
The Concept Creep of ‘Emotional Labor' (2018) - agarden
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/11/arlie-hochschild-housework-isnt-emotional-labor/576637/
======
anon1m0us
This article is about a term, "Emotional Labor" being used more broadly than
the inventor of the term appreciates. She thinks it waters down the impact of
the word.

Her definition of "Emotional Labor" is most succinctly: Work performed with
the intention of creating a _feeling_. Additionally, it's important in such
roles that you manage your _own_ feelings: You might need to be nicer or less
nice in your role than you're typically comfortable with.

Her examples are social workers, teachers, flight attendants. It might also be
a clown who is paid to make kids feel happy at a party even if the clown is
really sad that day.

The inventor of the term wants to be clear that there is no gender specificity
to it and that it might be a tool used by the feminist movement to classify
work mostly done by women as emotional work because women are emotional, but
that line of thinking shuts down conversations about emotional work that apply
to all parties involved regardless of gender.

~~~
AmericanChopper
> Work performed with the intention of creating a feeling.

This sounds like a pretty pointless classification to me. Any work that
involves any form of social interaction is going to fall into that category.

~~~
PeterisP
No, there's lots of work that involves social interaction, but any feelings
created during it are an accidental _side-effect_ and not the intent or
primary goal of that work.

A waiter at a fancy restaurant interacts with customers with an intent of
creating relevant feelings and the service is a big reason why that job exists
(it's not really about delivering stuff from kitchen to the table); while a
clerk taking applications at DMV also interacts with customers, but managing
their emotions isn't part of their prescribed duties, the job is about
processing the applications.

~~~
AmericanChopper
Any form of social interaction involves this kind of ‘labor’. Some jobs more
than others, but your distinction is complete nonsense. The DMV is just a poor
example, it still involves the same ‘labor’, just arguably less, as the DMV
has little incentive to care about their customers. But this relates only to
the value the company is trying to provide, not the nature of the work.

------
klingonopera
Reading that interview leads me to assume that it must've been emotional labor
for Hochschild to keep her cool at how badly people can misinterpret it.

There's physical, mental and emotional labor. The first is pretty self-
explanatory, the second involves thinking and the third involves keeping your
emotions in check in order to complete a task.

Whenever you have to put up a fake smile, that's emotional labor. Whenever you
have to be tough, but don't want to, that too is emotional labor. If your
emotional stability (or lack of) aligns with the task, it isn't. So if you're
a flight attendant and smile without forcing it (thus it isn't a fake smile to
begin with), there's no emotional labor involved. If you're a drill sergeant
and naturally grumpy and condescending, there isn't any either.

EDIT: In the cases above, when I meant that there's no emotional labor
involved, I meant that there's no _effort_ involved. The value of the labor is
still derived from the emotions nonetheless.

~~~
anon1m0us
It's not just about managing your own emotions, but emotional labor might also
be about producing emotions in other people according to her definition.

I think that helps people expand the word's meaning, because "People feel good
when they are in a clean house."

~~~
klingonopera
Apparently so, yes, but I'd contest that evoking an emotional response in
other people is actually _mental_ labor to begin with, and correctly applying
the ideas derived thereof is then the emotional labor.

EDIT: It appears it's a two-to-Tango issue. All the cases mentioned are with
another party involved, and whether it is to incite emotion or prevent it
(i.e. e.g. hiding an aggravation as a flight attendant), the emotional work
being done is within the subject itself.

------
jrochkind1
A couple points that hit home to me:

> One thing that I read said even the work of calling the maid to clean the
> bathtub is too much. It’s burdensome. I felt there is really, in this work,
> no social-class perspective. There are many more maids than there are people
> who find it burdensome to pick up the telephone to ask them to clean your
> tub.

And:

> There seems an alienation or a disenchantment of acts that normally we
> associate with the expression of connection, love, commitment. Like “Oh,
> what a burden it is to pick out gifts for the holiday for my children.” Or
> “Oh, it’s so hard to call a photographer to do family Christmas photos, and
> then to send it to my parents.” I feel a strong need to point out that this
> isn’t inherently an alienating act. And something’s gone haywire when it is.
> It’s okay to feel alienated from the task of making a magical experience for
> your very own children. I’m not just judging that. I’m saying let’s take it
> as a symptom that something’s wrong. I think a number of my books speak to
> that. The Time Bind says, wait a minute, what if home has become work and
> work has become home?

