkins, Emlyn Shemngton,
Peter Stead, Hywel Francis, KimHowells and MerfynJones are
members of The Society for the Study of WalshLabourHistory,
Llafur.
0 86104 321 9 ?4.95 pbk 0 86104 322 7 E10.00hbk
ii

Literacyand Revolution:the Pedagogy of PauloFreire

edited by Robert Mackie

A critical
assesment of Freire'sworkto promoteworldwide literacyas a
vital key to revolutionarysocial change. Wheredoes he come from? How
his
do
metoods work? Has he successfully synthesised the Influenceof
conflicting Intellectualcurrents- academic liberalism,catholic
radicalism, marxismand existentialism?
0 86104 330 8 ?3.50

This content downloaded from 128.122.149.145 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions