Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of figures, tables and box
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: The flexibility paradox and contexts
- 2 The demand for and trends in flexible working
- 3 The dual nature of flexibility: family-friendly or performance-oriented logic?
- 4 The outcomes of flexible working
- 5 The flexibility paradox: why more freedom at work leads to more work
- 6 The empirical evidence of the flexibility paradox
- 7 Gendered flexibility paradox
- 8 Flexibility stigma and the rewards of flexible working
- 9 The importance of contexts
- 10 COVID-19 and flexible working
- 11 Conclusion: Where do we go from here?
- Appendix
- References
- Index
9 - The importance of contexts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2022
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of figures, tables and box
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: The flexibility paradox and contexts
- 2 The demand for and trends in flexible working
- 3 The dual nature of flexibility: family-friendly or performance-oriented logic?
- 4 The outcomes of flexible working
- 5 The flexibility paradox: why more freedom at work leads to more work
- 6 The empirical evidence of the flexibility paradox
- 7 Gendered flexibility paradox
- 8 Flexibility stigma and the rewards of flexible working
- 9 The importance of contexts
- 10 COVID-19 and flexible working
- 11 Conclusion: Where do we go from here?
- Appendix
- References
- Index
Summary
Introduction
In the previous chapter, we ended with the question whether flexibility stigma exists across all countries, and whether in all countries women will be the ones who suffer more from its prevalence. Given that norms around the ‘ideal worker’ are different across countries, and as countries differ in the extent to which traditional gender roles exist, we can expect some variations across countries. Flexible working is not used in a vacuum, and the socio-economic, cultural and institutional context in which it is used matter. As we have discussed in the previous chapters, according to capabilities approach theories, a person's capacity to use the ‘freedom’ given to oneself is limited by the context in which that individual is embedded (Hobson, 2011). The same could be found if we examine Foucault's (2010) theory of the subjectification of self and the rise of the homo-economicus which enables the flexibility paradox to occur. The crux of the argument lies in the context of widespread neo-liberalism and the shifts found in societal norms – and the individual's own identity – towards one that privilege capitalist market exchange values above all else. However, there are a variety of capitalisms (Hall and Soskice, 2001) and neo-liberalistic ideals are not as prevalent across all countries. In fact, examining some of the evidence of the flexibility and autonomy paradox, we see that most previous studies are from countries that are typically considered liberal countries (Esping-Andersen, 1990). The question arises then whether we would not see similar patterns in other countries where norms around work and work-life balance are very different. Similarly, we can expect to find variations in the degree to which the gendered flexibility paradox occurs across countries. One main reason why we expect to find and do find gendered patterns of the flexibility paradox was largely due to the patriarchal societal structures with strict gender norms around men and women's roles. Thus, in countries where such traditional gender norms do not exist, the gendered flexibility paradox may also not occur.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Flexibility ParadoxWhy Flexible Working Leads to (Self-)Exploitation, pp. 131 - 149Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2022