I think DC discussions this week were particularly interesting as we addressed the issue of the relationship between institutional and political practices, on the one hand, and ideals, on the other.  We have been considering how our ways of doing things are related to our values.

Democratic Ideals versus Plutocratic Realities

In the ongoing debate provoked by Martin Plot, there is the question of what is wrong with American democracy.  Scott, informed by my response to Martin, wants to underscore that it is not only, or even primarily, a systemic problem, it is more crucially a problem of action.  He criticizes “factoid based media, money based politics and narrow interest based legislating,” which have inhibited informed political action.

Jeffrey Dowd, who also identifies himself as Jeff in his replies, seems to agree with Plot that the possibility of an open politics is gravely diminished because of the workings of corporate power.

Michael is deeply concerned that the pressing issues of the day are not being addressed as they are overshadowed by ideological conflicts.

This is a full range of judgment, the basis of alternative political positions.  I think the different characterizations of the situation are informed by competing ideals.  I respect these differences and am interested in the alternative insights and interpretations they suggest for accounting for what has happened in the past, but also as a way of orienting future actions.

If Jeff and Martin are right, we can expect one pro – corporate move after another in the coming two years, with Obama triangulating and doing the work of corporations, perhaps doing so more efficiently than Bush would have.  (This parallels the far left’s account of FDR and the New Deal).

If Scott is right, the only way of avoiding this is to act against Obama when he compromises on the fundamental principles.  I am not sure whether Martin and Jeff think that this can lead to a positive outcome short of a radical shift in political strategy, in Martin’s account.  This includes for Jeff, in response to a post by Daniel Dayan from a few weeks ago, a possible shift in media policy.  He suggests the need for “a new ‘fairness doctrine’ that goes beyond the request for equal time and instead finds some way to fairly judge the accuracy of claims made on “news” stations…” (Of course the problem with such proposals, which I have no doubt Jeff is aware of, is that the “somehow” is very hard, reminding me that democracy is indeed in the details).

If Michael is right, we should look for openings for practical actions in addressing pressing problems, and support those on the left, right and center who make that possible.

I would suggest that each of these positions are in a sense a part of the Obama’s project, moving the center to the left, where he will sometimes appear as a feckless compromiser, and at other times like a happy warrior.

Note that his “sell out” to the Republicans this week in the form of the compromise that includes the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich is quickly being followed by a call for a fundamental reform of the income tax code, in which the issue of justice will become a matter of serious debate. (link) And as far as selling out is concerned, even Paul Krugman, a clear critic of Obama’s compromises, concedes that “President Obama did, after all, extract more concessions than most of us expected.”

Wikileaks Revisited

Arjen Berghouwer strongly criticized me for my position on WikiLeaks.  But I think it’s interesting to note that we actually agree in our sociology, and our ideals, as we disagreed in how we interpret what the significance of WikiLeaks is.  He emphasizes that this was a “one-off dump.”  And reflects upon how as such it lends critical insights into the limitations of secretive and manipulative diplomacy, opening up critique and the possibility of a more just international order.

I actually don’t know for sure whether the dump has much of a critical function, or whether it does irreparable damage to our foreign policy, as Senator Lieberman and others speak of espionage.  Rather my point here has been that of a simple micro-sociologist.  Without the possibility of maintaining a distinction between front stage and back stage, social interaction is not possible, and I think because of the actions of WikiLeaks maintaining this distinction in the field of interaction called diplomacy is becoming ever more difficult.  Thus, diplomacy will be either weakened or more secretive and elitist, Arjen major normative concern.  I share his concern, just don’t know why he thinks WikiLeaks’ is a “one-off dump.”  Rather it seems to me that it is part of a dangerous trend.

The Optimistic Note

On a much more positive note, I think the way ideal and practice can be combined in the establishment of positive social change was elegantly revealed in Rachel Sherman’s post.  Lauren asked whether the new Domestic Workers Bill of Rights will have any consequences beyond the symbolic.  Jeff thinks that it will, by encouraging those who are “well-intentioned, employers engaged in paternalistic labor relations” to do the right thing.  But he makes an additional, and I think very important observation, the law “formalizes some important labor standards.”

