and the Challenge of Constructing a Positive Identity” A Critical Analysis

Ashforth and Kreiner’s“’How Can You Do It?’: Dirty Workand the Challenge of Constructing a Positive Identity”A Critical AnalysisBlake E. Ashforth and Glen E. KreinerStacy J. ChidausheSpring 2006SOC 713Dr. Donald ArwoodAshforth and Kreiner’s “’How Can You Do It?’: Dirty Work and the Challenge of Constructing a Positive Identity”: A Critical Analysis------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ashforth, Blake E. and Glen E. Kreiner. 1999. “’How Can You Do It?’: Dirty Work and the Challenge of Constructing a Positive Identity,” The Academy of Management Review 24(3): 413-434.Garbage collectors. Sanitation workers. Coal miners. Oil drillers. Funeral home directors. All seem to share a common trait; they are what Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) would call “dirty workers”, a term originally coined by Everett Hughes (1958) to refer to those individuals who perform tasks and/or occupations that are frequently perceived as disgusting or degrading. Performing these tasks, in turn, leads to stigmatization of these individuals as dirty themselves, personifying the dirty work that they perform. Ashforth and Kreiner, in their article “’How Can You Do It?’: Dirty Work and the Challenge of Constructing a Positive Identity”, attempt to investigate the relationship between society’s stigmatization of these “dirty workers” and the surprisingly positive self-identity these workers possess – not the negative self-image one might expect of such stigmatized groups, but a self-identity and solidarity that refutes society’s stigmatization of the roles they perform.Dirty work is a necessity; it is essential for societies to function adequately. This work, however, is frequently belittled and maligned. Dirty workers act on society’s behalf, performing these undesirable, albeit necessary, tasks, and society returns the favor by then stigmatizing these groups as “dirty workers”. Such stigmatization would seem to make construction of a positive self-identity nearly impossible for these individuals; however, a substantial amount of qualitative research indicates that these “dirty workers” possess a great deal of high occupational esteem and pride. It is the question of how these “dirty workers” acquire and maintain this sense of pride and occupational esteem that Ashforth and Kreiner attempt to answer in this article.Article SummaryBecause they propose that “the stigma of dirty work is typically a group-level issue” (p.414), Ashforth and Kreiner focus their discussion on the occupation or workgroup level, rather than on the individual level, and refer to dirty workers collectively. Their article is composed of seven distinct sections, beginning with a section detailing what is actually meant by “dirty work” and the nature of it. Ashforth and Kreiner begin by introducing the reader to Everett C. Hughes’ definition of “dirty work” - i.e. “tasks that are ‘physically, socially, or morally’ (Hughes, 1958) tainted” – but attempt to build on this definition by offering two specific criteria for each of Hughes’ three forms of taint, as listed in Table 1:Hughes’ OriginalClassifications of TaintAshforth and Kreiner’s Typology of Specifying Criteria for the Classification of TaintPhysical Taint o Occupation is directly associated with garbage, death, effluent, etc. (e.g.butcher, janitor, exterminator, funeral director, etc.), oro Occupation is thought to be performed under particularly noxious or dangerous conditions (e.g. miner, firefighter, dentist, etc.)Social Taint o Occupation involves regular contact with stigmatized groups (e.g. prison guards, AIDS worker, social worker, etc.), oro Occupation in which worker appears to serve others (e.g. shoe shiner, maid, etc.)Moral Taint o Occupation is regarded as sinful or of questionable virtue (e.g. exotic dancer, tattoo artist, etc.), oro Occupation in which the worker is thought to use deceptive practices or that confronts norms of civility (e.g. bill collector, telemarketer, privateinvestigator, etc.)Table 1. Ashforth and Kreiner’s Typology of Specifying Criteria for the Classification of Taint.Moreover, the authors assign two important stipulations to this typology: 1) “dirtiness” is a social construction - work is not dirty unless it is believed to be dirty by society - and 2) the common distinction of dirty jobs is not the job characteristics themselves, but society’s overall abhorrence to them – they evoke the same repulsed reaction (for example, one might ask “howcan you do it?” to a funeral director just as one might ask the same question of a prison guard, although their jobs share few, if any, common characteristics).The common denominator linking all of these jobs is, according to Ashforth and Kreiner, occupational prestige, a measure of status, power, quality of work, education, and income; it represents societal values of particular occupations and thereby greatly affects the social construction of these types of work. An adaptation of Ashforth and Kreiner’s classification of taint and occupational prestige is found in Table 2:Occupational PrestigeTaint Classification Relatively Low Relatively High Physical Taint Butcher, Miner Funeral Director, DentistSocial Taint Prison guard, Shoe Shiner Social WorkerMoral Taint Exotic dancer, Bill collector Casino manager, Police interrogatorTable 2. Occupational prestige as a factor in the classification of dirty work occupations. Adapted from Ashforth and Kreiner (1999).The authors point out that it is not the individual characteristics of the worker himself that society