In contemporary times, Riesman points to the Rockefellers and their many philanthropic endeavors as evidence of a powerful moral compass – though once again we need to remember that the original source of the Rockefeller wealth came from business decisions that were based minimally on any sense of morality or concern for societal welfare. Does philanthropy ever erase the abuse of workers? Is it ever acceptable to exchange welfare for wages? When we provide charity to those we have abused, then we remain in control. The recipients of our charity remain helpless and alienated from the products of their work—whether they are oil refinery workers, service station attendants, or those (like the women we studied) who are working in mills and restaurants.
It is perhaps most telling that Riesman observed in 1954, that “men [at the present time] who compete primarily for wealth are relatively harmless as compared with men who compete primarily for power.” (Riesman, 1954, p. 16) These considerations regarding individualism could have profound implications regarding the world in which women worked during the second half of the 20th Century and now work during the first half of the 21st Century. Might an issue of power rather than economics lead to conditions where women are still being discriminated against regarding wages and upward mobility?
The following cries might have been heard in the C-Suites of the last 75 years:
What if these women actually move up in the ranks of business and begin to control things? We can’t let this happen!!
If we give women a taste of power, then they might want more!
Perhaps power is not only justified by individualism. It might also be engaged to ensure that the locus of control is external when it comes to the work and life of women.