This, in my understanding, is Rachel’s main point.  She seems to be a student of Hannah Arendt here (though I am pretty sure she actually isn’t).   The passing of this bill and the formal enactment of the law are as important as the results the law yields.  Politics as a means is an ends.  Through much of labor history, workers rights have excluded the rights of people of color and of women.    This law represents the beginnings of a legal correction of this.  The action of the labor movement, Domestic Workers United , is as important as the details of the law.  To be sure Domestic Workers still will be exploited, but they now have gained significant formal and legal standing, as a result of their own actions, in addressing the problems of their exploitation, and as Rachel underscores their struggles are at the center of some of the major issues of our times.   A major ideal is sustained and extended.  It empowers a workers movement, as they achieve, limited, practical results.

Last week, the legislation known as the “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights” took effect in New York State, having been signed on August 31 by Governor David Paterson. The existence and passage of this bill is due primarily to several years of organizing by Domestic Workers United (DWU), an organization of nannies and housecleaners in New York City.

DWU offers computer literacy and child care training to its members, helps protect workers against abusive employers, and has produced a report on domestic employment, “Home is Where the Work Is,” based on original research. Their main policy effort, however, has been campaigning for the passage of this bill, which will affect over 200,000 workers in the state.

The law includes the following provisions: The right to overtime pay (at time-and-a-half) after 40 hours of work in a week, or 44 hours for workers who live in their employer’s home; a day of rest (24 hours) every seven days, or overtime pay if the worker agrees to work on that day; three paid days of rest each year after one year of work for the same employer; protection under New York State Human Rights Law, and the creation of a special cause of action for domestic workers who suffer sexual or racial harassment.

Although these demands are not especially radical (more controversial provisions, such as paid holidays and two weeks notice prior to termination, were removed from the final version), this law will materially influence the lives of many workers. Perhaps equally important, the law is symbolically significant, for a number of reasons. First, domestic workers have traditionally been excluded from labor legislation, beginning with the New Deal laws covering collective bargaining and minimum wage and hour regulations.

Although over the years some laws (such as those covering the minimum wage) have been extended to apply to domestic workers, their work remains largely unregulated. Thus the bill, which also mandated investigation into the feasibility of granting collective bargaining rights to these workers, is a step toward establishing nannies and housecleaners as “real” workers who deserve recognition and protection from the state.

Second, but related, domestic employees differ from other workers in multiple ways: they work in private homes rather than in public workplaces, they usually work alone, and they are employed directly by their own clients. Furthermore, they are almost always women of color, often undocumented immigrants. For these reasons they are especially vulnerable to mistreatment by their employers. Typically the conditions of employment are determined informally between worker and employer, and clear communication is often lacking. The mere existence of the law encourages the formalization of these implicit agreements and takes a step toward recognizing that the “private” sphere is also a paid workplace for many women.

Beyond making paid domestic labor more visible, this legislation also brings to light the continuing dilemma over housework and child care that many families face.  This dilemma has several causes, including: the continuing refusal of men to share the “second shift,” especially when it comes to housecleaning, which leads their wives to pay other women to do it; the extremely long hours worked by professionals in the corporate world; and the absence of state supports, such as day care centers, for working families.

In the absence of cultural and policy shifts that would create more support for the professionals who employ these workers, domestic workers pick up the slack. As DWU often points out, the labor of these workers frees their employers to work in law firms, finance, academia, and elsewhere, and as such is critical to local and even global economies.

Finally, domestic work is a function of high income-inequality in the U.S., which has been shown to be correlated to increasing employment of household workers, and of continued economic pressures in other countries, which lead women to leave behind their own families to immigrate to the U.S. and take care of ours.

Thus domestic labor is tied into social issues such as immigration, work hours, differential remuneration of men and women, and state labor regulation, as well as the intimate (but no less political) question of the gender division of labor in the home. This law, I hope, will contribute to more open public conversation about both.

Fact sheets on the law and the report on collective bargaining