Talk:Emotional labor

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Missing Discussion of Non-Profit Workers

Non-profit workers - especially those working in organizations that advocate for environmental justice, economic justice, racial justice, and criminal justice reform - engage in a lot of emotional labor. Someone should add a section about non-profit workers to this article. The scholar Beth Eschenfelder has written about non-profit workers and emotional labor.

Teachers and other educators (especially those working in the humanities) also engage in a lot of emotional labor. There should be a specific section about private and public school educators in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8480:8420:9D8:A0B6:33A1:2F03 (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

ekh 02:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ARMiller017, Johnnyq79, J r186, Kaleighp, MorganMoore14. Peer reviewers: Spfeff22, Dorianb123, Ale46txst, Mrk34, JonathanARodriguez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation

The current article on Emotional Labor is rated within the occupational safety and health category and has a B-Class rating on the quality scale, this rating is three away from being a featured article. As far as organization goes, it seems to be pretty well organized and easy to read. The Links are fairly easy to follow and nothing seems to be out of place. While many of the topics and subtopics are of a high quality and are well written they need to be more applicable to different careers in the job market. Our group would also like to add more meat if you will to the idea of emotional labor, but not eliminating any of the existing material already written on emotional labor. While the majority of the information provided within the article is of high quality, the article is still missing key components of emotional labor. These key components missing include things such as Surface and Deep Acting, which have a significant impact on an individual’s emotional labor. The article does an excellent review of the service industry, but leaves government/ public administration completely out of the picture. This missing information leaves potential readers completely uninformed of the emotional issues government workers face. This missing information on emotional labor in relation to public administration causes readers to miss out on the significant differences between the private and public industries. The differences include, public administrators having to present themselves in a different manner than private sector employees because they are dealing with more people face to face, and the fact that public administrators are directly in the public's eye. The article needs to include street level bureaucrats and federal agency employees under the different occupation sections in order for readers to see examples how emotional labor differs between the different levels of government. Another difference is government employees face different implications than private sector employees because of the sensitivity of particular government projects, and the fact that they have more direct contact with citizens. Overall, this is an article of high quality but is missing some crucial information in regards to Government (Public Administration) and some key components such as Surface & Deep Acting. These are two important factors and can be elaborated on. The article needs to be revised in order to shift the reader's focus away from just the service industry and specific occupations, in order to give any potential reader a much broader perspective on emotional labor.

Untitled

Hi, I need a few guidelines.. Thanks Hila

Some guidelines

  • Sign your entry on a discussion page with four tildes "~". I did so and that produces: DCDuring 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get intimidated by the the tags.
  • The article needs to be Wikified. It doesn't look like original research to me and you have plenty of references and specific citations. They should be put in Wikipedia form. If there is controversy, then you may need to get to page citations, but that would be farther down the road. I will read the article more carefully over the next few days.

Also see your own personal discussion page for a note I left you on a related matter. Put a little something about yourself on your personal page (click where it has Hila in red.). I've not been at this too long myself. DCDuring 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add proper reference citations

The way the article is sourced is inadequate. The reader must be able to go to the source, page number, etc. The reference citation for each statement must be retrievable by the reader and able to be verified. Please see WP:CITE, WP:FN, WP:V etc. Long lists of referenced at the bottom are useless and look bad, over the top. All books must have ISBN. Regards, --Mattisse 03:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This level of precision is rarely reached. It does not warrant heavy tagging for what is a very promising article. DCDuring 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse, could you please provide a link to one of your articles to show us how it's done. DCDuring 03:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This was just a DYK Songyue Pagoda . I have started work on Forensic psychology in the last week. Since I have just begun, it still needs much work. The best policy, and the one I always follow, is to add a citation every time you add information. --Mattisse 18:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. the Songyue Pagoda was written in a day since the criteria for DYK is the article must be less than five days old. Also, it was a subject that I knew nothing about. I researched the information and each time I added it to the article, I added a reference citation to source it. --Mattisse 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Forensic psychology article I did not originate. Therefore I am cleaning it up. However, I wrote Theodore H. Blau in the last few days. The way to go is to start out small and build as you gather information and references. --Mattisse 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, --Hila2410 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking Good!!!

