Empowerment?

[NewLeft]

What exactly is empowerment? I am familiar that it is related to the women's movement and postmodern analysis..etc. It has nothing to do with class or even conflict, but do we have any use for it? I know that the new left types put emphasis on 'empowerment' to talk about power and the type of labour. But is there not a degree of truth in saying that certain skilled labour is "empowering" like say a doctor over a janitor. So what can be done to make these jobs more 'empowering'? Or is empowerment all a crock of shit. Any Marxists in the house that can relate this type of division to Marxist theory?

[Ostrinski]

Wiki:
Empowerment refers to increasing the spiritual, political, social, educational, gender or economic strength of individuals and communities.

[Franz Fanonipants]

its not really a word i hear that much outside of liberal stuff like "awareness" and etc.

[NewLeft]

It is a buzzword for liberals.. But all this postmodern stuff can be practically meaningless. But let's take Brospierre's definition, what is wrong with arguing that certain labour is more empowering (besides the fact that this is not Marxist..)?

[Ostrinski]

I don't really understand what you're trying to ask. Are you asking why certain labor gets paid more (i.e. doctors, etc.)?

[Franz Fanonipants]

It is a buzzword for liberals.. But all this postmodern stuff can be practically meaningless.

im not really sure where you get that this is a 'postmodern' term

[NewLeft]

I don't really understand what you're trying to ask. Are you asking why certain labor gets paid more (i.e. doctors, etc.)?
I mean, jobs that are not necessarily considered fulfilling like janitors..etc) compared to say doctors..etc)? You brought up wages and it's true that it ties in with that, but I mean under socialism. Wouldn't these types of jobs still be unfulfilling? So is that not still a division that might have made sense under capitalism, but not so much under socialism?

So to me empowerment has to do with job satisfaction and I guess alienation, is this a flawed view as in certain jobs are more "empowering"?

[Ostrinski]

Who knows. We'll have to see how everything pans out

[NewLeft]

im not really sure where you get that this is a 'postmodern' term
Oh, it's not? I've only seen it used that way.. female "empowerment," black "empowerment"... It seems like a postmodern thing.


Who knows. We'll have to see how everything pans out
I don't mean to speculate, I am just wondering if there is a degree of truth in this claim: the last question.

I am hard to follow, I know.. I have troubles expressing my thoughts in words.

[Decommissioner]

I mean, jobs that are not necessarily considered fulfilling like janitors..etc) compared to say doctors..etc)? You brought up wages and it's true that it ties in with that, but I mean under socialism. Wouldn't these types of jobs still be unfulfilling? So is that not still a division that might have made sense under capitalism, but not so much under socialism?

So to me empowerment has to do with job satisfaction and I guess alienation, is this a flawed view?

I always assumed an ideal socialist society would do away with the notion of a person being locked into a career, just as it does away with the notion of working for a wage, which contributes to alienation and wage discrepancy. For one, no one would feel compelled to be "just a janitor." Doctors and nurses could also keep their place of work clean, and if they feel there needs to be a janitor position, perhaps they can volunteer for the position and rotate or someone from outside can temporarily fill the role? Who is to say the janitor at the hospital isn't also an astrophysicist or an engineer? Maybe they're just doing their part to keep things intact, or maybe there are incentives provided for labor one may find unfulfilling. No way of telling how workers may choose to organize, but I doubt collectively we'll want to keep people in janitorial and like positions if the individual has aspirations to do other things.

Under capitalism the janitor isn't a janitor because they like it, or because they feel like they're performing a noble socially necessary duty, or because it's financially rewarding. They do it because it's all they got between them and starvation. The inverse is true for the doctor. It is a well paying position, but aside from exceptions, most doctors become doctors because they wanted to be doctors and the opportunity was there for them. The job pays well of course, and no doctor will ever complain about that, but they also have to actually like what they are doing and most likely chose the profession because they knew they would like it. Under a socialist system with free education from all, there is nothing to prevent someone from becoming a doctor if they want to be a doctor. There will be nothing to prevent people from doing what they really want to do, which I doubt for most is to be a janitor their whole life.

[blake 3:17]

Amongst my circles the term usually refers to the degree of agency one experiences -- usually when it's fluctuating.


It has nothing to do with class or even conflict, Hm???



I mean, jobs that are not necessarily considered fulfilling like janitors..etc) compared to say doctors..etc)? You brought up wages and it's true that it ties in with that, but I mean under socialism. Wouldn't these types of jobs still be unfulfilling? So is that not still a division that might have made sense under capitalism, but not so much under socialism?


Sorry brother, but this is regurgitated bourgeois ideology. In my experience, cleaning and janitorial workers do take pride in their often very difficult jobs.


Oh, it's not? I've only seen it used that way.. female "empowerment," black "empowerment"... It seems like a postmodern thing.

You're getting into extremely vague territory.

Edited to add:
It is a well paying position, but aside from exceptions, most doctors become doctors because they wanted to be doctors and the opportunity was there for them. The job pays well of course, and no doctor will ever complain about that, but they also have to actually like what they are doing and most likely chose the profession because they knew they would like it. Bullshit.

[Left Leanings]

It's a pretty vague term, used in a variety of contexts and settings, as the posts above indicate. But I think I can give you a concrete example of how it's supposed to work.

In Britain, most mental healthcare is provided by the National Health Service and the Social Services, the funding coming out of general taxation. There is a 'top-down' system, in which social workers/healthcare managers etc, who decide who is entitled to services, how the services should be run, where and when it should be delivered, and so on.

Often these people have no direct appreciation of mental distress themselves, and have never been subject to the misery and exclusion from mainstream life it can entail.

Recent innovations in Britain, have seen the emergence of the so-called 'service user movement'. These are groups of recipients/ex-recipients of social and health care, who wish to breakaway from NHS and Social Services control, and take charge of their own affairs.

Funding is re-allocated from statutory bodies, and given directly to groups. An example is peer-mentoring, where people with mental health issues befriend others with mental distress. Money is also allocated to forums made up of service users, who can then discuss and campaign on the issues that matter to them.

It's a form, you might say, of 'empowerment'. Naturally, it does not go down well with the state bureaucrats in the NHS and the Social Sevices.

The movement is in its infancy, and it will not in and of itself, solve all problems. Only a move towards a socialist society will do that.