~~~
pjc50
> “Oh, what a burden it is to pick out gifts for the holiday for my children.”
> Or “Oh, it’s so hard to call a photographer to do family Christmas photos,
> and then to send it to my parents.”

The burden isn't so much in the act as the expectations and image management.
Especially with things presented towards parents. Is it going to be "good
enough"? Does it match the "perfect family" self-image? In situations like
this people become heavily invested in maintaining an image towards everyone,
including themselves. The work involved in this can be burdensome. But
actually presenting the true "messy" self is far scarier.

~~~
jrochkind1
In that second passage, I like that Hochschild tried to be clear, she is not
blaming these (mostly women) for finding that burdensome, she's saying we
should ask "What is up with our society that things that ought to be enjoyable
time with and caring for family, expression of love have become burdensome and
alienating"? And And, the unsaid next step, what can be done?

> I’m not just saying, “Oh, how terrible to think making a magical experience
> is alienated work.” I’m saying, “Well, why has it become alienated work?”
> The solution is not for men and women to share alienated work. The solution
> is for men and women to share enchanted work. These are expressions of love.

Why is it our personal family life seems like a job?

~~~
watwut
I do not think it is a job, but yes, a lot of it are chores. Sometimes you
derive pleasure from it, but other times you are just tired, hungry, without
idea, the store is overcrowded with nervous people (particularly around
christmas) the kid does not want anything and you really really just want to
go home watch a movie or read pointless hacker news.

The romanticism of "enchanted work" and "making a magical experience for your
very own children" is not realistic expectation. You don't have those magical
feelings around activities and duties that happen with regularity. First,
second time yes, eleventh time less so. Plis while the kids enjoy gifts, they
are not really magical to them. Especially around christmas, they get more
toys then they are able to play with.

And it really seems to me that those who romanticise child caring familly
activities the most are either the ones engaged in them the least or the ones
having ideological reasons. Stay at home mothers with no hobbies and whose
life's centers children to the point of excusing everything else are the least
romantic and the most pragmatic/mundane about it all - even as their only
topic is the kid.

~~~
jrochkind1
So, I think maybe you're actually confusing the thing Hochschild is trying to
distinguish.

It might seem like a chore in various ways, on the 11th time etc. It might not
be super fun or your favorite activity in the world. You might be tired and
rather be taking a nap.

But it shouldn't be _emotionally_ difficult to do routine caring things for
your family. And it shouldn't require you to pretend or force yourself to have
emotions other than you have. That is, Hochschild's definition of "emotional
labor". It shouldn't be "alienating".

~~~
watwut
I think I do understand it well. A family is not a magical space where you
suddenly cease to be human, where you own emotional needs and states suddenly
don't matter due to other people needing something.

The caring work is a work that requires you to force yourself (or manipulate)
or pretend emotions no matter what context. That is just what it is, that is
inherent part in it.

And when you are being tired, made passive by daily routine, want a nap, have
stress, that is when it becomes even more difficult to be emotionally in that
supposed magic space. Or at least, it is not automatic.

------
xenihn
On the few occasions I've heard someone use the term "emotional labor" in real
life (and not on Twitter), I've asked them to specify what it means, and every
person gave a different answer. It did pretty much boil down to "doing chores
and mailing holiday cards", though.

I had never seen the original definition before, and that's exactly what I
_thought_ it meant when I first saw the term, and it's also what I thought it
should have meant after I repeatedly saw it used in ways that I now know were
erroneous.

~~~
taneq
The discussions I've had around it have generally involved people defining it
as "managing and planning chores even if someone else is doing them," with the
canonical example being the stay-at-home wife who manages the household and
the husband who "helps" by asking her to micromanage him rather than just
taking the initiative.

By the article above, this definitely sounds like mental labour (although
still tiring) rather than emotional.

~~~
klodolph
The example I think of is choosing a meal for a household—anticipating every
household member’s reaction to the meal and accepting the consequences if
people don’t like it.

Basically, managing people’s emotions.

~~~
taneq
That sounds like a more reasonable example that matches the original
definition. I'll use this one next time it comes up amongst my friends.

------
erichocean
It's a sign of cultural decline that people can only relate to each other
using financial terminology.

The continued financialization of all things cultural is not a positive
development.

------
mlthoughts2018
Moral Mazes talks a lot about emotional labor, especially the expression of
fealty to one’s employer and enthusiastic participation in signalling
activities that demonstrate compliance with the internal moral and ethical
system the company creates.

That book posits that as you move up the ranks, this emotional labor becomes
much more important and serves as much more of the basis for judging if you’re
effective at your job than your nominal performance of subject matter tasks
related to the ostensible job functions you have to perform.