Having the references make this look so much more professional. There may be folks who want to challenge things, but this is really good. Now you might want to look at what links to this article and see what opportunities there might be improve how they refer to this article (in-line is better than see also). Also you might want to insert references this page that SHOULD be in others. Text searching all of WP articles on alternative words and especially phrases that are related can be fun and make the article more useful. DCDuring 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

difficult to understand & complex

surely the most basic & common example of emotional labor is staff appearing smiling and happy to customers.--Penbat (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional Labor And Stockholm Syndrome

How is emotional labor not a form of the Stockholm Syndrome and shouldn't there be a link here to that article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)?Godofredo29 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Revisions to article

In hopes of expanding the depth and legitimacy of Wikipedia, I would like to further develop this article. I would like to add research-based conclusions from psychological and sociological research journals, such as work completed by Rebecca Erickson, Alicia Grandey, David Holman, Arlie Hochschild, R. Leidner, and S.H. Lopez. Along with adding research-based conclusions, I would also like to connect these theoretical concepts to specific examples of emotional labor with the current labor market. Specifically, I would like to add research-based conclusions from both sociological and psychological research journals on emotional labor under the subsections “Forms of emotional labor” and “Emotional labor in organizations.” I would also like to add information to the subsections entitled “Determinants of using emotional labor,” and “Implications of using emotional labor.” All of the added information would be research-based conclusions from both sociological and psychological research journals. I would also like to connect the concept of emotional labor to the concept of alienation first theorized by Karl Marx, which would require adding a new section to the article.

Besides having mediocre ratings based on Wikipedia standards while also missing substantial amounts of important information, the importance of the article’s subject matter merits its expansion. Most people hope to be an effective and successful member of the workforce. However, being an effective member of the workforce does not only require having the necessary individual qualifications. Success also requires understanding how the workforce operates as an institution. The concept of emotional labor is a theoretical concept first theorized by Arlie Hochschild that brings a specific and important understanding of the workforce to light. Specifically, as the American economy shifts from a manufacturing to a service economy, control of one’s emotions based on companies’ standards have become so important that emotions have become a commodity in and of themselves. Essentially, I think understanding how emotional labor works ultimately leads to a better understanding of the labor force more generally. I would greatly appreciate any feedback or suggestions on any potentially useful resources. Please keep in mind that this contribution is part of a class assignment at Rice University.

Morell21 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morell21, great and ambitious plans! Just one comment. Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay. Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 10:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions Feedback

