The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism (Hardcover)

by Richard Sennett (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
In the brave new world of the "flexible" corporation, Richard Sennett observes, workers at all levels are regarded as wholly disposable, and they have responded in kind, ceasing to think in terms of any long-term relationship with the organizations they work for. This, he argues, has tremendous negative consequences for workers' emotional and psychological well-being. Even in menial jobs, we extract much of our self-image from the idea of a "career"--a life narrative rendered intelligible by specific loyalties, which is to some degree self-invented but also in some respects predictable. Innovations like "flextime" and bureaucratic "de-layering" seem to promise more freedom to define one's career, but in fact they create jobs in which there's less freedom than ever to be had. The Corrosion of Character is a short, anecdotal book, and while one might wish that it included a discussion of the social and psychological costs of the sheer increase of work time in the average worker's week, Sennett has created a pithy, disturbing picture of the cost of the corporate world's much-vaunted new efficiencies. --Richard Farr

From Publishers Weekly
The American company today ostensibly offers a more humane environment than in the era of "Fordism," when work on the assembly line had a deadening, routine character. However, Sennett, professor of sociology at New York University and the London School of Economics, believes this improvement is illusory. His argument is that the modern workplaceAwith its emphasis on short-term, episodic labor; projects and flexibilityAdoes not allow people to shape their experiences or build a coherent narrative of their lives. Most important, the new adaptability in business militates against the formation of character. Character depends on stability for virtues such as loyalty, trust, commitment and mutual helpfulness to develop. And rather than giving workers greater freedom, the flexibility model allows another kind of power to be imposed from the top: from 1980 to 1995, between 13 million and 39 million workers became unemployed owing to downsizing. Even flextime contributes to the fragmentation and disorder, and teamwork only emphasizes "mutual responsiveness rather than personal validation." Sennett makes his case in well-crafted prose with references not just to luminaries such as Adam Smith, Diderot, Nietzsche and Rousseau, but to the immediate experiences of blue-collar workers and folks in bakery shops and bars. He challenges the reader to decide whether the flexibility of modern capitalism offers a better context for personal growth or is merely a fresh form of oppression.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 176 pages
• Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition (October 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0393046788
• ISBN-13: 978-0393046786
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.7 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars See all reviews (32 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #858,613 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An Excellent Sociological Critique of the New Capitalism., October 7, 1999

By	Peter J. Cassimatis, Professor emeritus of ec... (Eastchester, New York) - See all my reviews

Amidst the cacophony about the wonders of globalization and the new millennium's everlasting prosperity and bull market, Richard Sennett has the intellectual courage to present some of the negative consequences of global capitalism on a vast number of workers whose skills and dedication the economy and markets depend upon. Jobs are replaced by "projects" and "fields of work" and the moto for organizing working time is "no long-term". As workers are forced to go from one job to another, the new capitalism increases the risk of the workers in choosing employment, while it robs them of the sense of security enjoyed previously and, in Sennett's words, corrodes their character. The book covers the trends and nuances of the new capitalism and with many examples illustrates the decline of job security of both workers and managers, the fact that the fastest growing sector of the labor force is those working on temporary jobs, often called "permatemps", and that the frequent turnover in employment increases the risk of choosing a career or even a job. Richard Sennett correctly concludes that the new order does indeed corrode the worker's character.

13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars GREAT ESSAY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF TODAY'S WORKPLACE ON AMERICA, December 3, 2000

By	David Roger Allen (Freeland, MD USA) - See all my reviews

London School Of Economic's Richard Sennett (no relation to Mack Sennett of Keystone Kops fame) has written an important and eminently readable short book (a long essay, really) about the personal consequences of work in the "new capitalism."

His book, titled THE CORROSION OF CHARACTER (1998), explains in clear and compelling terms how things have changed for the worse in the workplace, and how this has affected workers negatively.

Sennett begins by explaining how personal character is attacked by the "new capitalism". He states that routine was an evil of the old capitalism, and that in recent times, the workplace was made "flexible" by means of the restructuring of time (flextime, part time jobs, increased use of swing and graveyard type shifts, etc.). He then asserts that modern forms of labor are difficult to understand (he calls them "illegible"), and implies, persuasively, that the very murkiness of these new forms has enabled employers to victimize employees in new ways.

Author Sennett goes on to discuss the subject of risk, much ballyhooed and heavily sold as a good thing in recent times. Sennett disagrees. He states that risk-taking has become disorienting and depressing in today's world and workplace. Sennett goes on to say that the work ethic has changed for the worse, and that workers have become enmired in inevitiable and depressing failure. He describes the various ways workers caught in all this have tried unsuccessfully to cope with failure, and seems to be headed for a sad ending to his book.

