Minerva

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 45–64

Busy as a Bee or Unemployed?: Shifting Scientific Discourse on Work

Article
  • 165 Downloads

Abstract

Changing images of work in discourse both portray and co-constitute the shift from an industrial to a postindustrial economy. Specifically, work metaphors appear in extra-scientific and intra-scientific discourse on workers and work structures in the natural and social world. An analysis of the entomological discourse from the late nineteenth century to the present shows changes in these metaphors that overlap with the discourse of change in human work and organizational structures. For instance, the metaphor of a busy bee within an efficient hive had traditionally evoked a comparison to the modern industrial workplace. The discourse on the hive currently more closely resembles a postindustrial conception of work. Discourse analysis can illustrate the role of language in co-constructing shared changes in image of work.

Keywords

Work metaphors Social insects Postindustrial Discourse analysis 

References

  1. Anderson, Carl, and Daniel W. McShea. 2001. Individual versus social complexity, with particular reference to ant colonies. Biological Reviews 76: 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous. 1843. The natural history of insects, Vol. 1. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  3. Ardichvili, Alexander. 2001. Three metaphors for the lives and work of HRD consultants. Advances in Developing Human Resources 3(3): 33–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barley, Stephen. 1996. The New World of Work. London: British-North American Committee.Google Scholar
  5. Beekman, Madeline, and Benjamin P. Oldroyd. 2008. When workers disunite: Intraspecific parasitism by eusocial bees. Annual Review of Entomology 53: 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, Daniel. 1973. The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bennet, Alex and David, Bennet. 2003. Organizational survival in the new world: The intelligent complex adaptive system. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  8. Bonabeau, Eric, and Christopher Meyer. 2001. Swarm intelligence: A whole new way to think about business. Harvard Business Review 79: 106–114.Google Scholar
  9. Burnier, DeLysa. 2006. Masculine markets and feminine care: A gender analysis of the national performance review. Public Administration Review 66(6): 861–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camazine, Scott, Jean-Louis Deneubourg, Nigel R. Franks, James Sneyd, Guy Theraulaz, and Eric Bonabeau. 2001. Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cappelli, Peter. 2008. (ed.) Employment relationships: New models of white collar work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Champlin, Dell, and Paulette Olson. 1994. Post-industrial metaphors: Understanding corporate restructuring and the economic environment of the 1990s. Journal of Economic Issues 28(2): 449–459.Google Scholar
  13. Chiapello, Eve, and Norman Fairclough. 2002. Understanding the new management ideology: A transdisciplinary contribution from critical discourse analysis and new sociology of capitalism. Discourse and Society 13(2): 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Creticos, Peter A. 2007. Discovering new metaphors for work and its relation to the people who perform it. www.promising-practices.org (Retrieved November 8, 2008).
  15. Dobata, Shigeto, Tomonori Sasaki, Hideaki Mori, Eisuke Hasegawa, Masakazu Shimada, and Kazuki Tsuji. 2009. Cheater genotypes in the parthenogenetic ant pristomyrmex punctatus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276: 567–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duffy, Trudy K. 2001. White gloves and cracked vases: How metaphors help group workers construct new perspectives and responses. Social Work With Groups: A Journal of Community and Clinical Practice 24(3/4): 89–99.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, Theodore A. 2006. Foraging and building in subterranean termites: Task switchers or reserve labourers? Insectes Sociaux 53: 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Fisk, Catherine. 2005. Knowledge work: New metaphors for the new economy. Chicago-Kent Law Review 80: 839–872.Google Scholar
  20. Foster, Kevin R., John Gulliver, and Francis L.W. Ratnieks. 2002. Worker policing in the European Hornet Vespa crabro. Insectes Sociaux 49: 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Franks, Nigel R., and Chris Tofts. 1994. Foraging for work: How tasks allocate workers. Animal Behavior 48: 470–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frenkiel, Nora. 1984. The up-and-comers: Bryant takes aim at the settlers-in. Adweek Special Report Magazine World. Google Scholar
  23. Froggatt, Katherine. 2001. The place of metaphor and language in exploring nurses’ emotion work. Journal of Advanced Nursing 28(2): 332–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gates, Barbara T. 1997. Ordering nature: Revisioning Victorian science culture. In Bernard Lightman (Ed.), Victorian science in context (pp. 179–186). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gordon, Deborah. 1999. Ants at work. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gordon, Deborah. 1989. Caste and change in social insects. In Paul H. Harvey and Linda Partridge (Eds.), Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology (Vol. 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Graham, Phil. 2002. Hypercapitalism: Language, new media and social perceptions of value. Discourse and Society 13(2): 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Halling, L.A., and Benjamin P. Oldroyd. 2003. Do policing honeybee (Apis mellifera) workers target eggs in drone comb? Insectes Sociaux 50: 59–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halpern, D.F., and S.E. Murphy (eds.). 2005. From work-family balance to work-family interaction: Changing the metaphor. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Haraway, Donna. 1989. Primate visions: Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Harrison, Bennet. 1994. Lean and mean: The changing landscape of corporate power in the age of flexibility. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Hughes, Jason. 2005. Bringing emotion to work. Work, Employment & Society 19(3): 603–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hofstede, Frouke E. 2005. The allocation of foragers to a new foraging task in the stingless bee Plebeia tobagoensis (Hymenoptera, Meliponini). Proceedings of the Netherlands Entomological Society Meeting 16: 91–94.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, Robert A. 2001. Biogeography and community structure of North American seed-harvester ants. Annual Review of Entomology 46: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jordan, L.A., M.H. Allsopp, B.B. Oldroyd, T.C. Wossler, and M. Beekman. 2008. Cheating honeybee workers produce royal offspring. Proceeding of Biological Sciences 275(1632): 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klamer, Arjo, and Thomas C. Leonard. 1994. So what’s an economic metaphor? In Phillip Mirowski (Ed.), Natural images in economic thought: ‘Markets read in tooth and claw.’ (pp. 20–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lindauer, M. 1967. Recent advances in bee communication and orientation. Annual Review of Entomology 12: 439–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lopez-Vaamonde, C., J.W. Koning, R.M. Brown, W.C. Jordan and A.F.G. Bourke. 2004. Social parasitism by male-producing reproductive workers in a eusocial insect. Nature 430:557–560.Google Scholar
