The Precariat and other Noms

Was surfing yesterday, you might remember the post that included an article by Dobson.  In it he referenced a book, The Precariat that I've been reading since I found it.  It's an interesting take on the shifts in labor behaviors over the last 20 years or so.

What I find particularly interesting is, as most of you don't know, my 39th birthday was last Thursday.  I've been alive, and in the labor pool long enough to see some of these changes take effect.  Granted on a much slower, and smaller scale.  I was barely at my first job in the late 80's while some of what Guy Standing describes was starting to take place.

I thought that what I read of Standing's book dovetailed well with what I know of events simply from being alive, and what I've learned thus far about the social psychological processes of labor, value, and contributory meaning.  How that meaning supports functionality.  How that functionality supports social capital.

I've also been reading up on personality disorders, and it occurred to me that the recent rise in non-clinical narcissism might be a result of the precariousness of existence that Standing describes.  Authority, self-sufficiency, entitlement, exhibitionism, vanity, superiority, exploitativeness are all possible affects of an environment that is highly inter-personally competitive, unstable, and unsupportive.

In a neoliberal, labor deregulatory environment, are these affects to be expected?  Is there a risk of pathologizing individuals for the problems caused by social policy?  In what way would this be a culture-bound psychological phenomenon rather than a pathology?  And what do we make of, or attribute to the characteristic phenomenon of suicide that is increasing at an alarming rate?  Has I/O Psych made a detrimental impact on the functioning of individuals in precarious situations?

I think these are important questions that need to be answered.  I don't think the result of our combined limited understanding of what we know, or the result of our limited knowledge itself is considered enough.

Does this present an ethical dilemma of sorts?  Is psychological research responsible for what people do with the knowledge gained?  In what way?