~~~
Mirioron
I think that being bad at emotional labor even (especially?) outside of work
is something that is looked down upon quite a lot in society. We generally
don't like the person that seems to get angry over minor issues, we expect
them to manage their emotions in these kinds of situations, especially when
they're not like 'us'.

------
pmichaud
I think this article misses the point. It's not about doing the chores. It's
about being the one who has taken ownership of the chores being done, by whom,
when, etc.

When people say it about chores, they mean they are in an unacknowledged
managerial role, and that "just tell me what you want me to do, and I'll do
it" doesn't solve the problem, because knowing what needs to be done and when
in the first place is a huge part of the work in question.

So sure, "emotional labor" is the wrong term. But it'd be better if the
argument against using it in this broad way were directed at the strongest
version of the claim, instead of a strawman.

~~~
neonate
An interview with the woman who coined the phrase, about what she meant when
she coined it, is hardly "missing the point". How people have used the term
may have moved on, but that's what the article is about.

~~~
pmichaud
I guess I wasn't clear, but I didn't mean the woman who invented the term is
missing the point. I meant the introduction to the article, written by the
author/interviewer, framed the misuse of the word in a way that hides the
reason that someone might be tempted to misuse the word in that way.

And one thing I was very clear about was that even when you use the better
frame, the people are still misusing the term, so I'm explicitly not
disagreeing with the inventor of the term.

~~~
neonate
Thanks for the clarification.

------
fibbery
Huh. I would have termed "emotional labor" as doing the work to maintain
harmony of relationships within and outside of the home. Like being the person
responsible for setting up family events, sending cards, remembering birthdays
etc. Also in parenting being the more present parent. While the need to be
household manager is more "mental load" like are we out of laundry soap or
when is the kid's next doctor appointment. But apparently those uses aren't
really accurate.

~~~
bendbro
Emotional labor is about managing _your_ emotions, not others. Managing
another's emotions may end up demanding physical, mental, or emotional labor
of your own- a massage, thinking about what gift someone might like, or
containing your irritation at someone not understanding what you are teaching.

The concept-crept, popular-feminist definition of emotional labor is more
about the target of your labor. The labor is emotional because the product you
create is an emotional one. Knowing the roles men and women typically choose,
it makes sense that feminism has latched onto emotional labor in this respect.

I don't think those uses are necessarily innacurate as I think they classify a
real phenomenon, but it is unfortunate the popular feminist definition of
emotional labor collides with the original creator's definition.

------
peterwwillis
Recently there was a conversation on Slack at work about gender pronouns.
Several people asked that everyone use "hey ya'll", "hey folks", "hey
everyone", etc instead of "hey guys" (when addressing an entire not-all-male
channel, for example). Two or three people fought this giving various
arguments about why this was unnecessary, calling it word-policing, value-
signaling, etc. Throughout, I made an attempt always to respond in a civil
manner, to try to explain reasoning behind counter-points, provide examples,
and make sure all voices were heard. I basically took it upon myself to be a
mediator for 30 people.

It finally ended after an hour, and afterward I realized I felt totally
emotionally drained. I had spent the entire time reacting emotionally
(internally), and then reacting mentally (externally). All that emotion, even
if it was "inside", had been chewing away at me as a form of stress. I had to
take an hour break from work to calm down. It did not feel good. "Emotional
labor" might not have been the right phrase, but it sure felt like my emotions
had just unloaded a 25-foot box truck.

~~~
1123581321
That’s a good example of the problem. Your reacting emotionally internally
didn’t help you do a better job, and may have been a liability, so a less
emotional person may have been more qualified to mediate. Also, you took on a
job no one asked you to do, and then complained about the cost using the
emotional labor term as an acceptable ploy for sympathy.

One of the biggest (and unintended) benefits of the emotional labor movement
is detecting either martyr-like or unhelpful behavior at home and the
workplace and coaching the person towards stopping it.

~~~
peterwwillis
That's a strange response. I never complained, and I certainly never looked
for sympathy. Also, is the martyr comment directed toward me?

