Job Loss, Identity, and Mental Health

Dawn R. Norris

• Publisher: Rutgers University Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780813573809
• eBook ISBN: 9780813573816
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Economic Conditions
• Index: Economics

Our jobs are often a big part of our identities, and when we are fired, we can feel confused, hurt, and powerless—at sea in terms of who we are. Drawing on extensive, real-life interviews, Job Loss, Identity, and Mental Health shines a light on the experiences of unemployed, middle-class professional men and women, showing how job loss can affect both identity and mental health.   Sociologist Dawn R. Norris uses in-depth interviews to offer insight into the experience of losing a job—what it means for daily life, how the unemployed feel about it, and the process they go through as they try to deal with job loss and their new identities as unemployed people. Norris highlights several specific challenges to identity that can occur. For instance, the way other people interact with the unemployed either helps them feel sure about who they are, or leads them to question their identities. Another identity threat happens when the unemployed no longer feel they are the same person they used to be. Norris also examines the importance of the subjective meaning people give to statuses, along with the strong influence of society’s expectations. For example, men in Norris’s study often used the stereotype of the “male breadwinner” to define who they were. Job Loss, Identity, and Mental Health describes various strategies to cope with identity loss, including “shifting” away from a work-related identity and instead emphasizing a nonwork identity (such as “a parent”), or conversely “sustaining” a work-related identity even though he or she is actually unemployed. Finally, Norris explores the social factors—often out of the control of unemployed people—that make these strategies possible or impossible.   A compelling portrait of a little-studied aspect of the Great Recession, Job Loss, Identity, and Mental Health is filled with insight into the identity crises that unemployment can trigger, as well as strategies to help the unemployed maintain their mental strength.  

1

Introduction

This book looks at the social problem of job loss from an unusual perspective: identity. Most books on job loss focus on the very real material hardship that occurs during unemployment, trends and policy recommendations, or the overall experience of being unemployed. Written from an identity perspective, Job Loss, Identity, and Mental Health offers insights into how unemployment, identity, and emotional pain are interrelated, sometimes in ways we would not expect.

Our jobs are often a big part of our identities. Consequently, losing our jobs can threaten our identities, and these threats can harm our mental health. When you are fired or laid off, you may feel confused, hurt, and powerless, and may lose a sense of who you are. Many of the people who told me their stories, such as Lorna and Charlie, described those kinds of experiences:

I kinda lost my whole music identity. . . . So that kinda hurts. It hurts. . . . Now it’s all gone.

—Lorna, former supervisor in the broadcasting industry, unemployed for six months

I think for men especially, you are pretty much your job. If you have a reasonably good job, to dissociate that from who you are I think can make you feel weak and impotent and just at sea in terms of your identity.

—Charlie, former director of training at a nonprofit organization, unemployed for three months

This book explores specific identity threats that can occur after losing a job, the strategies we may use to cope with these threats, and the factors that may ease or restrict the use of these coping strategies. However, this sociological examination of these seemingly individual experiences also takes into account the social and historical framework in which people’s experiences occur.

Like every social problem, job loss and unemployment are situated in specific historical contexts. This book focuses on the time period just after the Great Recession, which occurred between December 2007 and June 2009. During the Great Recession, an economic crisis second in severity only to the Great Depression, the unemployment rate reached markedly high levels (Grusky, Western, and Wimer 2011a), and remained high in its aftermath. Between February 2009 and August 2010, the lowest unemployment rate was 8 percent, and the rate peaked at 10 percent in October 2009 (U.S. Department of Labor 2015a).

People had a hard time recovering from the Great Recession, partially because periods of unemployment lasted longer than they had in previous recessions. There has been a sharp increase in the percentage of unemployed people who remain out of work “long term,” or for twenty-seven or more weeks. In 1990, only about 10 percent of all unemployed people were without work long term. By 2004, this increased to 23.6 percent. But by September 2011, it had skyrocketed to 45.1 percent of all unemployed people, or more than 6.2 million people in the United States (U.S. Department of Labor 2014a). People simply could not find jobs. Even more than three years later, by January 2015, a full 31.5 percent of all unemployed people still qualified as being unemployed long term (ibid. 2015b).

