Book. The approach is original, but may surprise. To explore the contours of the world of “precariat” (a neologism, born from the contraction of the words “precariousness” and “proletariat”) – which would concern 40% of the population of developed countries, according to the British economist Guy Standing -, the sociologist Nicolas Roux has chosen to study in France two very different social categories, on the one hand seasonal agricultural workers, on the other intermittent performing artists.
In fact, these two populations have the common point of being the opposite of the “Fordist” wage model, where stable, full-time employment dominates. As far as France is concerned, these categories belong more to the margins of the world of work, since the permanent contract (CDI) still represented 85.3% of stable employment, according to INSEE statistics, in 2016. In total, 3.7 million people were still in precarious employment in France that year. Their existence is more perennial and ancient, since the agricultural day laborers like the cachet workers in the entertainment world were already very numerous in the 19th century.e century, as at the beginning of the XXe century.
A social fact
But with the recent social crises – in particular the movement of the “yellow vests” –, the speeches on the advent of a “start-up nation” or on the “uberization” of the economy, the idea that precariousness has gained ground and settled down over time deserves an analysis. Under these conditions, the common thread of the author is “to clearly see how individuals best manage their situation, according to the available resources”.
Nicolas Roux studies the conditions of sustainability and unsustainability of lasting precariousness. The life of seasonal agricultural workers and that of entertainment workers alternate between periods of employment and unemployment. Discontinuity is inscribed at the very heart of their social life, both from the point of view of the contract (fixed-term, seasonal, etc.) and working time (part-time, fragmented, etc.). But there also lies the great difference between them.
On the one hand, seasonal agricultural workers, from modest backgrounds and with less qualifications, are led to accept their condition and be satisfied with it. They do not have the choice of their activity and depend on their precarious employment to feed themselves. On the other hand, it’s a lifestyle choice for show workers. The author quickly comes to the following conclusion: “It is not “intellectual worker” who wants. » This is greatly facilitated by the acquisition, from the outset, of social and economic capital. Throughout his investigation, Nicolas Roux demonstrates that the precariat has indeed become a social fact increasingly rooted in French society, on the other hand, it does not constitute a social class, this world remaining very fragmented.
You have 3.01% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.