finds unappealing, but the nature of the work that the individual performs; the stigmatization of the dirty work is thus projected on to the worker, although society is most often grateful for the work that these individuals perform.Ashforth and Kreiner begin their second section of the article by introducing the reader to the challenges faced by dirty workers in constructing an esteem-enhancing identity. The authors briefly cite research on social identity theory and the importance of self-definition, referring to Tajfel & Turner’s (1986) argument that the social identities of individuals are vital to their self-esteem. Through the perceptions of others, people begin to see themselves in a particular light,therefore social validation works to improve self-definitions and self-esteem. Because many individuals tend to define themselves in terms of their occupational identity, the stigmatization of dirty work occupations makes social validation extremely difficult, therefore one would quite likely believe that establishing a positive self-image would be rather difficult for dirty workers. From this concept, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) derive what they denote as their first proposition:Proposition 1: “The greater the salience of social perceptions of dirtiness to the dirty workers, the weaker the identification of dirty workers with theirwork role will be.”Ashforth and Kreiner’s third section focuses on the stigma of dirty work and its capacity to foster a widely-shared and deeply-held occupational or workgroup culture. They purport that, because occupational membership is the reason for the presumed “dirtiness” (not personal characteristics of the individual), the occupational workgroup tends to respond to their stigmatization as a whole; they do so through the emergence of strong workgroup cultures. Three prerequisites are included in the formation of these cultures: 1) the occupation to the group creates a common identity, and the negative stereotypes assigned to it by societal members foster a unique salience to the occupation by group members; 2) the perception of a “shared threat”, frustrated by the desire for social validation, aids in fostering cohesion among the group; and 3) an “us vs. them” mentality, drawing a proverbial boundary around their occupational or work group and aggravating their sense of difference and separation from others. Ashforth and Kreiner argue, therefore, that the stigmatization of dirty work simultaneously undermines the status of certain occupations while, at the same time, aids in the development of strong occupational cultures. The exception to this rule occurs, however, when physical isolation, highturnover, and/or interpersonal competition for rewards inhibit group formation. From this discussion, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) draw two additional propositions:Proposition 2a: “The greater the salience of social perceptions of dirtiness, thestronger the culture of the relevant occupation or workgroup will be.”Proposition 2b: “However, the culture of the relevant occupation or workgroup may be weakened to the extent that individuals are physically isolated,turnover is high, and the reward structure encourages competitionbetween individuals.”The fourth section of Ashforth and Kreiner’s article addresses how dirty workers recast their work in a positive light via occupational ideologies; these ideologies moderate the impact of stigmatization through three processes: reframing, recalibrating, and refocusing the meaning of dirt. The authors define occupational ideologies as “systems of beliefs that provide a means of interpreting and understanding what the occupation does and why it matters.” (p. 421) In terms of dirty work occupations, these ideologies attempt to serve as a “rallying point” for the workgroup, accentuating its positive value to replace the negative stigmatization assigned to it by society. Three techniques are proposed by Ashforth and Kreiner to transform the negative meaning assigned to the stigmatized work, primarily be attempting to extinguish negative attributions while simultaneously creating positive ones; these techniques include: 1) reframing, a process of transforming the meaning assigned to a stigmatized occupation by infusing it with positive value and neutralizing the negative values previously assigned; 2) recalibrating, a process of adjusting the standards by which work is deemed “dirty” or not, thereby making a large, undesirable aspect of an occupation smaller, and vice versa, magnifying an occupation’s redeeming qualities; and 3) refocusing, a process by which the center of attention is shifted to the non-stigmatized aspects of the occupation, overlooking those aspects that are stigmatized. These techniques are not mutually exclusive and can be used simultaneously in many dirty workoccupations. Ashforth and Kreiner indicate, however, that reframing is the technique most likely to be successful in combating the negative stereotypes associated with dirty work and fostering work role identification, but it requires a stronger occupational or workgroup culture than the techniques of refocusing and/or recalibrating. Recalibrating is of particular usefulness in situations where an occupational or workgroup culture is not strong enough to successfully sustain reframing; refocusing is viewed as somewhat of a “last resort”, so to speak, as it is most effective when neither reframing nor refocusing are tenable options. From this discussion, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) deduce three additional propositions:Proposition 