Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned the Work Ethic Against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back

In her most recent book, Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned the Work Ethic Against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back, political philosopher Elizabeth Anderson meticulously examines the historical evolution of the work ethic. Through this analysis, she highlights essential insights necessary to counteract the prevailing neoliberal trajectory. Anderson's examination reveals that, since the inception of work ethic in Puritan England, two distinct trends have emerged: one conservative and one progressive. The former has historically focused on associating poverty with idleness, advocating for punitive measures or compulsory reeducation rather than addressing the underlying cultural and economic factors perpetuating it. In contrast, Anderson champions the latter perspective, which places the worker at the forefront of public policy and social reform initiatives. In the initial chapters, Anderson elucidates how the foundation of work ethic can be traced back to the influential English theologian Richard Baxter. In the late 17th century, Baxter advocated for hard work as a “calling” of God and emphasized the importance of eschewing excessive ambition and laziness, regardless of social status. He stressed the prudent use of time and resources, alongside virtues like moderation, thrift, and altruism (p. 16). This Puritan ethical framework, later oversimplified by Max Weber as purely conservative in nature, was also reflected in the writings of Robert Sanderson, another theologian from the 17th century. Sanderson expanded on the salvific role of work by introducing novel concepts such as career selection based on personal strengths and an egalitarian approach that demanded equal ethical standards for all individuals regarding honest labor for societal welfare. Furthermore, Sanderson proposed concrete measures to safeguard workers against exploitation by employers through provisions for fair treatment, just wages, and adequate living conditions encompassing health and safety standards (p. 11). In chapter 3, Anderson elucidates how the Industrial Revolution, commencing at the close of the 18th century, led to a distinct separation between wage laborers and capitalists that resulted in a detrimental impact on the work ethic. The emergence of class distinctions brought about a divergence in the allocation of costs and benefits, something that Puritan ethics had until then been responsible for keeping in balance (p. 64). This secularization of the work ethic engendered an unequal sharing of hardships, burdening the disenfranchised with the sole responsibility for sacrifice and hard labor. Initially conceived as an ethical framework applicable to all types of work without regard to social class distinctions—a concept underpinned by a divine calling lacking such differentiation—the evolution toward liberalism saw a progressively conservative interpretation emerge. This interpretation increasingly favored the affluent elite and the “idle rich” over the impoverished labor force (p. 72). Anderson observes that the 20th century saw manifestations of both progressive and conservative ideologies, embodied by social democracy and neoliberalism, respectively. Social democracy, rooted in a reformist strand of Marxism from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, traces its intellectual lineage back to influential figures such as Paine, Condorcet, Locke, Smith, Ricardo, and Mill. Chapters 5 to 8 elaborate on how this ideology advocates for the equal treatment of all workers, the provision of social security and other essential labor benefits without discrimination, and the empowerment of workers through self-determination and self-governance. On the other hand, neoliberalism, expounded upon in chapters 3, 4, and 9, emerged from the philosophies of Priestley, Bentham, Malthus, Paley, Burke, and Whately. This ideology supports an economic system centered around shareholders where dignity is tied to self-sufficiency. Neoliberalism promotes notions of private charity as well as voluntary initiatives while endorsing policies that emphasize individual responsibility and fails to acknowledge that workers' fates are often influenced by decisions made by major stakeholders in society. According to Anderson, a worker-centered work ethic may be adapted to the challenges of the present by drawing inspiration from an alternative, de-ideologized economic history, such as the one she offers in her book. As a result, three long-forgotten issues should be reintroduced into political and economic research: the restructuring of the processes of production, exchange, and distribution of goods; the effect of work on the abilities, values, and dispositions that make up a full life; and the need to build cooperative and supportive human relationships in all spheres of social life, with a focus on the workplace, where these relationships have been more neglected (p. 288). In sum, for Anderson, the main lesson of the progressive work ethic tradition is that “the most important product of our economic system is ourselves” (p. 288), its current function being “to