Hi Morell21, I first off want to say that I read over the changes you made to the article and it looks like you added a lot of really great scholarly content, which is great! I do have a few comments that I hope will help you to improve the page even further. First off, the main thing that really jumped out at me was your use of links. There were way too many of them; if you link to something, ie nurses, you do not link to it the next time it appears. You only need to link once, and there are some links that appear multiple times. Also, really think about the things you link to. A lot of the links, like scholars, evidence, goals, role, happy, friends, women, (I could go on) are so general as to almost be really unnecessary, or so broad that when you actually click on them they take you to a page with a whole range of options. For instance, transmutation was a concept that was a little confusing to me that I feel like could be fleshed out a little more, but when I clicked the link it took me to a page asking if I meant biological transmutation, dimensional transmutation, nuclear transmutation, and a whole host of others. Additionally, estrangement linked to a page about a Ukrainian black metal band. So just be a little more careful with your links; make sure that they're not repetitive, that they're relevant, and that they link to the page you want them to link to. Beyond issues with linking, I would say the main thing is that the article is a little difficult to read. The information is quality but sometimes it feels so academic that it is difficult to read, hard to follow, or not very clear. I would just work on making the article more accessible by providing more examples of these concepts you're talking about. For example, you give specific examples of what bodily or expressive emotion work looks like, but don't provide an example of cognitive emotion work. Also, fleshing out your terms a bit more would be really helpful--in what sense are you using the term estrangement? What exactly is transmutation? These kinds of concepts are represented very academically but may be difficult for readers to grasp. Finally, I would really like to see the gender and emotional labor and implications of emotional labor headings expanded on, especially for this class. Expanding on the effect of emotional labor on job segregation, the wage gap, and class inequalities would make for very interesting reading, and some concrete examples would be great. Other than that, great work! Rachel.m.mitchell (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rachel.m.mitchell. I first want to thank you for reading over my article and giving me suggestions that have the potential of improving my contribution. A couple of other Wiki users have already gone through my article and deleted some unnecessary/repetitive links. I also have some ideas to help better explain the concept of transmutation. To address your concerns with the scholarly nature of this article, I think it's important to realize that emotional labor is a theoretical concept and thus will be require a lot of scholarly sources/explanations. Unlike topics such as water scarcity in Africa that is a little more straightforward and has evidence directly from affected populations, emotional labor is a sociological theoretical concept attempting to explain the American workforce. However, I will try and edit the article in such as way that will make it more assessable to a broader audience. However, I do think keeping it based on scholarly work and conclusions is both informative and necessary. In terms of expanding how emotional labor affects gender and social inequality more generally, I need to be careful since those are extremely bias and controversial claims. Thus, I purposely attribute such claims to specific authors and do not attempt to make connections of my own since that would go against Wikipedia standards. Thanks again!

Morell21 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Contributions Feedback

Hi Morell21, I really enjoyed reading your article! This article is really well-done and does a great job of incorporating scholarly work. A few minor things: in terms of citations, I don't think that you have to list the year after the authors' names (I'm not sure that this is proper for Wikipedia citations). I also agree with Rachel.m.mitchell that your use of links could be a little bit more strategic (i.e., you may not need as many for terms that aren't extremely related to the topic). While I do agree that the article is a little more scholarly than other Wikipedia articles, I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. You could change a bit to try to make it a bit easier to read or accessible to a wider audience, but I don't think it's a huge issue. Under the section "Forms of emotion labor," the sentence "Of all women working, about one-half have jobs that require some form of emotional labor" may need some additional explanation. I noticed that it refers to women specifically, instead of workers in general. While you do go into the relationship of gender and emotion labor later on, I think it would be helpful to include another sentence or two here just mentioning that women are more likely to be in occupations that require emotion labor (if this is the case). Finally, I think the sentence "That is, occupations with high cognitive demands evidence wage returns with increasing emotional labor demands; whereas occupations low in cognitive demands evidence a wage "penalty" with increasing emotional labor demands" in the last section could be expanded upon a bit more. I was interested to learn more about examples of specific occupations where emotional labor is rewarded vs. occupations where it comes with a higher wage penalty. Perhaps you could add a sentence or two here explaining this or add in examples in the "Emotional labor in organizations" section. Great job! Naomi FK (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naomi FK! I just want to thank you for reading over my contribution. I will be sure to look over the Wikipedia guidelines of whether or not I should include the year after the authors' last names in the article. Also, several Wikipedia users have already gone through my article and deleted unnecessary/repetitive links so thank you for the suggestion! I will also edit the article to make it more accessible to a wider audience that does not necessarily have a scholarly background. I actually did not write that particularly part in the last section. However, I will be sure to look it over and make sure it makes sense and edit it accordingly. Thanks again!

Morell21 (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Peer Review

The article overall is really great, very in-depth and going over the different aspects of the article.

Comprehensiveness The content is very in-depth, some might say too in-depth but the way the article is set up there is a reason for it. For example the difference between emotional labor and other terms, those are pretty good for helping explain the difference or similarities. Though in one section, Public Administration, it looks unfinished because there are five categories or strategies and it looks like it needs to be continued.