The official unemployment rate underestimates the full extent of unemployment because it does not count “discouraged workers”—people who want to work and are available for work, but have stopped looking because they do not believe any jobs are available (U.S. Department of Labor 2015b). Discouraged workers totaled in excess of 1.3 million in December 2010, and alternated between more than 800,000 to more than one million between January 2011 and May 2013 (ibid. 2015c). As of January 2015, there were still 682,000 discouraged workers (ibid. 2015b).

Even when people found new jobs after the Great Recession, they often became underemployed, meaning they only worked part-time hours when they would have preferred full-time employment. Underemployment increased sharply starting around mid-2006 (U.S. Department of Labor 2008). By November 2009 there were 8.9 million underemployed people in the United States (Sum and Kahtiwada 2010), and as of January 2015, this count remained high at 6.8 million (U.S. Department of Labor 2015b). Underemployment hints at the “jobless recoveries” that have been typical of the new millennium (Kalleberg 2008). As with discouraged workers, underemployment also makes the official unemployment rate appear lower than it actually is.

Economic deregulation was at the root of the larger transformation of the economy (prior to the Great Recession) and began to gain traction by the 1980s. But deregulation specifically of the housing and mortgage industries was especially relevant to the Great Recession because it tied these industries tightly to the greater economy. This meant any failure in these sectors could (and did) lead to a more widespread economic collapse (Krugman 2012). Regulations for banks that had been in place since the 1930s began to be removed by the 1980s (55). For example, the Glass-Steagall Act that had limited banks’ risks by ensuring the separation between regular, everyday personal banking and riskier investment banking was weakened in the 1980s and 1990s by several acts (for example, the Garn-St. Germain Act) (59–62). This move toward deregulation culminated in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which generally repealed Glass-Steagall (85). This meant that everyday people’s loans (including mortgages) could now be subject to more risk than they had been in the past.

The Great Recession happened (seemingly) very suddenly (Grusky et al. 2011a) at a time when many people thought prosperity from the booming housing market had no foreseeable end. But this interconnectedness between the housing industry and the rest of the economy was what actually led to the economic collapse (Fligstein and Goldstein 2011, 23). Many banks were highly leveraged, meaning they borrowed a lot of money that they then invested in areas (such as housing and mortgages) they believed would bring in substantial profits. Because of deregulation, lenders could even buy and sell this kind of debt to other companies (Krugman 2012, 54–55).

Many individuals were also borrowing against the value of their homes (taking out home equity loans) because they thought their homes could only increase in value and the loans would thus be easy to pay off (Krugman 2012). When the housing bubble finally burst, this high level of borrowing by many banks and individuals froze. Both lending and borrowing came to a halt as everyone tried desperately to save money or pay off debt. Spending overall also came to a stop, leaving the economy in a downward spiral as banks, insurance companies, and investment companies began to fail and many employers laid people off (126).

Many employees who worked in what had been a thriving sector of the economy—banks and mortgage companies—suddenly and unceremoniously found themselves without jobs, and the wealth that people had built up as the housing market boomed suddenly was gone when housing prices tumbled. Housing values, which had doubled between the late 1990s and 2005, fell to half their value between 2006 and 2009 (Grusky et al. 2011a). This left many people owing banks money from loans they took out against their home equity (the portion of their houses that they owned outright) during the same time they found themselves without work. Some even lost their homes. Additionally, even many of those people who did not take out home equity loans found themselves with underwater mortgages—that is, owing the bank more on the home than the home was actually worth—because they had bought their home and taken out the loan during a time when the home had been worth more money. By the end of 2009, 16.4 percent of all mortgages were underwater (Grusky et al. 2011a, 13). Because the bulk of most people’s wealth is in their homes, households lost one-quarter of their wealth between 2007 and 2009 (Iceland 2013, 121).

The Great Recession left people in bad economic shape and was much more severe and much longer lasting than previous recessions (Grusky et al. 2011a, 22, 63). Whereas the average duration of unemployment in previous recessions was about nine weeks, that average had increased to twenty-one weeks (or about five months) by June 2010 (when the recession was technically over!) (68). This duration, while tragic, was what allowed me to study transitions in identity and mental health over a longer time period than has been done in most past unemployment research.

