The Polarization of Work and Political Behavior

• In Event: Social Class, Attitudes, and Partisanship

Abstract

Decades of research has examined the factors that influence political behavior. Two of these factors are class and the economy, the latter of which is most often measured at the individual-level with indicators for unemployment and changes in family earnings. Yet, most of these studies suggest that personal economic circumstances have little to no effect on several outcomes, including turnout and vote choice.

But as noted, most all of these studies emphasize material economic circumstances. I highlight the importance of work—and in particular, the kind of work that one does—and consider the relationship between personal economic circumstances and political behavior from an identity perspective. My argument begins with the premise that work is about more than simply earning a living. Indeed, work is so central to our lives that “what do you do?” is often one of the first questions we are asked when meeting someone new. Broadly consistent with social identity theory, I suggest that we often categorize ourselves by the way we make a living—for example, by whether we “work with our hands” or “behind a desk”—and these categorizations form a part of how we place ourselves in society. I suggest that involuntary changes in the kind of work that we do can shape our attitudes toward government and elected officials, and in turn, levels of political engagement and interest and decisions at the ballot box—because it changes the way we see ourselves (or the way we think others see us). My argument is that personal economic considerations encapsulate more than simply having a job or earning a satisfactory amount of money: it also means doing the kind of work that you want to be doing and are proud to be doing. Previous research finding limited evidence for “pocketbook” voting too narrowly considers the material economic conditions associated with work. I aim to reorient the focus toward the nature of work and its role in our identities.

To do so, I leverage trends in the “polarization of work”—the growth of high-skill (e.g., managers and executives) and low-skill (e.g., personal services) jobs at the expense of mid-skill (e.g., clerical and production) jobs—to examine how changes in work from mid-skill to low-skill jobs affect various political behavior. The study contributes to our understanding of economic voting, and class, by distinguishing between identity-based economics and material well-being, and by more fully capturing how people translate their personal circumstances into political action.

Author

• Brian T. Hamel, University of California, Los Angeles