3: “The stronger the culture of the dirty work occupation orworkgroup, the greater the use of ideological reframing, recalibrating,and refocusing will be.”Proposition 4a: “The greater the use of ideological reframing, recalibrating, and refocusing, the stronger the identification of dirty workers with their workrole will be.”Proposition 4b: “Reframing will be most strongly associated with identification, followed by reframing and then refocusing.”The fifth section of Ashforth and Kreiner’s article addresses various practices by which impact of stigma is moderated by dirty workers. The primary process by which societal perceptions of “dirtiness” are moderated and rendered less salient is that of social weighting. The authors point out that, although dirty workers have internalized their occupational ideologies, outsiders still hold to those stereotypical beliefs about dirty work; thus, dirty workers are often justifiably concerned about their relationships with those outside of their own occupation, and it is to these relationships that they render social weighting practices.Social weighting practices, and the subsequent differentiation of outsiders, are of three types: 1) condemning the condemners, a process by which the motives, character, knowledgeor authority of outsiders is rendered illegitimate, thereby enabling dirty workers to dismiss the derogatory perceptions of outsiders; 2) supporting the supporters, a process by which dirty workers assign more credibility and legitimacy to those outsiders who view their work in a positive light; and 3) selective social comparisons, a process by which dirty workers favor downward social comparisons to other stigmatized groups. Ashforth and Kreiner discuss the importance of social comparison theory in regard to these selective social comparisons, noting that downward social comparisons are associated with self-esteem and can prevent damage to a vulnerable and quite fragile ego. Dirty workers can thereby moderate the salience of societal perceptions of their occupations through selective usage of social weighting practices. From this discussion, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) draw several propositions:Proposition 5: “The stronger the culture of the dirty work occupation orworkgroup, the greater the use of social weighting will be (viadifferentiation of outsiders through condemning condemners andsupporting supporters, and via selective social comparisons).”Proposition 6: “Social weighting moderates the association between the salience of social perceptions of dirtiness and work role identification, such thatthe association is weakened by the use of social weighting.”Proposition 7: “Social weighting is directly and positively associated with work role identification (by focusing on favorable social referents andcomparisons).”Moreover, Ashforth and Kreiner propose a reciprocal relationship between these social weighting procedures and the practices of reframing, recalibrating, and refocusing discussed previously. For instance, condemning the condemners and supporting the supporters work together to reinforce the occupational ideologies of dirty workers. With this in mind, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) submit their eighth proposition:Proposition 8: “There is a reciprocal, positive relationship between the use ofthe ideological techniques and social weighting.”The sixth section of Ashforth and Kreiner’s work addresses the socialization of newcomers to dirty worker professions and the changing meaning and salience of dirty work over time. Newcomers to any occupation undergo the process of “sensemaking” – attempting to understand the realities of their new work environment and creating positive social identities. For newcomers to dirty work occupations, however, this process is even more challenging; these newcomers are aware of the stigmatized aspects of their new occupations, and therefore must come to terms with those beliefs and stereotypes. Ashforth and Kreiner emphasize the importance of ideology in acting as a bridge for these newcomers transitioning into dirty work occupations; this process is, in turn, enhanced and facilitated by various tools of symbolic management: stories, rituals, uniforms, titles, physical artifacts, jargon, etc. Aided by this bridge, newcomers are socialized into their new occupations and are eventually able to internalize the occupational ideology; the impact of stigma is thus mediated substantially.Over time, a larger proportion of dirty workers are able to identify with their occupational roles, thus increasingly affirming the occupational ideology; this, in turn, leads to more and more members identifying with their occupational role – a continuous and ever-growing cycle. Because the stigma of dirty work is especially amplified within society, the culture of dirty workers is perpetuated and made even stronger, creating higher identification and collective esteem among dirty workers. However, dirty workers themselves are also a part of society at large, and therefore are likely to retain at least a limited amount of ambivalence about their occupations. Work role identification among dirty workers thus fluctuates as situations change, particularly when specific circumstances or events arise to temporarily overwhelm occupational or workgroup defense mechanisms (i.e. ideological techniques and social weighting). From this discussion, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) deduce their ninth and final proposition:Proposition 9: “Given the negative association posited in Proposition 1(between salience