Sourcing The sourcing is really incredible, So many and even for further reading. The sourcing is really good because it shows where everything is from, and that it is not just what the editors think.

Neutrality The neutrality is very constant and pretty precise.

Readability The sentences are very nicely crafted, clear most of the time however it could be overwhelming in some paragraphs with a bit of information but it makes sense if explaining and another article or study. The formatting is good, very well organized and good illustrations that go along with the topic.

Overall Very good job, a lot of information, which would only be a bad thing depending on the person however everything seems to make sense and give purpose for being there.

Mrk34 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Mrk34[reply]

~~Peer Review~~

Content - The in depth detail on emotional labor is great for understanding something as complex as this particular subject manner. A bit lengthy in regards to the different areas of career fields where emotional labor is present. The five strategies of dealing with emotional labor of course could use some work, but overall has the key points of emotional labor and what it is highlighted nicely.

Thesis = Article does focus on a clear topic but perhaps it does not need to cover so many fields. trying to narrow it down might be something beneficial if at all possible. It does have references available.

Representativeness- A wide variety of resources are chosen that are credible sources. Some opinions are thrown in there and could be written differently to make it seem more factual.

Neutrality is there but some opinion can be picked up as well. Minor edits can fix that and the readability is at a good level. It does have decent structure and formatting is organized.

Overall it does have a deep definition that covers quite a bit so trying to narrow it down might be something to look at. Some minor adjustments as far as where info is valid and needed would help but overall is rather good.

JonathanARodriguez (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Comprehensiveness: The comprehensiveness of the article is fantastic! The article is very in depth and contains detailed and relevant information. The article explains what emotional labor is, who it affects, how it affects people and how to deal with it. It’s very well done.

Sourcing: The article contains numerous sources! The sourcing creates a neutral tone and allows the readers to understand who said what.

Neutrality: Neutrality is given throughout the article because of the immense sources provided. The reader is provided with different views from different scholars and there perspectives regarding emotional labor. Readability: The sentences are crafty, however, at times they can be overwhelming. I understand them, however, by arranging their sentences this way, the article limits its audiences who have lower educational backgrounds.

Overall: They did a great job! I enjoyed the information provided! The only critique I have concerns their sentence structure, I would like to see the article worded differently in order to appeal to a larger audience, but as I said before, overall they did a fantastic job!

Spfeff22 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emotional labor. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi all, I'm interested in working on this article for my Feminist Economics class. I think this article is well-written but is missing some information- 1) it does not at all include sex workers as employees who perform emotional labor in their jobs and the nuances of that; 2) it does not mention the dynamics of race in emotional labor. The examples of emotional labor seem to come from mostly Western authors. This article should include comparative studies of emotional labor across countries—including not only, for example, how Chinese sex workers negotiate relations with their Chinese customers, but also how Chinese sex workers negotiate relations with Western customers, and 3) does not include much work on examples of men or LGBTQ members who perform emotional labor. I would like to expand on this already well-researched article with revisions related to the aspects I mentioned above. Angelaslin (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emotional labor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emotional labor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Couple Thoughts

I was going over the article and it looks great in a lot of aspects! I was thinking, however, that the "Public Administration" portion makes claims on behalf of "many scholars" but I didn't see a lot of references to claims by scholars in that section, or even mention of a couple names to back up "many." It is also a minor edit, but there is some gendered language under "Determinants" that I believe could be altered to gender neutral language without changing any of the actual information or flow of the text. Him/Her could be replaced with "one." SymoneSine (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation

This article provides great ideas and knowledge of emotional labor. The definitions are very concise and very clear to what emotional labor is. Also, the addition of surface acting and deep level acting provide a strong connection to the article. One suggestion I have is to shorten the career section and how they relate to emotional labor. Much of the information does not have a strong tie to the article and could easily be cut out.