By 2009, the number of jobs lost was the highest since World War II, and there were almost seven job seekers for every open position (Grusky et al. 2011a, 64, 78). The economy after the Great Recession was slower to recover than those that followed previous recessions (Grusky et al. 2011a, 3–4; Krugman 2012, 13). Median household income (in 2011 constant dollars) declined between 2007 and 2011 (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Smith 2012). Home foreclosures reached record highs in 2007 (U.S. Department of Labor 2014b, 12), and between 2007 and 2010 people getting close to retirement lost about one-third of what they had in their retirement accounts (Wolff, Owens, and Burak 2011, 128–129).

Although the Great Recession seemingly initiated these high unemployment and underemployment rates, the problem runs deeper than that. Broader structural factors play an important role, and the mainstream view has been that these are unlikely to change much anytime soon. For example, as early as the 1970s (but intensifying during the new millennium), technology made it possible to outsource jobs to other countries (Sullivan 2004), leading to layoffs in the United States. Companies have also been increasing the number of part-time and/or temporary workers instead of hiring permanent workers (Kalleberg 2000). Although at the time of this writing, some jobs have returned to the United States because of increasing costs in China (Fishman 2012), most available U.S. jobs are at one of two ends of the skill/pay spectrum—either they require highly specialized education or they are low-paid service jobs (Kalleberg 2009; Sorenson 2000). This leaves much of the “middle-section” workforce—including skilled manual laborers and mid-level managers—unemployed. In essence, even though the recession is over, the structural forces that created unemployment and underemployment, as well as the problems caused by them, remain in place.

Beyond the large-scale statistics, unemployment and underemployment influence individual lives. The national news often highlights stories of the “disgruntled worker” returning to the workplace with a firearm, or reports suicides that occur after someone has lost his or her job. But losing a job also affects people in a variety of ways that may be “under the radar” of the national news. When people lose jobs or are underemployed, their mental health suffers. (See, for example, Dooley 2003; Kalleberg 2009; Newman 1999 [1988].) Unemployment is connected to depression, anxiety, and anger. It negatively affects the emotional well-being of both blue-collar and white-collar workers, and historically it has been especially harmful to men’s mental health (Creed and Moore 2006; Thoits 1986). Similarly, underemployment has been linked to low self-esteem, depression, alcohol abuse, and anger.

The causes of these declines in mental health are multifaceted. Although economic deprivation is certainly stressful and relevant to mental health problems, it is worth asking what other factors trigger the depression, anxiety, and anger that are so common after losing a job.

Job Loss, Identity, and Mental Health uses sociological concepts to examine what losing a job means for people’s identities, how unemployment produces distress by threatening identity, how people may (or may not) use identity itself to cope with this distress, and how social institutions and social status may ease or hinder the use of identity-based coping strategies.

Detailed documentation exists on unemployment trends prior to, during, and after the Great Recession. Researchers who study these aspects of unemployment typically use quantifiable data from national surveys to demonstrate the extent of economic damage to individuals, communities, and the nation, and to suggest policy solutions at the societal level. For example, The Great Recession (Grusky et al. 2011b) illustrates the widespread decimation of retirement funds, wealth, and home values wrought by that economic crisis, as well as the accompanying delay of life transitions such as marriage and childbearing. Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul Krugman (2012) furthers this idea in his book End This Depression Now! by proposing policy solutions to these problems. Most notably, he suggests increasing federal spending to create jobs, tightening regulations on the banking industry, and boosting government’s role in granting mortgage assistance to individuals and families.

Other books focus on the psychological experience of unemployment. Some notable examples are Tom Clark and Anthony Heath’s (2014) Hard Times: The Divisive Toll of the Economic Slump and Clare Bambra’s (2011) Work, Worklessness, and the Political Economy of Health. As with books whose main focus is economic damage, most books in the psychological vein are chiefly concerned with identifying widespread patterns and identifying policy solutions; they rarely use narratives or give explicit attention to the role of identity in unemployment.

These books that outline large-scale trends and policy solutions provide important insights into the ways that social structure may affect entire communities or nations, as well as individuals. Job Loss, Identity, and Mental Health builds on this base by using in-depth interviews and observations that offer insight into the individual’s experience of losing a job—what it means for daily life, how they feel about it, and the process they go through as they try to deal with job loss and their new identities as unemployed people.