and identification) and the sequence of positive associationsposited in Propositions 2-8 (involving culture, ideology, social weighting,and identification), most dirty workers will be somewhat ambivalent abouttheir work role; specifically, at those times when social perceptions areacutely salient, work role identification will be lower (via Proposition 1),and when social perceptions are not acutely salient, identification will behigher (via Propositions 2-8).”In concluding their discussion, Ashforth and Kreiner include several implications for future research and practice. The authors purport that this article offers two major theoretical contributions: 1) articulation of Hughes’ original work on the nature and types of dirty work, and 2) an analysis of how dirty workers – and/or occupational or workgroup members in general – deal with the attribution of taint. This analysis has important implications for what the authors refer to as “taint management”, which is of particular importance in identity construction among stigmatized occupations. Ashforth and Kreiner further suggest that the concepts included in this article may have promising insight into four future research areas: 1) in analyzing the dysfunctions of dirty work cultures, 2) in analyzing what impact dirty work ideologies have on external legitimacy, 3) in investigating individual differences among dirty workers, and 4) in analyzing the differentiation between various forms of taint and between low- and high-prestige occupations.A summary of Ashforth and Kreiner’s argument is as follows: An increased salience of dirt causes an increased threat to a positive self identity; this increases the likelihood that a strong workgroup or occupational culture will emerge to combat this threat. As dirty work increasingly defines the work role, workgroup or occupational group members will increasingly attempt to redefine the dirty work.Theoretical ImplicationsAn initial reading of Ashforth and Kreiner’s article lends itself to the inclinations of several different theoretical perspectives, most notably that of symbolic interactionism. However, the authors also touch on the basic premises of phenomenology as well as social control theory via the incorporation of Sykes and Matza’s theory of neutralization.Symbolic InteractionismAccording to Wallace and Wolf (2006), symbolic interactionism was a term coined by Herbert Blumer to explain that social psychologists’ view of human behavior was primarily concerned with the individual’s social development and that “its central task was to study how the individual develops socially as a result of participating in group life.” (198) Blumer identified the core of symbolic interactionism to be the common set of symbols and understanding utilized by people in a particular group; symbolic interactionism is also concerned with the relationship that exists between an individual’s own internal thoughts and emotions and the social behavior he or she projects, joint action, and the creation of the self through social interaction. Moreover, symbolic interactionist W.I. Thomas suggested that those situations people perceive to be real are real in their consequences, thus stressing the importance of the individual’s definition of the situation.Ashforth and Kreiner’s discussion of occupational or workgroup cultures, and accompanying occupational ideologies, is primarily indicative of the tenets of symbolic interactionism. Dirty workers define their situation by creating their own cultures and by recasting their work in a positive light through the creation of occupational ideologies. The strength of these cultures builds upon interaction among workgroup members, thereby alsocreating an increased level of self-esteem and occupational pride. This occurs throughout the socialization process of these dirty workers, and, over time, a larger number are able to identify with their occupational roles. As Krause (1971) indicates, this socialization process is dialectical – it involves the acceptance of the individual by the group, but it also involves the acceptance of the values, standards, and rules of the group by the individual. The socialization process of dirty workers is extremely important to the formation of workgroup cultures and accompanying occupational ideologies, and it involves many different processes which can be further understood via the ideas of several sociological theorists. Within the confines of symbolic interactionism, Ashforth and Kreiner draw extensively upon the work of one theorist in particular: Erving Goffman.GoffmanThe theoretical concepts put forth by Erving Goffman are probably the most obvious to detect in Ashforth and Kreiner’s analysis – first and foremost, the concept of stigma.Goffman himself defined stigma as “an attribute that is deeply discrediting…[reducing the bearer] from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one.” (Goffman, 1963, p.3) As the authors point out, society abhors the idea of “dirt” and thus equates those who handle the unseemly task of dealing with dirt as dirty themselves - hence, the term “dirty workers”. These individuals thus belong to a stigmatized group within society and can be considered – in Goffman’s terms – “discredited” (Goffman 1963, p. 4); these discredited workers would generally possess negative self-esteem. Ashforth and Kreiner suggest, however, that in the case of dirty workers, the opposite is the case – because of the workgroup cultures and occupational ideologies they create, they do not possess these low levels of esteem. Goffman (1961) alsoaddressed the importance of the