However, the last chapter of THE CORROSION OF CHARACTER offers some hope. It is titled "The Dangerous Pronoun," and in it, Richard Sennett explains why community is the best remedy for the ills of work people presently suffer on such a wide and unrelieved basis (despite all the politicians' claims of how wonderful everything at present because Wall Street and its stock market are doing very well).

This is a brilliant book. Everybody should read it and encourage others to do the same. Author Ralph Keyes of Yellow Springs, Ohio, wrote a similarly brilliant book in 1972 titled WE THE LONELY PEOPLE, also calling for more, not less, community in American life. Keyes book made a big splash and started Keyes on a career as a big time author. But his book went out of print, and is now largely forgotten. This is a shame. It was Keyes' best book (and Keyes wrote many good ones thereafter).

Richard Sennett has written a wonderful book about an important subject. Only time will tell if people are intelligent enough to listen, and move appropriately to make the corrections he calls for.

16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Sennett gives an insightful and long look at changing times, May 11, 1999

By A Customer

Richard Sennett takes a very interesting look at the changing workplace and the possible links to its changes. He looks at the effects that the new workplace has taken on people's lives and their families. He gives vivid comparisons between the past generations and how character had its effect in their jobs and how today's jobs have an effect on character. Sennett doesn't just take a 90's perspective, but instead looks into the past at what the motivations and goals of the workers were centuries before. In 1972 Sennett wrote a book, along with Jonathan Cobb, called "The Hidden Injuries of Class". The book is about a man named Enrico who was a janitor. Enrico's job was both routine and not very mentally challenging. The reason that he was content with his job was because he had goals to improve the lives of his children. His vision canceled out most of the mental and physical drain that his job entailed. He also looks back at when most jobs were what he calls "routine" and what people thought of about habitual labor.

Diderot believed that routine labor was good. He thought that the repetitive actions enabled the worker to become an expert and increasingly develop their skills. He explained that in a factory if each worker were to become an expert at their individual task, that the result would be the best possible product produced at the best possible efficiency. Adam Smith had different views. He believed that routine work "deadened the mind." Sennett points out that today the world has followed Smith's ideas. Pride among the workers has dissipated. When a person starts from the bottom and works to the top they appreciate what they have earned and what they have produced. Today the goal is to skip or zoom past the earning stage. Who can get to the top the fastest is the grand prize. Loyalty between the company and the employees isn't visible anymore because many people don't look at what they can offer, but instead at what they want to receive. People's interests are with themselves and sometimes respectively so. Why would someone today have loyalties with a company if they know that they are not valued by that company? The workers know that they are simply a tool that can be replaced with the twist of a wrench. Sennett explains why people don't see the "long-term" and what some of the factors are that have influenced change.

Enrico's son Rico now has most everything that Enrico dreamed for him. He attended college, has a well paying job, and lives comfortably in a New York suburb. Enrico failed to realize that the discipline and experience that he gained, through hard work, was very necessary. By sending Rico to college with Enrico's own money never gave Rico the appreciation of attending the University. Today it is a very common occurrence for parents to pay for their children's tuition. Yet, there is little way around this dilemma. The children need to stay in school to learn so they will be ready for college. To have kids work enough to pay for college is not very realistic. Many people feel that they need to attend college to stay current with the changing times so they can find a good paying job. Technology has had a large part in these changing times. It is the leader while the businesses and companies run, dart, and leap to catch up.

Sennett recognizes that in today's workplace one must be very flexible. Companies need to be light on their feet and able to adapt to quick changes. The world economy and business techniques have changed very similar to how armies have changed. The strongest castle or the longest trench used to be huge advantages. Now all a nation needs is a nuclear weapon and they are a threat. Business is the same way in that the size of the company isn't what makes them strong, but instead the unique ideas and ability to stay afloat with the waves of change. Rico is pawn in this game. He has certain skills but they will only be useful for so long. He had to move four times in fourteen years. He realizes that his skills are only needed for a certain period of time, so he has no loyalty to his job or what he is providing. All of this leaves scars on his personal character. He finds himself feeling dumb when he tries to explain to his children about commitment. His commitment to his family is weak so for him to try and explain about this value doesn't work because it doesn't come from the heart. Commitment isn't part of a fast pace, "short-term" society.

Sennett does a terrific job at showing why people are unhappy with themselves even though they have good paying jobs. He gives evidence that money isn't what makes people happy. Enrico was a very content man for many reasons. He was very organized, he had goals, a family with whom he could spend time with, and a job that wasn't the best but paid enough so that he could support his family. I think that he successfully showed that a person has control over their own character through the decisions that they make. Sometimes people don't see that they have a choice because they are blinded by an outside controlling factor such as greed. By Andy Sweeney and Mike Duvall