Skip to main content

Dignity and Species Difference Within Organizations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dignity and the Organization

Part of the book series: Humanism in Business Series ((HUBUS))

Abstract

The concept of dignity has traditionally been framed by ideas of human rights, such as respect, worth, and esteem. It is a notion that does not usually extend beyond human social interactions within our homes and workplaces. This is largely explained by powerful and ancient distinctions between ‘us’ and ‘them’, based not only on physical and genomic differences but on our vastly different experiential and behavioural registers and our capacities for choice, action, and cognition. The attendant status gap that tracks these apparent differences sustains the ‘moral categories’ of animal and human and helps explain why we tend not to think of dignity as an animal quality. For millennia, however, humans have relied upon the productive capacities of other species for transport, defence, law enforcement and food. The important work that other animals do for the human animal prompts us to think more deeply about the organizational status of that animal and their dignity in labour.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We recognize that the term ‘animals’ does precisely that but we use it (somewhat self-consciously) here for simplicity in referring to nonhuman creatures. We do not include insects, plants, bacterial or cellular organisms within our working definition as we feel these warrant separate specialist analysis. We are aware of the charge of mammalian hegemony (Buller 2015) that such an approach has the potential to engender but it is well beyond the scope of the current chapter to look meticulously at dignity and all nonhuman species.

References

  • Ackroyd, S., and P. Crowdy. 1990. Can Culture be Managed? Working with ‘Raw Material’: The Case of the English Slaughtermen. Personnel Review 19(5): 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. 2004. Animal Rights and the Values of Nonhuman Life. In Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, eds. C.R. Sunstein and M.C. Nussbaum, 277. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, P., and A.C. Frost. 2005. Dignity at Work for Low Wage, Low Skill Service Workers. Industrial Relations 60(4): 657–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, S.C. 2007. Dimensions of Dignity at Work. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braidotti, R. 2006. Posthuman, All Too Human Towards a New Process Ontology. Theory, Culture & Society 23(7–8): 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, H. 2015. Animal Geographies II: Methods. Progress in Human Geography 39(3): 374–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (Sociological Review Monograph), ed. J. Law. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., J. Law, and A. Rip. 1986. Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, A. 2010. Undignified Bioethics. Bioethics 24(5): 234–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbey, R. 2005. The Metaphysics of Apes: Negotiating the Animal-Human Boundary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, M. 2012. Control and Dignity in Professional, Manual and Service-Sector Employment. Organization Studies 33(10): 1383–1406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——— 2013. Class, Control, and Relational Indignity: Labor Process Foundations for Workplace Humiliation, Conflict, and Shame. American Behavioral Scientist, (OnlineFirst).

    Google Scholar 

  • Darby, W.J. 2000. Landscape and Identity: Geographies of Nation and Class in England. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufur, M.J., and S.L. Feinberg. 2007. Artificially Restricted Labor Markets and Worker Dignity in Professional Football. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 36(5): 505–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dussutour, A., V. Fourcassié, D. Helbing, and J.L. Deneubourg. 2004. Optimal Traffic Organization in Ants Under Crowded Conditions. Nature 428(6978): 70–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forst, R. 2011. The Ground of Critique: On the Concept of Human Dignity in Social Orders of Justification. Philosophy & Social Criticism 37(9): 965–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fudge, E. 2002. Animal. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, S. 1997. How Many Kinds of Things are there in the World? The Ontological Status of Societies. In The Mark of the Social: Discovery or Invention? ed. J. Greenwood, 81–103. Lenham: Rowan and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. 2007. Muck and Magic: Cultural Transformations in the World of Farm Animal Veterinary Surgeons. Ethnography 8(4): 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 1989. Primate Visions; Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassard, J., and R. Alcadipani. 2010. Actor-Network Theory, Organizations and Critique: Towards a politics of Organizing. Organization 17: 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. 2011. Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkiss, P. 2013. A Moral Vision: Human Dignity in the Eyes of the Founders of Sociology. The Sociological Review 61(3): 417–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, R. 2001. Dignity at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J., and W. Sharrock. 1997. The Philosophy of Social Research. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. 1909. ‘A Pluralistic Universe’ Quoted by Langley and Tsoukas ‘Introducing Perspectives on Process Organization’. In Process, Sensemaking and Organizing: Perspectives on Process Organization, eds. Hernes and Maitlis. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, O., and P. Cloke. 2002. Tree Cultures: The Place of Trees, and Trees in Their Place. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalof, L., and A. Fitzgerald. 2007. The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and Contemporary Readings. New York: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, C., and K. Sang. 2016. Police Dogs as Organizational Actors: Perspective. 9th Biennial International Interdisciplinary Gender, Work and Organization Conference, June 30. Staffordshire, UK: Keele University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, K. 2015. Workplace Dignity: Communicating Inherent, Earned, and Remediated Dignity. Journal of Management Studies 52(5): 621–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D., and L. Hamilton. 2015. The Kill Programme: An Ethnographic Study of Dirty Work in a Slaughterhouse. In New Technology, Work and Employment 30(2): 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misztal, B.A. 2012. The Idea of Dignity: Its Modern Significance. European Journal of Social Theory 16(1): 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K., and M. Cole. 2011. The Discursive Representation of Non-Human Animals in a Culture of Denial. In Human and Other Animals: Critical Perspectives, eds. B. Carter and N. Charles, 112. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, M. 2011. The Underdog in History: Serfdom, Slavery and Species in the Creation and Development of Capitalism. In Theorizing Animals, eds. N. Taylor and T. Signal. Boston, MA: Brill Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M.C. 2007. Frontiers of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Doherty, D. 2015. Feline Politics in Organization: The Nine Lives of Olly the Cat (CRESC Working Paper). Manchester: Manchester University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M. 2014. Dignity—A Missing Piece in the Puzzle of Organizational Research? (Humanistic Management Network Working Paper Series No. 11). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2413814. Accessed 20 Oct 2015.

  • Purser, G. 2009. The Dignity of Job-Seeking Men: Boundary Work Among Immigrant Day Laborers. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 38(1): 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscigno, V.J., R. Hodson, and S.H. Lopez. 2009. Workplace Incivilities: The Role of Interest Conflicts, Social Closure and Organizational Chaos. Work, Employment & Society 23(4): 747–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, M.E. 2012. Dignity: Its History and Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. and M.J. Brannan. 2015. Getting the Right People on the Bus: Recruitment, Selection and Integration for the Branded Organization (Unpublished Working Paper). Staffordshire: Keele University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, N.J., and D.M. Gordon. 2003. Resource-Dependent Interactions and the Organization of Desert Ant Communities. Ecology 84(4): 1024–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. 2007. Dignity at Work: Broadening the Agenda. Organization 14(4): 565–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sensen, O. 2011. Human Dignity in Historical Perspective: The Contemporary and Traditional Paradigms. European Journal of Political Theory 10(1): 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel, M. 1996. The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery. New York: Mirror Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S.L. 1991. Power, Technology and the Phenomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic to Onions. In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, ed. J. Law. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N. 2010. Animal Shelter Emotion Management: A Case of In Situ Hegemonic Resistance? Sociology 44(1): 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N., and T. Signal, eds. 2011. Theorizing Animals: Re-Thinking Humanimal Relations. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twine, R. 2007. Searching for the Win-Win: Animals Genomics and Welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food. 16(3): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherall, D. 2011. Research with Living Beings: Keynote Address. 30th June 2011: Keele University Law School.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hamilton, L., Mitchell, L. (2017). Dignity and Species Difference Within Organizations. In: Kostera, M., Pirson, M. (eds) Dignity and the Organization. Humanism in Business Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55562-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics