IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijmcph/v4y2010i3-4p326-342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An indivisible union? Assessing the marriage of Hochschild's emotional labour concept and labour process theory

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Brook

Abstract

Labour process theory (LPT) has progressively but critically adopted Hochschild's emotional labour theory, principally for analysis of service work. However, until recently there has been little detailed assessment from within the LPT tradition of emotional labour's theoretical roots, structure and overall compatibility. This article critically assesses contemporary debates within LPT on the compatibility of Hochschild's theory. It argues that while she makes foundational use of Marx's theory of labour power, she inadequately captures the contradictory nature of employment relations, the social basis of workplace emotions and the incompleteness of management control. This is principally due to her tendency to focus on the harm to individuals of emotional labour via her individualised concepts of 'transmutation of feelings', 'surface acting and deep acting'. For Hochschild's theory to be compatible, it requires a thorough dialectical understanding of workplace emotions and their management as contradictory social phenomena, which workers experience individually and collectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Brook, 2010. "An indivisible union? Assessing the marriage of Hochschild's emotional labour concept and labour process theory," International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(3/4), pages 326-342.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijmcph:v:4:y:2010:i:3/4:p:326-342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=37816
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijmcph:v:4:y:2010:i:3/4:p:326-342. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=90 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.