Executive Summary:
Hughes (1958) defined dirty work as occupations that are viewed by society as physically, socially, or morally tainted. Attributions of taint may make it difficult for occupational members to derive an edifying occupational identity. Exploratory, semi-structured interviews with managers from 18 dirty work occupations investigated how taint may be normalized, that is, rendered less salient and problematic. Five practices were revealed: occupational ideologies, social buffers, confronting clients and the public, individual defense mechanisms, and institutionalized defense mechanisms. We discuss links between these practices as well as their prevalence across the three forms of taint and across relatively low versus relatively high prestige dirty work. We conclude that it is through normalizing that members of dirty work occupations are able to derive pride and identification from jobs that society necessitates but then sanctimoniously disavows.
|
