Sex, Work and Professionalism

Working in HIV/AIDS

Katie Deverell

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Topic: Social Sciences
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134569908
• Subtopic: Health Care Delivery
• Index: Social Sciences

Sex, Work and Professionalism examines what happens when professional concern is defined in terms of sex. Based on original fieldwork with outreach workers in HIV prevention it addresses issues of professionalism, emotion work and boundaries, integrating empirical insights with sociological theory.
In most professional relationships sex is not defined as part of the relationship, in fact it is explicitly excluded in guidelines and codes of ethics. HIV prevention outreach workers work in sexual environments with a sexually defined target group and are often employed on the basis of their sexuality. They have to learn how to balance their work and professional lives, overcoming conflicts such as:
* professional role V community role
* sexual skills V sexual boundaries
* personal experiences V professional understanding
* professional identity V worldviews.
Many of the questions being raised in this book about the meaning of professionalism, the pain and pleasure in emotion work and the management of boundaries between home, sex and work are being asked more generally by workers in a range of organisations. Sex, Work and Professionalism argues for a new understanding of professionalism more appropriate to the human services.

Part 1

Orientations

1 Sex, work and professionalism

Theoretical issues

The idea that ‘work’ can be clearly separated from ‘home’ retains both academic and popular appeal. In our research, this notion of segmentation was presented as both an organisational and an individual ideal. However, beneath this ideal it quickly becomes apparent that the boundaries between ‘home’ and ‘work’ are in fact blurred both in individual accounts and in organisational symbols, relationships and identities.

(Halford et al. 1997:204-5)

Historically, it has been popular for sociologists to talk about the separation of home and work in terms of distinct public and private spheres. Sexuality, emotions and ‘the personal’ were seen to be separate from the rational, public world of work. Indeed, sex was more usually equated with leisure. In recent years this idea has been critiqued, particularly by feminist writers (Elshtain 1981; Haraway 1990; Stacey and Price 1981), and by new sociological studies of sex and sexuality at work. These and other writers have shown that despite the ideology of separate spheres, work and personal life are not clearly separate.

The public and the private

Within sociology there has been a tendency for sex to be regarded as something very separate from work; indeed at times almost its opposite (Finch 1983; Hearn and Parkin 1987). Weber argued that there was a split between the public world of rationality and efficiency and the private sphere of the emotional and personal life, and this notion has been vigorously taken up. Indeed, Bailey (2000) argues that ‘Public and private are the common referents to deep and basic domains of social experience. They denote fundamental ordering categories in everyday life’ (Bailey 2000:384).

The origins of the opposition between work and home can be traced to the rise of capitalism and the beginning of industrialisation, when it is argued the public sphere of work and the private domestic sphere became more sharply divided (Engels 1972). This led to a marked separation of roles and tasks between the world of home and leisure and the world of work. Within sociology, the dominance of the public-private distinction frequently led to sex and sexuality being seen as part of the ‘personal sphere’, belonging to the realm of home and family. Sexuality, the emotions and ‘the personal’ were something disruptive that must be kept out of the public world of work. For example, Gramsci wrote: ‘the new type of man demanded by the rationalisation of production and work cannot be developed until the sexual instinct has been suitably regulated and until it too has been rationalised’ (Forgacs 1988:282).

Parsons (1980) among others argued that efficiency at work depended on keeping personal considerations at bay, and Roy (1974) in an account of factory work suggests that sex is considered functionally and spatially inappropriate for industrial activity. Thus for the sake of production, sexuality and feelings were relegated to the personal world of home. For some writers, the home fulfilled a therapeutic and regulatory function: ‘A wife and home siphon off the discontents which, if left untreated, would endanger his continued exploitation at work and threaten the very foundations of the production process’ (Comer 1974:237-8).

Functionalist arguments such as these relied heavily on the idea of specific gender roles linked to the public-private distinction. Indeed, at times these arrangements seemed to be taken as ‘natural’. However, the very fact that the world of work is seen as so vulnerable to contamination by sex and emotions points to the constructed nature of this dichotomy. If the public and private spheres were so firmly separate, there would be no cause for anxiety about sexuality and emotions disturbing the rational world of work.

The persistence of the public-private distinction, and its hold over the theoretical imagination, can be seen in the way that even those writers who recognise the socially constructed nature of this division still regard these separate spheres as complementary, and give specific qualities to each. For example, Fineman (1991) in an article on emotions and work seems to regard home as a place where one can be ‘real’, and suggests that family and home offer the usual complement to work in our society. More generally, there is a common sense notion that work and home are different, with home being seen, if not always experienced, as a haven from the cruel world of work (Lasch 1995; Saunders 1990). Cavendish (1982) for example, has argued that factory workers often see the family as making up for work, seeing it as an area of life beyond production, the market place and the arm of the state.