organize, recognize, and reward work so as to promote the well-being of the whole society in ways that promote the freedom, dignity, and well-being of each, along multiple dimensions of well-being” (p. 242). Anderson argues that society could benefit from a new kind of worker who—because of supportive and horizontal decision-making practices that permeate work relationships—is more accustomed to democracy and better equipped to participate in issues of public interest in addition to those pertaining to their own subsistence and quality of life. This progressive ethic suggests a shift in the normative viewpoint that, like Eduard Bernstein's social democratic program, should move “from the working class to the democratic nation of citizens” (p. 244). Therefore, it is no coincidence that Anderson views unions and cooperatives, due to their experimental nature, as means of democratizing the workplace to develop skills and strengthen capacities intended to establish a democratic and just society. In fact, Anderson states that “we will discover how to organize society so that it promotes the common good consistently with the freedom of each individual only through patient democratic experimentation,” which is in strict accordance with her prior works on John Dewey's pragmatist democracy and with Bernstein's theses reconstructed in chapter 8 (p. 241). A primary goal of Anderson's project is to show how contemporary neoliberal strategies replicate the priorities and methods of policies that, like the mid–19th-century Malthusian Poor Law, were founded on the criminalization of poverty and desert-based claims of distributive justice that are ideologically maintained and benefit the idle rich (p. 264). The recommodification and microdivision of labor, which seem impervious to criticism, are the two primary issues that characterize this tendency (pp. 169 and 248). Consequently, the main objective of social and political reforms ought to be the decommodification of labor or the removal of its status as a good that is determined by economic demand. Anderson's method is akin to Amartya Sen's capabilities approach in that it focuses on redefining the role of work from being market- and major company-oriented to focusing on the autonomous development of individuals and society as a whole. To “consider how access to material goods may be a prerequisite to the ability to work and exercise other virtues” (p. 262) should, therefore, be made possible by the progressive work ethic. The democratization of work and the necessary development of a progressive work ethic are fields in which Anderson's book marks a substantial advancement. But to reach its full potential, some of its assumptions need to be reexamined in light of those experiences that social philosophy and economic history have paid little attention to, despite the fact that they are fundamental to the functioning of the global economy. Anderson's normative claim is essentially based on the European narrative that work ethic currents have oscillated between progressive and conservative since the Industrial Revolution. According to the explanations provided in chapters 8 and 9, Europe transitioned from a predominance of social democratic ideas, which place a strong emphasis on social security and self-government, to a reconquest in the form of a welfare state after a brief interruption during World War II, and finally to what now seems to be the absolute reign of neoliberalism and the dismantling of the institutions of solidarity, with its epicenter in the United States. Regaining them would, therefore, make sense, but doing so would require adding a strengthened democratic component that would serve as the basis for the well-being criterion. Anderson's approach seems to be limited to the living conditions of salaried employees, whose situations are more or less clear and who are already organized in formal firms. Moreover, it appears that the solution is restricted to countries whose political and economic histories are similar to the one that Anderson expertly reconstructs. Consequently, this approach fails to acknowledge the historical and ongoing dependence of these economies on the intricate informality conditions that have existed since the beginning of colonization processes. These conditions include the well-known global garment and textile industry and its sweatshops; big and well-established consumer goods corporations that rely heavily on informal sellers for a large portion of their distribution; extractivism, whose most iconic and dramatic example is mining and the massive black market it creates; among many others. Hence, there are good reasons to believe that the phenomenon of informality in the economy is not directly caused by the implementation of what Anderson defines as a “conservative work ethic” but, rather, by a particular kind of exclusion (both voluntary and involuntary) that is scarcely analogous to the terms that are commonly used to characterize the socially disadvantageous conditions typical of neoliberalism, such as precariousness, oppression, exploitation, alienation, or poverty. However, rather than detracting from the many positive aspects of Anderson's book, these observations emphasize the need for additional theoretical research in this field.