  41. Lubbock, John. 1890 [1879]. Scientific lectures (2nd edition). London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  42. Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 2000. Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Maeterlinck, Maurice. 1901. The life of the bee. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company.Google Scholar
  44. Mansilla, Paloma Úbeda. 2003. Metaphor at work: A study of metaphors used by European architects when talking about their projects. Ibérica 5: 35–48.Google Scholar
  45. Matsuura, K., and T. Nishida. 2001. Colony fusion in a termite: What makes the society ‘Open’? Insectes Sociaux 48: 378–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maume, David J. 1999. Glass ceilings and glass escalators. Work and Occupations 26: 483–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McBrier, Debra Branch, and George Wilson. 2004. Going down?: Race and downward occupational mobility for white-collar workers in the 1990s. Work and Occupations 31(3): 283–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCook, Henry Christopher. 1909. Ant communities and how they are governed: A study in natural civics. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Metcalfe, Mike. 2005. Knowledge sharing, complex environments and small-worlds. Human Systems Management 24: 185–195.Google Scholar
  50. Michener, Charles, and Mary Michener. 1951. American social insects. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Miner, T.B. 1849. The American bee keeper’s manual: Being a practical treatise on the history and domestic economy of the honey-bee. New York: C. M. Saxton.Google Scholar
  52. Mirowski, Philip. 1994. Natural images in economic thought: Markets read in tooth and claw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moen, Phyllis. 2005. Beyond the career mystique: ‘Time In’, ‘Time Out’, and ‘Second Acts’. Sociological Forum 20(2): 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morgan, Gareth. 2007 (1986) Images of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Moritz, Robin F.A., and Peter Neumann. 2004. Differences in Nestmate recognition for drones and workers in the honeybee. Apis mellifera (L.) Animal Behavior 67(4):681–688.Google Scholar
  56. Nonacs, Peter, and H.K. Reeves. 1992. Social contracts in wasp societies. Nature 359: 823–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ollilainen, Marjukka, and Toni Calasanti. 2007. Metaphors at work: Maintaining the salience of gender in self-managing teams. Gender and Society 21(1): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Oster, George F., and Edward O. Wilson. 1978. Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Pelletier, L., and J.N. McNeil. 2004. Do bumblebees always forage as much as they could? Insectes Sociaux 51: 271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pfeiffer, K.J., and K. Crailsheim. 1998. Drifting of honeybees. Insectes Sociaux 45: 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ratnieks, Francis L.W. 1988. Reproductive harmony via mutual policing by eusocial hymenoptera. American Naturalist 132: 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robinson, Gene E. 1992. Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Annual Review of Entomology 37: 637–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rodgers, Diane M. 2008. Debugging the link between social theory and social insects. Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Royal Society Press Release. 2008. “Lazy ants ‘Social Cancer’ of colony”. http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8056 (Retrieved June 16, 2009).
  65. Sennett, Richard. 1998. The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  66. Sleigh, Charlotte. 2003. Ant. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  67. Smith, Adrian A., Bert Hölldobler, and Jürgen Liebig. 2009. Cuticular hydrocarbons reliably identify cheaters and allow enforcement of altruism in a social insect. Current Biology 19(1): 78–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sommer, Marianne. 2000. Foremost in creation: Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism in National Geographic articles on non-human primates. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  69. Soro, A., M. Ayasse, M.U. Zobel, and R.J. Paxton. 2009. Complex sociogenetic organization and the origin of unrelated workers in a eusocial sweat bee, Lasioglossum Malachurum. Insectes Sociaux 56(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sundström, L., and J.J. Boomsma. 2001. Conflicts and alliances in insect families. Heredity 86(5): 515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Traniello, James F.A. 1989. Foraging strategies in ants. Annual Review of Entomology 34: 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. van Dijk, Teun A. 2003. Specialized discourse and knowledge: A case study of the discourse of modern genetics. In E.M. Morato, A.C. Bentes, and M.L. Cunha Lima (Eds.), Homenagem a Ingedore Koch. Cadernos de Estudos Linguisticos (Vol. 44, pp. 21–56). Brasil: Unicamp, Campinas.Google Scholar
  73. von Frisch, Karl. 1953 [1927]. The dancing bees. New York: Harvest Book.Google Scholar
  74. Weaver, Adam. 2005. Interactive service work and performative metaphors: The case of the cruise industry. Tourist Studies 5(1): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wenseleers, T., H. Helanterä, A. Hart, and F.L.W. Ratnieks. 2004. Worker reproduction and policing in insect societies: An ESS analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 1035–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wilson, E.O. 1971. The Insect Societies. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Withington, Anne Fairfax. 1988. Republican bees: The political economy of the beehive in eighteenth century America. Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 18: 39–77.Google Scholar
  78. Wright, Erik Olin, and Janeen Baxter. 2000. The glass ceiling hypothesis: A reply to critics. Gender and Society 14(6): 814–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology DepartmentNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations