IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v36y2022i5p816-840.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alienation Is Not ‘Bullshit’: An Empirical Critique of Graeber’s Theory of BS Jobs

Author

Listed:
  • Magdalena Soffia

    (University of Cambridge, UK)

  • Alex J Wood

    (University of Birmingham, UK)

  • Brendan Burchell

    (University of Cambridge, UK)

Abstract

David Graeber’s ‘bullshit jobs theory’ has generated a great deal of academic and public interest. This theory holds that a large and rapidly increasing number of workers are undertaking jobs that they themselves recognise as being useless and of no social value. Despite generating clear testable hypotheses, this theory is not based on robust empirical research. We, therefore, use representative data from the EU to test five of its core hypotheses. Although we find that the perception of doing useless work is strongly associated with poor wellbeing, our findings contradict the main propositions of Graeber’s theory. The proportion of employees describing their jobs as useless is low and declining and bears little relationship to Graeber’s predictions. Marx’s concept of alienation and a ‘Work Relations’ approach provide inspiration for an alternative account that highlights poor management and toxic workplace environments in explaining why workers perceive paid work as useless.

Suggested Citation

  • Magdalena Soffia & Alex J Wood & Brendan Burchell, 2022. "Alienation Is Not ‘Bullshit’: An Empirical Critique of Graeber’s Theory of BS Jobs," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 36(5), pages 816-840, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:36:y:2022:i:5:p:816-840
    DOI: 10.1177/09500170211015067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09500170211015067
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09500170211015067?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:woemps:v:36:y:2022:i:5:p:816-840. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    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.