My story is more one of explaining how what I experienced could be invisible,
as nobody came to me and said, wow, you must have gone through a lot. But
people do go through a lot, and it's often invisible. In my case I
"volunteered" for it, but others may be expected to take it on, which I
imagine is more stressful.

~~~
1123581321
Yes, it was directed at you (and others who act similarly.) I also am glad you
shared your experience and liked your comment.

------
dwoozle
I see the following phenomenon repeat itself: someone convinces the world that
a particular behavior, described by a particular term, is bad: bigotry,
racism, emotional labor, transphobic, sexual assault. Usually this is
straightforward because the behaviors are truly monstrous and the offenders
deserve to be un-personed. Then a bunch of other people draft behind this term
to air out their grievances: this person did something racist, racism is bad,
this person is bad. This works for some years, but eventually society just
normalizes out the effect of the word: if so many actions are racist, then
racism must not be so bad. When this happens, it actually lessens the
opprobrium that the hardcore offenders, the people whom the term was designed
to denigrate, experience.

It’s effectively trademark dilution.

------
al_chemist
Concepts creeps because when we want to affect world, we need to name things
first. When we name them, we need short phrase that will fit twit. Who cares
if somebody already used it to describe something different?! [1]

The other reason why concept creeps is connotations of previous meaning. Call
digital sharing a piracy. Call privacy breaching a personalization. Call
protester a terrorist. Call different opinion a hate speech. Call looking
lustfully a rape.

[1] I do.

------
baked_ziti
> I think this gets to perhaps a main confusion that is happening. I often see
> emotional labor referred to as the management of other people’s emotions, or
> doing things so that other people stay happy and stay comfortable.

This strikes me as something worth examining closely. Attempting to manage
(solicited or not, though I would guess most often not) other people's
emotions seems guaranteed to end in discord.

------
SolaceQuantum
The concept that 'emotional labor' has been sort of co-opted from its original
meaning, thus losing the actual significance of the term is quite interesting.
I kind of internally related it to 'spoon theory' use- clearly it was
originally meant explicitly for chronic physical illnesses, but I often see it
used for depression and anxiety.

~~~
faceplanted
It makes sense that happens, "spoon theory" is basically a metaphor for
"limited resources", anyone who looks at it without context is just going to
see a nice metaphor for a very common issue.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Yes, but the expansion of the term somewhat dilutes and transforms the
original meaning of the term and its original context and usefulness. Similar
to what is being done here.

------
Causality1
>There’s no doubt that the unpaid, expected, and unacknowledged work of
keeping households and relationships running smoothly falls disproportionately
on women.

[citation needed]

~~~
SolaceQuantum
[0]
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170926105448.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170926105448.htm)
\- "Household chores: Women still do more"

Study confirms that women tend to do more housework than their male partners,
irrespective of their age, income or own workloads

[1]
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0832-1](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0832-1)
\- "Time, Money, or Gender? Predictors of the Division of Household Labour
Across Life Stages"

Results indicated women performed more housework than men at all ages.

[2].
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4584401/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4584401/)
\- "The Production of Inequality: The Gender Division of Labor Across the
Transition to Parenthood"

Mothers, according to the time diaries, shouldered the majority of child care
and did not decrease their paid work hours. Furthermore, the gender gap was
not present prebirth but emerged postbirth with women doing more than 2 hours
of additional work per day compared to an additional 40 minutes for men.
Moreover, the birth of a child magnified parents’ overestimations of work in
the survey data, and had the authors relied only on survey data, gender work
inequalities would not have been apparent.

~~~
Causality1
Thank you.

------
epx
It is strange how people always associate domestic work with women, or
something women are not compensated for.

I know I do _a lot_ of domestic work that my wife barely knows needs to be
done, or assumes it's trivial, or assumes "you are intelligent/strong/used
to/a XY warm body, so it's easy for you". And it mostly consists of things
that cannot be outsourced (perhaps a butler or secretary would help, but these
are more expensive than a maid).

Honestly I don't know who the hell falls for this kind of narrative.

~~~
raarts
I never thought of family care as something that needs to be paid. Should I
pay my wife for doing that work? In that case should she pay me for
shouldering the burden of working hard in a job I don't like making money I
don't spend myself? All this doesn't sit well with me. It's too
individualistic.

~~~
epx
The law accommodates for that - 50% of the assets for each in case of divorce.
Guaranteed not to be fair for most particular cases, but puts an end to the
discussion, and everybody knows the deal before marrying.