There are several foundational works that use qualitative methods similar to mine and have helped structure my thinking about the experience of unemployment. For example, in Katherine Newman’s (1999 [1988]) Falling from Grace, she primarily describes middle-class people who lost their jobs and became downwardly mobile, giving in-depth detail on how this affects distress and relationships with friends and family. Similarly, Dale Maharidge’s (2013) Someplace Like America and Tracy E. K’Meyer and Joy L. Hart’s (2009) I Saw It Coming illustrate what it is like when working-class people lose their jobs. Maharidge weaves a discussion of the macro-level causes of job loss (for example, NAFTA) with critically important individual experiences related to the loss of money, such as what it is like to wait in a food bank line or face homelessness. K’Meyer and Hart describe the emotional, cognitive, and material experiences of former factory workers. In the tradition of these authors, I use in-person interviews and observations to focus more narrowly on the experience of identity as it relates to distress and coping after experiencing job loss.

An identity-based approach to the relationship between losing a job and mental health promises to be fruitful (Ezzy 1993; Feldman 1996; Kalleberg 2009). A few theoretical models hint at the connections between identity and losing a job. For example, Marie Jahoda’s (1981, 1982) “functional model” proposes that work provides us with an identity, which promotes well-being. Similarly, Peter Warr’s (1987) “vitamin model” states that work provides us with a valued social position and clearly defined roles, both of which are important to mental health. These models support taking an identity-based approach to job loss, but posit that work itself or work conditions are objectively “good” or “bad,” thus suggesting that the same conditions produce the same outcomes for everyone. My book expands on their models by doing as Douglas Ezzy (1993) suggests: taking a symbolic interactionist approach that emphasizes the meaning of losing a job, and systematically exploring the subjective aspect of work (identity) and how it relates to distress. As Ezzy (1993) also suggests, I go beyond determining cause and effect and instead delve deeply into the process through which other factors (for example, age and gender) may produce mental health differences after job loss.

For people who identify strongly with their jobs, unemployment and underemployment can have a strong psychological impact (Probst 2000), partially because work stressors do the most harm when they “threaten salient aspects of the self” (Warr 2005, 560). As for theoretical approaches, some authors promote using a role-based (Feldman 1996) or identity-based (Ezzy 1993) standpoint, or using stress theory to understand job loss (Feldman 1996). For the most part, calls for this type of work have gone largely unheeded. (See Ezzy’s 2001 book, Narrating Unemployment, for a notable exception.) My book takes these approaches to exploring the connections between unemployment, identity, and distress.

Empirical research also suggests that job-related problems can challenge identity (Tausig 1999, 259) and that this harms mental health. Specifically, when people’s various identities are “mismatched” in some way, this can be detrimental. For example, unemployed people are more likely than employed people to claim there is a difference between who they would like to be and who they currently are (Sheeran and Abraham 1994; Sheeran and McCarthy 1990). These kinds of mismatches increase depression (Sheeran and McCarthy 1992). Underemployed people show a similar pattern. For example, recent college graduates who were working in a job that did not require a college degree—a potential challenge to “educational identity”—were more bored, lonely, and angry, and were less satisfied with life, than those who were not underemployed (Feldman and Turnley 1995).

Several books have documented unemployment from the perspective of unemployed people themselves, and have spoken to the idea of the importance of identity in this process. Thomas J. Cottle (2001) hints at threats to identity in his book Hardest Times: The Trauma of Long-Term Unemployment. Using data from unemployed people’s narratives, a portion of Cottle’s book illustrates how job loss threatens the masculine identity, which results in distress. I extend this idea by overtly examining the meaning of manhood (and womanhood) as they relate to employment, and I expand on this to include other aspects of identity that may be threatened by losing a job. Further, in Job Loss, Identity, and Mental Health, I incorporate sociological theory to guide my analysis, and address how identity may be used to cope with distress.

Ofer Sharone’s (2013a) work, Flawed System/Flawed Self: Job Searching and Unemployment Experiences, also provides strong justification for an identity-based approach. Sharone compares the job search strategies of unemployed American and Israeli former white-collar workers. ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Why Identity?
• 3. “That’s Not the Way We Do It at Gentay”: Feedback Mismatches
• 4. “I Wasn’t the Same Person”: Time Mismatches
• 5. “Me Caveman . . . I Club Deer”: Status Mismatches
• 6. “On the Mommy Track”: Shifting
• 7. “It Was Like I Was Still Working”: Sustaining
• 8. “Like You’re Dead and Nobody Told You”: Identity Void
• 9. Conclusion
• Appendix A: Methodology
• Appendix B: Additional Considerations
• Notes
• References
• Index
• About the Author