ROYALE BLUES

by Hugh M. Lewis

The political economy of the American construction industry can be characterized as a 'culture of unlimited good' within a 'World System of Limited Good'. It is the stepchild of capitalist development and technological modernization during our 'post industrial era' becoming an nonexpendable mainstay of the new American Service Economy. This recent history presents a paradox when it is contrasted with the kind of 'inherent job security' said to so characterize the building trades.

In this ethnography it strikes me that there is more than a modicum of in-group/out-group consciousness, for I still can't decide from the participant/observer's standpoint whether it is ethnocentrism or romanticism which so clearly characterizes it.

No doubt construction workers have a strong sense of pride in what they do, for it would be difficult to remain long in such a physically demanding and sometimes psychologically stultifying field if one didn't enjoy it and have respect for it. It seems that the more professional construction workers must do a pretty goof job of it, otherwise they would probably not survive long in the intense competition. When the economy is good there is more than enough to go around for everyone in the union. But the question of job insecurity seems to always loom like a dark irreconcilable shadow in the existential background.

Authority is said to be loose and flexible, with a great deal of unbureaucratic delegation of positive authority and a highly decentralized control structure. Part of this is no doubt due to the inherent exigencies of the trade, which in a free market demands successful ad hoc and encounter decision making. And yet my own limited experience (it always is) has taught me that, though necessarily flexible, authority can frequently also be dogmatic and petty, aiming toward the normative reconstruction of mediocrity rather than towards superlative craftsmanship. Again, the capitalist equation of time and money dictates this code of conduct. A great deal of this concerns the Great American expression of the 'ego factor'. Interpersonal competition in performance can be great, and 'getting to be in charge' can be a real boost to the flagging ego identity. The great degree of individual style that characterizes this trade, the kinds of names and reputations people make for themselves (and one another) and the typically American male father/son identification with the component knowledge and use of hand tools, all figure into the frontiersman myth of the individual against the organization at the margins of civilization, taming the elements of nature in the name of law and order. People can become very aware of this things in a transparent way and no doubt consciously strive to create good myths about themselves vis-à-vis their peers and primary reference group. This is part of a typically American 'power trip' in the aggrandizement of the individual ego.

Both the good and the petty side of this characteriological orientation shows itself well when things actually do 'fall apart' or do not go according to plan. On one hand, people then become not so much the outstanding individuals as unquestioningly and unstintingly cooperative workers with a common goal, and on the other people with strong egos (or weak ones) may butt heads in the midst of critical uncertainty. And this can be over minor and trivial kinds of things.

As long as things go well, according to plan, we have a 'well oiled machine'. When things begin happening, either the machine speeds up or else breaks down. Survival of the fittest determines that the former should be the case. More can be said about this in terms of the American ego, psyche and mythology, but the point has been made already.

The view from above always tends to see authority in a benevolent and fatherly way. One wonders as well if the control factor isn't built into the culture of the construction industry in terms of the strong sense of identification, of corporate tradition, of pride, and in terms of the types of people successfully recruited into the trade. And then there is the nepotism and familial amoralism that's been mentioned.

One wonders seriously, in consideration of the kind of stereotypes which surround construction workers, whether this in-group/out-group consciousness is not an attempt to elevate low social status and perhaps a sense of flagging self esteem which must, in a real man's world, always be kept hidden and repressed. Only in America can semi-skilled and skilled tradesmen, their blue collar managers and their white collar technocrats retire at a reasonable early age with a healthy sense of social security. It would be interesting to compare this kind of 'sub-culture' to the culture of other construction worker's and trades people in other societies. The construction workers I knew in Malaysia didn't look as healthy or as well taken care of as the people I've seen and known. I respect people who actually work with their hands but I'm still not sure they should expect to earn as much as doctors or lawyers.