The idea of the complementarity of these two spheres has been critiqued by feminists who have argued that the public-private distinction has restricted and undervalued the role of women, who have become associated with the personal domestic sphere (Barrett and McIntosh 1982; Harris 1981). For example, those writing in what came to be termed the ‘domestic labour debate’ pointed out that housework has been undervalued because it has not been regarded as ‘real’ work (Glazer 1990; Oakley 1974). Because of this its contribution to economic production is not recognised, even though the feeding, clothing and emotional work done by many ‘housewives’ plays a crucial role. As Finch argues:

In so far as wives do respond to these ‘needs’ created in work by providing what is regarded as an appropriate contrast – a comfortable, undemanding and well-organised home – they can be seen as contributing their labour towards the production of a husband with a greater capacity for work.

(Finch 1983:367)

Gowler and Legge in the late seventies argued that: ‘organisations tend to assume that (the) wives of their career committed employees will provide a flexible and supportive domestic environment’ (1978:51), even though this work is unpaid, and often unrecognised. More recent work suggests that women frequently continue to play this support role even when they have careers of their own. Furthermore, women in heterosexual partnerships cannot separate home and work so easily as men because in most cases they still have greater responsibility for domestic tasks (Baxter and Western 1998; Halford etal. 1997; Sullivan 2000). The ideology of separate spheres can serve to obscure the links between home and work, leaving unrecognised much of the emotional and domestic labour necessary for a successful work life outside the home.¹

One of the problems with portraying ‘the home’ as a complementary sphere to work is that such a comparison fails to recognise the many different ways in which households and domestic lives are organised. As this study focuses on the experiences of gay and bisexual men, it is significant that the existing literature focuses on (usually married) heterosexuals. Most gay men do not have wives and it is unclear what the relationship between home and work is for those gay men with long term live-in partners. In fact the idea of home as a complement to work fails to recognise the experiences of those living alone, unhappy at home, or who work at home. There is a need for a more detailed analysis of different domestic and partnership arrangements in order to understand how the relationship between home and work varies with regard to age, class, gender, sexuality and parental status.

A further problem with the construction of home and work as separate yet complementary is that it ignores the difference in influence which each sphere has. Far from being complementary, it could be argued that the demands of work often dominate home life. For example, an employee is more likely to take work home than bring their unfinished ironing to work (although this may change as some workplaces are now beginning to offer services such as dry cleaning on site). Work structures other parts of life and provides a framework into which other relationships must fit. Such a situation was highlighted by Cavendish, who when working (and studying) in a factory found that this left her time only for basic living:

The struggle to keep going at such a basic physical level came as a shock to me; I hadn't anticipated what a strain the work would be and resented having to spend so much of my time out of work just recovering. Sleeping and eating became a much more central part of life.

(Cavendish 1982:123)

This is an experience many workers can relate too. Indeed Johnson (1983) has argued that the relationship between home and work is of ten full oftensions rather than being harmonious. He discusses how involvement in a career has implications for family life and how personal commitments may constrain career choices. For this reason, individuals may have to make important compromises between the different aspects of their lives.

The idea that we live our lives in two independent and completely separate spheres is obviously unrealistic and offers an idealised portrait of both ‘the family’ and home. Moreover, the use of binary oppositional categories between the public and private can mean that personal, emotional and sexual issues are often not dealt with at work. This is not just a theoretical issue but has practical implications. As Westwood (1984) points out, it has long been assumed that pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood are matters related to family life and to women at home, rather than the workplace. In the past this assumption has meant that these issues have not been well addressed within organisations. This may also partly explain why issues to do with sexuality have long been ignored at work. In recent years, many organisations have started to face the realities of dual career couples, women with children returning to work and individuals prioritising family and other commitments above work. This has triggered greater interest in achieving a work-life balance and increasing interest in people's relationships and other commitments (Diversity Challenge 2000). However, change is slow and generally speaking emotional, family and sexual issues are still sidelined within work.