Hamptal (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emotional labor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible plagiarism and/or copyright violation

This sentence seems to be WP:RFCV WP:plagiarism plagiarized and/or copyright violation: "More specifically, emotional labor comes into play during communication between worker and citizens, and it requires the rapid-fire execution of, emotive sensing, analyzing, judging, and behaving.[10]" p. 39 and 40 from Building Service-oriented Government: Lessons, Challenges And Prospects. I suggest removing it until the possible issues can be resolved.AnaSoc (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

add to WikiProject Sociology?

This article has turned out to have significant sociological content. Perhaps it could become part of the WikiProject Sociology? AnaSoc (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 02:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to point out imbalance

Roles that have been identified as requiring emotional labor include but are not limited to those involved in public administration (especially the palace intrigues of a ruling body, these being an eternal literary theme), guarded professions of secrecy (such as espionage, national security, military intelligence, psychiatry, clerisy, and law), ...

The bold part is my addition, these being the obvious additions of not-a-socialist.

Here's the $64,000 question: does this book tackle these roles in the large (for which my additions are entirely appropriate), or does it specifically focus on those most aligned with Marxist theory (i.e. wage-slave hospitality workers)?

If we want to narrow the list to what the book, itself, covers then this should be stated explicitly. Some of these positions are higher up the power hierarchy, and a Marxist analysis might be that the compensation for this labour becomes more appropriate (hence it becomes less of a category of implicit, uncompensated labour).

It turns out, the maintenance of any power hierarchy involves a lot of people biting their tongues. Even in the old hat upstairs/downstairs dynamic (Gosford Park), it must be a royal PITA to the lords and ladies of the manor to constantly avoid betraying their extracurricular interests and embarrassing entanglements to the butler or the maid.

In fact, I didn't even complete the list above, because it should also include anyone holding a position or office where the avoidance of embarrassing entanglements is an implicit condition of continued employment. (on this score, the entire theme of Scorsese's The Age of Innocence is that it takes a village to maintain the public fabric of orderly sentiment).

In linguistics, you can't even begin to engage with discourse analysis until you acknowledge that every person shifts into different registers within every power dynamic (family, friends, peers, rivals; large audience, small audience, private audience).

From a biological perspective, our ability to manage our social affairs within every larger social groups in the single mostly commonly cited pressure in recent human evolution (to the degree that recent human evolution exists, which remains contentious). Power expands into a vacuum. So, too, does human rivalry and ambition. Just as soon as you get good at maintaining affect within a small troop of twenty individuals, your troop expands to 40 individuals (all the better for joint defense; note that your bitter rivals have also expanded to 40 individuals, so think hard about falling behind the Jones).

The point is, this is not something we find implicitly hard to do at a biological level of analysis; but we keep complicating our social environment until it nearly kills us (an isolated tribe might deal with strangers per week or strangers per month, as a cast member at a Disney attraction, you could be dealing with 100 strangers per hour).

I think this article should be a fair bit sharper in carving out what this book actually set out to deal with, and on what terms. — MaxEnt 14:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I first arrived here because this topic was pointed out by Lindsay Ellis (media critic) in one of her YouTube media criticisms, where this book was very much framed as providing an analysis of emotional labour against the backdrop of capitalist institutions.
Note also that everyone employed at the CIA makes it a daily habit to be stone faced in the reception of the most alarming or threatening news (any other performance will soon have you judged as weak, and as a potential threat to the mission of the agency). But at least they don't have to forward any kind of positive illusion that they're doing (or feeling or believing) any other thing. At least, not until you get into covert ops; dig into the Illegals Program and you'll find people living entire fake lives, decades in the making.
And then there the people who actually thrive on being a different person in every situation, on every day of the week (Oscar Wilde, Liberace, David Bowie, Madonna, Lady Gaga) These people don't suffer capitalist slings and arrows under the burden. But then Lydia from Beetlejuice has to seek employment at the local Kwik-E-Mart, and that doesn't go well.
Good grief, that's too clever for words. — MaxEnt 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Contribution

Hello! I am interested in editing this page. I would like to make the surface and deep acting section more clear using Arlie Hochschild's text, The Managed Heart. I also want to add a childcare sub-section under the career section. Here are some of the sources I've looked at:

Andrew, Yarrow. 2015. “‘I’m Strong within Myself’: Gender, Class and Emotional Capital in Childcare.” British Journal of Sociology of Education; Oxford 36(5):651.