relationship between work and identity in his discussion of role distance. Work that is fulfilling to an individual can be seen as a source of self-definition and an expression of self; work that is stigmatized or unfulfilling, however, has just the opposite effect – it serves as a threat to the worker’s dignity and the worker will therefore distance himself from his work role. Thus, role distance allows the worker to perform his necessary occupational duties while preventing him from being defined by it.Another idea borrowed from Goffman in the authors’ analysis is that of dramaturgical analysis – a means of studying interaction. This concept is likely to be most helpful in understanding the methods utilized by dirty workers in coping with the stresses and conflicts of their stigmatized professions. Goffman’s “front stage” involves impression management: how an individual manages the impressions of others in day-to-day interactions; the “back stage” is the setting in which the individual prepares and practices for this impression management. Goffman also addresses the importance of “appearance” and “manner” in the actor’s “personal front”. The “personal front” is that aspect of the dramaturgical performance which involves what Goffman terms “expressive equipment”; included in this expressive equipment are the actor’s “appearance” (i.e. those items from which the audience can glean the actor’s social status) and his “manner” (i.e. what might be termed as an “attitude” in today’s society – haughty and aggressive versus quiet and shy). (Goffman 1959, p. 24) Thus, through the successful use of dramaturgy, dirty workers practice what might be termed “taint management”, managing societal impressions and successfully overcoming the stigma of being a dirty worker.Finally, dirty workers participate in what Ashforth and Kreiner describe as reframing, a concept clearly borrowed from Goffman’s concept of frame analysis. Through reframing, dirty workers are able to define their occupational roles via their own cultural scripts, allowing them tochange the way they perceive their work; the infuse their work with positive value in order to transform it into a “badge of honor” (p. 421) and/or they neutralize the negative value of the stigma using various neutralization techniques. These neutralization techniques can be found at the core of Gresham Sykes & David Matza’s Neutralization Theory.Sykes & Matza’s Neutralization TheoryIn studying the reason why some delinquents tend to drift in and out of delinquency, Sykes & Matza discovered that, although these delinquents held the same values as beliefs as law-abiding individuals within society, they developed various techniques by which to temporarily “neutralize” those values and drift back and forth between legal and illegal behaviors; these techniques include denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemning the condemners, and appealing to higher loyalties. (Curran & Renzetti, 2001) In their discussion of social weighting techniques, Ashforth and Kreiner note that dirty workers also utilize neutralization techniques in their differentiation of outsiders, particularly the technique of condemning the condemners (borrowed directly from Sykes & Matza) and the technique of supporting the supporters (similar to Sykes & Matza’s concept of appealing to higher loyalties). Through the use of these techniques, dirty workers are thus able to neutralize and/or moderate the impact of stigma.PhenomenologyIn addition to the use of symbolic interactionist concepts, Ashforth and Kreiner touch on the basic concepts of phenomenology, as well as Berger and Luckmann’s social construction of reality.Phenomenology suggests that we set aside what we have come to know as cultural norms and expectations and “assume the role of a stranger” (Wallace and Wolf, p. 262); in doing so, we are able to redefine situations and create new belief systems. This is a valuable concept in understanding the formation of occupational ideologies. As Ashforth and Kreiner remind us, dirty workers were also socialized into negative beliefs about “dirt”, and they must strive to overcome – or “bracket” – these past beliefs in order to form a new occupational ideology.Berger and Luckmann’s phenomenological analysis draws from the subjective, everyday perceptions of the individual. They draw upon Schutz’s original attempt to explain the subjectivity of the individual’s definition of the situation, but define reality construction as “the process whereby people continuously create, through their actions and interactions, a shared reality that is experienced as objectively factual and objectively meaningful” (Wallace & Wolf, p. 285); in short, they ask how subjective meanings become objective facts. Through the three processes of reality construction proposed by Berger and Luckmann – externalization (the idea that individuals create society), objectivation (the idea that society is an objective reality external to the individuals within it), and internalization (the acceptance of this reality within the subjective conscious of the individual) – dirty workers are able to recreate their own reality through the creation of strong workgroup or occupational cultures and subsequent occupational ideologies.Ashforth and Kreiner do draw slightly upon aspects of other sociological perspectives in this article, including, but not limited to, critical theory, Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology, and Stryker’s symbolic interactionism. In the interest of brevity, however, a detailed discussion of these perspectives is not parsimonious here.。