Diverse sources of control
Stephanie Land was employed by a clearing service that hired her to work in many households. She didn’t have to like her work. She had to be only minimally nice to her temporary employees. Stephanie just had to do the “dirty work” each day. While Stephanie could form a thoughtful and caring relationship with some of her clients, this was not a job requirement. Furthermore, her independence ended up being a side benefit for Stephanie Land—she could write about these caring homes (and dysfunctional homes) in her best-selling book.
By contrast, many people employed in the service industry have to “like” their job. They are accountable for the smile on their face when serving their customers. These service workers have to uphold the appearance of positivity in the workplace. This requirement of positive appearance by the Harvey Girls serves up an important dimension of control that should not be overlooked. There can be an internal management of one’s heart in the life and labor of those providing services.
I can point to the work of Arlie Hochschild (1983), who wrote about how flight attendants (and other human service workers) not only learn how to serve their customers politely, but also learn how to change their own emotional state so that they will “really” like the people they are serving. At day’s end, this means that the women and men providing this customer service might be unable to trust their emotions regarding other people in their lives. They may similarly be managing these emotions. If this is the case, control of work (and life) has become subtly (and powerfully) externalized. They are now dancing someone else’s tune—and might not even be aware that this is the case. Their “heart is being managed” by an external entity in the workplace.
In sum, there might be little room for a justifiable internal locus of control when considering work lives. Those dwelling in the demanding world of work might not be in charge. The matter of happiness, achievement, aspiration, and Flow might finally have to be addressed not as a work-related issue, but rather as something with much deeper origins. We may need to take a theological perspective regarding Worth.
As human beings, we are “blessed” and “cursed” with the capacity of transcendence. We can look down upon our life. We see it without purpose or possibility. We know it will come to an end one day. Is living this meaningless life really “worth” it? Emotional costs associated with this transcendence often outweigh the emotional benefits of momentary happiness, especially when one is living in a world that does not seem to allow us much control. It is indeed existentially challenging to find gratification (let alone Flow) in doing a dance when we are never allowed to call the tune. It is hard to feel “worthy” when we are not worthy of the right to control our destiny.
Another theological perspective can be offered. Feeling “Worthy” and in charge is possible, even under difficult working-class conditions. Some of us believe they are “blessed” by a divinely based sense of life-purpose. These spiritually inspired workers believe that “God” has placed them in charge of their fate. They are obliged, in turn, to work on behalf of the greater good. For them, it is a privilege to be working with customers and/or an organization they admire. These dedicated men and women are “worth” something because they serve other “worthy” people and an organization that is “worth” being served. They managed to find joy and gratitude in their heart, which, in turn, alters the way they view and live with their work. The value and meaningfulness (“worthiness”) of work might have penetrated deeply into their mind and heart, and perhaps even into their spirit and soul. As we are about to see, this spiritually based vision of life-value and Worth was often grown in the soil of capitalism and nourished by the light of individualism.