Brotheridge, Céleste M. and Raymond T. Lee. 2011. “Words from the Heart Speak to the Heart: A Study of Deep Acting, Faking, and Hiding among Child Care Workers.” Career Development International 16(4):401–20.

Edwards, Lisa Nyree. 2016. “Looking after the Teachers: Exploring the Emotional Labour Experienced by Teachers of Looked after Children.” Educational Psychology in Practice 32(1):54–72.

England, Paula. 2005. “Emerging Theories of Care Work.” Annual Review of Sociology; Palo Alto 31:381–99.

Hochschild, Arlie. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, California:University of California Press.

Murray, Susan B. 2000. “Getting Paid in Smiles: The Gendering of Child Care Work.” Symbolic Interaction 23(2):135–60.

Qi, Xingliang, Shuang Ji, Jing Zhang, Wanyong Lu, Judith K. Sluiter, and Huihua Deng. 2017. “Correlation of Emotional Labor and Cortisol Concentration in Hair among Female Kindergarten Teachers.” International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 90(1):117–22.

Uttal, Lynet and Mary Tuominen. 1999. “Tenuous Relationships: Exploitation, Emotion, and Racial Ethnic Significance in Paid Child Care Work.” Gender and Society 13(6):758–80.

Vincent, Carol and Annette Braun. 2013. “Being ‘fun’ at Work: Emotional Labour, Class, Gender and Childcare.” British Educational Research Journal 39(4):751–68.

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'd appreciate any feedback. I'll begin making edits on the page soon! Oak313 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing "Alternate usage" section

I'm going to revert the "Alternate usage" section, as it presents a rarely used and demonstrably incorrect definition of the term, in which the term's meaning is expanded to describe any labor traditionally associated with female gender roles, and the sources it cites vary from offering no support for this expanded definition, to explicitly rejecting it. The sources cited, and a brief summary of each, are as follows:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5ea9f140-f722-4214-bb57-8b84f9418a7e - Rejects the validity of the alternative usage, stating: 'Arlie Hochschild [the sociologist who coined the term] said she was “horrified” by some people’s housework-focused and woman-centred interpretation of the term.'

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/ - Offers only a definition by Penn State psychologist Alicia Grandey, describing EL as the forced display of fake emotions, and makes no mention of counseling or housework.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/11/arlie-hochschild-housework-isnt-emotional-labor/576637/ - Entire article is about how these "alternative" uses of the term are incorrect.

