Emotional Labor
Emotional labor, as originally defined by sociologist Arlie Hochschild, is the management of one’s emotions that is required at certain workplaces. Her example includes flight attendants remaining calm, which seems reasonable, but I find this is more common than just in jobs where one’s emotional regulation can be the difference between life and death. The service industry, in particular the restaurant industry, requires workers to cater to the emotional needs of their customers more than is strictly necessary for the success of the business. This extra work does not help to optimize the actual services the business claims to provide; for example, my latte will taste the same regardless of how much my barista smiles or listens intently to my response to her asking how I’m doing this morning. Yet in every job I’ve had, emotional labor is required of employees, and is presented as integral to the “experience” curated by the shop.
However, the “experience” of the consumer is a disingenuous argument for a number of reasons. At its heart, this is a marketing tool, not a personal feature or failure of the employee. The workers are paid for their ability to promote the image of their institution, which sometimes includes certain marketing flairs, such as phrasing things a certain way (i.e. Chick Fil A requires their employees to respond “my pleasure”). But forcing employees to be “sunny” or “welcoming” in their demeanor and requiring workers to smile despite dehumanizing conditions seems to be an unreasonable expectation. An employee is dehumanized and alienated from their own body when they are required to show emotions they do not feel. Emotional labor seems to be a violation of one’s autonomy, literally limiting one’s freedom of expression.
While this moral dissonance is the norm in many jobs, it still follows patterns of institutional hierarchy. If a professor acts ingrateful for her position, the Chair of her department may view her work as less satisfactory, even if the Chair shows up late to department meetings and does not smile at subordinates. If a secretary is rude to clients that enter a workplace, he may be fired for doing his job poorly, even if politeness is not included in his job description, and even if his boss makes a habit of yelling at those very same clients with no repercussions. Ultimately, the stakes are highest for those who are already in a precarious, powerless situation in their jobs. Emotional labor manifests itself most among those who lack the professional agency to rebel against the hypocrisy of their duties and is simply another opportunity for those in power to find fault with their work. So the question arises; if the value of emotional labor diminishes as one’s power in the workplace increases, is emotional labor something people can ascend from given time and promotions?
Perhaps not. Because emotional labor ascribes to systemic order, it must also follow patriarchal rules, making it distinctly gendered. One example is “uptalk.” Uptalk or the phenomenon when a speaker’s voice rises at the end of a sentence (like the tone of a question applied to a statement or command) is most commonly associated with teenagers and “Valley Girls.” These stereotypes would seem to indicate that this fawning tone is used most by people with low status in society. Yet the opposite is often true. Amanda Montell, author of Wordslut: A Feminist Guide to Taking Back the English Language, finds that the most frequent users of uptalk are actually women in positions of power, who use the vocal quirk to appear more approachable and less demanding, and signal that they are agreeable and reasonable leaders. Is this choice still emotional labor? Is the strategy used here to evade misogynistic objections even a choice or is it a necessary step that has allowed these women to reach the lofty positions they inhabit?
Regardless, it certainly changes the experience of the people around these women leaders for the better, and the experiences of the women for the worse. Ultimately, this is the heart of the problem that emotional labor creates: it requires workers to prioritize the experiences of others over their own. This is unacceptable, and will continue to be unacceptable until we demand better.