Where work takes place

The opposition of emotions, sexuality and the personal with work is premised upon a particular view of work. Indeed, it could be argued that it is a very gendered view. Dorothy Smith suggests that were we to start from the position of women in the home, the apparent contrast between these two spheres would not make sense: ‘The social organisation of the roles of housewife, mother and wife does not conform to the division between being at work and not being at work’ (Smith 1988:68). Moreover, a number of writers have argued that women experience their lives in a more holistic way than the model of separate spheres suggests. Davidoff and Westover (1986) for example, suggest that women tend to mesh employment with domestic commitments. However, the situation may be more complex. For, as Finch points out in work on wives’ incorporation into men's work, some women's lives in fact are organised to fit around their husbands’ work (1983:1). Home-based work in particular changes the character of the relationship between work and non-work time, undermining the notion of separate spheres. As Finch states: ‘Where work is based in the home the home is part of the ‘public’ domain, both structurally and experientially and the notion that there is a clear distinction between the two is called into question’ (Finch 1983:58).

As well as those working at home, there are people whose living and workspace is the same, for example those in the army. Hearn and Parkin (1987) describe such places as total institutions and suggest that they are the environments where the more usual division between the private-public domain is redrawn, blurred or even abolished. Where there is a physical separation between home and work, the spheres may still be bridged, for example, by talking about work at home. It may therefore be misleading to suggest any individual or occupational group is characterised either by similarity between home and work or by contrast; some features of work will be replicated and others contrasted.

Sex as leisure

One of the important features of past sociological work has been the equation of sex with personal life and leisure. For many, sex is clearly seen as part of personal life. Wives, for example, may experience their husbands’ work affecting their sex life as an intrusion: ‘It's pretty bad when you get in bed and you're making love and you hear the g-d- phone ring. It interrupts arguments, it interrupts meals, but sex is the ultimate of interruptions’ (Fowlkes in Finch 1983).

The ideology of separate spheres, or perhaps separate activities at separate times, is clearly at play again, when,’!“The long arm of the job” stretches from the workplace into the bedroom and exerts its grip on the most intimate part of marriage’ (Luxton 1980:55).

Terms such as ‘the ultimate’ and ‘most intimate’ here suggest that sex is strongly associated with the personal. However, there is also a recognition that work crosses personal boundaries in its effects on sex. For example, Duncombe and Marsden (1995) have discussed the effects of work on couples, including their sex lives, although only in terms of heterosexuality. This is also true of research by Devaney (1991) on miners, which describes the impact of men's shiftwork on their sex lives. Other references to the impact of work on ‘home and family’ often contain implicit reference to sex and Lippert's (1977) work makes this explicit. In an article on working in a car plant, he describes how he experiences a link between work and sex, arguing that his work affects his sexuality at ‘home’. Lippert (1977) asserts that because his work was asexual or anti-sexual he needed more sex and his sexuality became more genitally focused. This is not an isolated account. Nickolay also refers to work having affected his sexual behaviour: ‘I would come home feeling so dead that I masturbated to bring some life back to me. In the last four weeks I would masturbate at work in the toilets – it refreshed me, I came a little bit alive in myself’ (Nickolay 1991:161).

The idea that boring work creates a need for sex is of course too simplistic, and the idea that sexuality is ignored because it is unprofitable does not stand up to empirical investigation. For example, Roy (1974) observed how managers used harassment or flirtation strategies to get women to work harder, and work by Halford et al. (1997) suggests that management supported flirtation and sexual banter at work because it was felt to be productive, although within limits. However, what both Nickolay and Lippert suggest is that people often experience work, leisure and home as interdependent. Indeed Luxton (1980) has argued that increased cultural emphasis on the importance of sexuality can affect people's experience of work and leisure by making sex more central to their leisure activities. Her account also suggests a need to consider how sex may affect work. She writes that older men often tease younger men at work for being lazy, saying it is because they are tired from having had so much sex.

The private in the public

One of the main problems with the idea of public-private spheres is that this opposition neglects the fact that there are private aspects of work. In an account of factory life, Westwood (1984) describes the elaborate rituals surrounding weddings and brides, which meant that company time and resources were used not for profit, but for women on the shop floor. Workers’ rights to this time and these resources were acknowledged by management, who knew from experience that if they attempted to intervene in these spaces they would have ‘a walk off’ (1984:90). In the same way, management accepted aprons being made in company time, with company material, because they knew that women had to do work which left fluff on their clothes. Westwood suggests that through these practices the women were able to ‘feminise’ the masculine world of work:

Aprons brought the world of the home and of domestic labour right into the middle of the factory and by s...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Sex, Work and Professionalism
• Social Aspects of AIDS
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• Acknowledgements
• Series editor’s preface
• Introduction
• Part 1 Orientations
• Part 2 Why boundaries?
• Part 3 How boundaries are made
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index