David Scarlett(Talk) 02:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave3141592: By using the term "incorrect", you're mixing your personal feelings with the editorial process. On Wikipedia, we summarize what reliable sources say about a term, even if some people judge it to be incorrect. We're not prescriptive, but descriptive. The sources cited discuss this alternate usage, and are reliable, hence this information is appropriate. You're welcome to expand the section with what other reliable sources think of this alternate usage, including negative feelings, keeping in mind due weight. (note, I'm the one who added the text in question) Opencooper (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, here are three more quite reliable sources "incorrectly" using the term: NYT, Harpers, the Guardian. However much some might be disturbed, it's a natural process of language change for terms to warp in meaning or gain senses, and much of the English you use today underwent the same. Opencooper (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Opencooper: To clarify, "demonstrably incorrect" means a misuse that is incongruent with the accepted definition of the term, makes no sense when considering the literal meaning of the term (as there isn't any more of an emotional component to housework beyond any other form of work), and has been explicitly rejected by the creator of the term. There's nothing personal about it - it's an entirely objective description of the available information on the subject. As for sources on the subject, the sources originally included in your addition do not actually discuss the alternative usage, except to reject it. An article stating "emotional labour does not refer to housework" absolutely cannot be considered a reliable source for the statement "the definition of emotional labour has been expanded to include housework". (The only arguable exception is the QZ article, in which the author recalls a college friend discussing emotional labor on social media, but that's not even remotely close to an acceptable source.) As for the additional sources you provide here, all are opinion pieces by authors without any qualifications relating to sociology and citing no primary sources (except for where they quote sociologists, but none of these quotes support the alternative definition), making them all unreliable sources. Furthermore, in the case of the Guardian piece, it actually defines emotional labor as "the expectation that a worker should manipulate either her actual feelings or the appearance of her feelings in order to satisfy the perceived requirements of her job. Emotional labor also covers the requirement that a worker should modulate her feelings in order to influence the positive experience of a client or a colleague", and then goes on to explicitly list housework and childcare as separate forms of unpaid labor that are commonly expected of women. So this is yet another source which doesn't even support this redefinition. So I really don't think any of these justify the inclusion of this alternative definition in the article. David Scarlett(Talk) 13:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I'll add that even a collection of articles which use housework, interpersonal counselling, etc as examples of emotional labor (as opposed to explicitly documenting an "alternative" definition of the term which includes those things, or documenting the expansion of the definition) cannot be used as sources for the existence of an alternative definition, as that would constitute original research. David Scarlett(Talk) 13:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
English does not have any language authority so "accepted" is not a meaningful designation. The creator doesn't get to control how their term is applied in use; they're welcome to comment on it, but language is defined by how people use it rather than how academics wish for it to be scoped. Also, the Guardian source literally has in its blurb: "From remembering birthdays..." and then goes on to discuss domestic tasks. You're fitting your interpretations to match your conclusion rather than looking at the sources objectively. As for your last point, all of these articles explicitly discuss the term itself rather than just using it, so that would not constitute original research.
Even if we were to agree with you and say that this usage is incorrect, that all these writers for notable publications should be ignored because they are not academics, you're not actually denying that this is an alternate usage. You just don't want it to be mentioned at all because you feel its incorrect, but on Wikipedia we don't arbitrate facts—we summarize reliable sources. Note, the section already quotes the creator and her opinion on it, and I invited you to expand it with "negative" press if you feel its appropriate encyclopedically. The usage is real, no matter how much one would like to put the genie back in the bottle. Opencooper (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriating scholarly terms like “emotional labor” to create outside of academic meanings for the term is the common route to 1) making it a negative concept, 2) applying it cliche fashion to a group of people, 3) using said term to shorthand dismiss or cast that group of people in a negative light, 4) building a set of negative terms associated with that group of people, 5) using that negative vocabulary to get legislation which harms that group of people. It was used to devastating effect by axis countries in World War 2. An academic term, taken and misused by a dozen newspapers, then mentioned in a few scholarly articles, repeated a few times does not rise the misused meaning to a reliable source. Unspeak, unperson, unmeaning George Orwell 1984.
Unpaid family security guard daily, absorbing daily teenager angst, blocking repeated sibling arguments from going to my SO daily, having to do all the stern you will do homework conversations with multiple children daily, doing all the heavy labor daily, always being expected to drive every family trip no matter how small, expected to drive home from 75+ events each year while SO falls asleep in the car, expected to be a porter during all family vacations and overnighters, expected to be an emergency repairman 24x7 for us, her parents, expected to entertain the kids and her daily,

There are thousands of uncounted household chores like this which are never mentioned with emotional labor - and yes too doing 50% of house cleaning on top with the dirty much more likely to get injured jobs done by me and not SO. And with a physically demanding day job.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 February 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaimcamc (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mazariegos lorena, Asp.woods.

— Assignment last updated by MuthanaAlhadrab (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Emotional_labor"