4.2.1 - Identity, Production and Globalisation
This lesson explores how identities are shaped by the work people do, the work they lose, and the global flows of culture they live inside. For sociology exams, the key issue is not just whether identity has become more fluid, but whether class, inequality and power still limit who gets to build the identity they want.
Work and social identity
In modern societies, occupation has often been one of the first things people use to describe themselves. A job gives income, but it also gives routine, status, social relationships and a sense of belonging. In industrial Britain this was especially true for men, because the male breadwinner norm tied masculinity closely to paid work in mining, steel, engineering and other forms of manufacturing. Identity was therefore not just individual. It was collective, rooted in workplace cultures, trade union traditions and class-based communities.
Functionalists see this as one reason work matters so much. Durkheim argued that the division of labour helps bind people together through organic solidarity: individuals perform different roles, but these roles make them interdependent. Parsons similarly saw occupational roles as part of role allocation, giving people an achieved status in the wider social system. From this view, work contributes to social integration because it tells people where they fit.
Weberian sociology gives a different emphasis. Weber argued that identity is shaped not only by class position but also by status and life chances. Occupation matters because it carries social honour. A doctor, lawyer or senior manager may gain identity from prestige as much as from income. Weber also helps explain why modern work can shape identity through bureaucracy and rationalisation: people are judged by performance indicators, qualifications and formal rules, so identity becomes tied to disciplined self-management.
Marxists are much more critical. Marx argued that under capitalism workers do not control what they produce or how they produce it, so labour becomes a source of exploitation rather than fulfilment.
Alienation
Alienation is Marx's idea that workers become estranged from the product of their labour, the labour process, other workers and their own human potential under capitalism.
If work is alienated, identity is damaged. Instead of expressing creativity, workers are reduced to labour power bought and sold for profit. This creates a sharp clash with functionalism: where functionalists emphasise order and integration, Marxists emphasise inequality, control and the distortion of self.
The contrast between the main perspectives can be summarised like this:
| Perspective | Main claim about work | What it suggests about identity | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functionalist | Work allocates roles and integrates society | Identity is stabilised through achieved roles and shared norms | Underplays exploitation and inequality |
| Marxist | Capitalist work is organised for profit and control | Identity is damaged by alienation and class domination | Can understate status differences and worker agency |
| Weberian | Occupation shapes status, life chances and disciplined conduct | Identity comes from prestige, credentials and rationalised organisations | Less focused than Marxism on ownership and exploitation |
| Postmodernist | Identities are increasingly fluid and chosen | Work may matter less than lifestyle and consumption | Can exaggerate how free people are to choose |
For exams, a strong line of analysis is that occupation has historically mattered because it links personal identity to wider structures of class and power. The debate is over whether that link has weakened in late modern or global society.
From Fordism to service work
The relationship between production and identity changed as economies moved from Fordism to post-Fordism. Fordism was based on mass production, standardised goods, large factories and a relatively stable full-time workforce. Even though assembly-line work was repetitive, it often gave workers a durable occupational identity. A person might expect to remain in the same industry for decades, and entire communities were organised around that expectation.
Post-Fordism refers to a more flexible system of production. Firms emphasise niche markets, outsourcing, short-term contracts and a labour force that can be expanded, reduced or retrained quickly.
Post-Fordism
Post-Fordism is a system of flexible production based on specialised markets, adaptable labour and less stable long-term employment.
This shift weakens the old idea of a single lifelong occupational identity. Atkinson described the flexible firm as divided between a secure core and an insecure periphery. That matters sociologically because identity becomes unevenly distributed. Some workers can build confident professional identities through skills and career progression, while others experience fragmented identities shaped by temporary, low-paid or zero-hours work.
The decline of manufacturing also matters. Deindustrialisation removed not only jobs but entire moral worlds built around manual labour, locality and masculine solidarity. Charlesworth studied Rotherham and showed how the collapse of traditional industry damaged working-class identity, producing feelings of humiliation, loss and powerlessness. This is a reminder that identity is not just chosen; it can be broken when the economic base of a community disappears.
The rise of the service economy has not ended the link between work and identity. It has changed its form. Hochschild showed that many service workers must sell not only labour power but also emotion.
Emotional labour
Emotional labour is the management of feelings and emotional display as part of paid work, such as appearing calm, warm or cheerful for customers.
In service work, identity often becomes performative. Workers may be required to smile, sound caring, or embody a brand image even when they do not feel that way. Aesthetic labour pushes this further by making appearance, accent, style and body language part of what is sold. A Marxist reading would see this as a new extension of control into the self, while a Weberian reading would note the rationalised regulation of presentation and conduct.
Imagine a town where steelworks once provided stable male employment across generations, but many new jobs are now in retail, care work and call centres. A sociologist could argue that identity has not become less important in work; instead, identity has shifted from collective industrial masculinity to more individualised, monitored and emotionally managed forms of labour.
This is why post-Fordist change should not be romanticised. Some theorists describe flexibility as creative and liberating, but for many workers it means insecurity, weak unions and the need to keep reinventing the self to stay employable.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account