Creating ‘safe’ spaces through exclusionary boundaries: Examining employers’ treatment of domestic workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in India

IF 4.5 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Vaibhavi Kulkarni, Namita Gupta, Arohi Panicker
{"title":"Creating ‘safe’ spaces through exclusionary boundaries: Examining employers’ treatment of domestic workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in India","authors":"Vaibhavi Kulkarni, Namita Gupta, Arohi Panicker","doi":"10.1177/00187267241275864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our study illustrates how boundary mechanisms exacerbated the marginalization of paid domestic workers in India, after they resumed their employment at the end of the lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic. We draw upon in-depth interviews with the middle-class employers of these workers to show how the employers renegotiated boundary rules and created bubbles of safe interaction for themselves. We contribute to boundary theory by explaining how pre-existing symbolic boundaries intensify and materialize into social boundaries. Social boundaries often result in unequal access to resources, further increasing disparities. But how do these boundaries get invoked? What forms do they take? So far, we do not have enough empirical research examining the creation and maintenance of social boundaries. This study shows how social boundaries get created and stabilized within gated communities through deployment of material resources, regulations and routinization of boundary tactics. These exclusionary social boundaries are further strengthened by the presence of an external agency, emerging as a new and significant actor in the hitherto private employer–worker relationship. Finally, we note that these boundaries result in normalized differential treatment of domestic workers, thus accentuating the class divide.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241275864","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our study illustrates how boundary mechanisms exacerbated the marginalization of paid domestic workers in India, after they resumed their employment at the end of the lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic. We draw upon in-depth interviews with the middle-class employers of these workers to show how the employers renegotiated boundary rules and created bubbles of safe interaction for themselves. We contribute to boundary theory by explaining how pre-existing symbolic boundaries intensify and materialize into social boundaries. Social boundaries often result in unequal access to resources, further increasing disparities. But how do these boundaries get invoked? What forms do they take? So far, we do not have enough empirical research examining the creation and maintenance of social boundaries. This study shows how social boundaries get created and stabilized within gated communities through deployment of material resources, regulations and routinization of boundary tactics. These exclusionary social boundaries are further strengthened by the presence of an external agency, emerging as a new and significant actor in the hitherto private employer–worker relationship. Finally, we note that these boundaries result in normalized differential treatment of domestic workers, thus accentuating the class divide.
通过排斥性界限创造 "安全 "空间:考察印度 COVID-19 大流行期间雇主对待家庭佣工的方式
我们的研究说明了在 COVID-19 大流行期间,印度的有偿家政工人在封锁结束后恢复工作,边界机制如何加剧了他们的边缘化。我们通过对这些工人的中产阶级雇主进行深入访谈,说明雇主是如何重新谈判边界规则并为自己创造安全互动的气泡的。我们通过解释先前存在的象征性界限如何强化并具体化为社会界限,为界限理论做出了贡献。社会界限往往会导致资源获取的不平等,从而进一步加剧差距。但是,这些界限是如何产生的?它们采取什么形式?迄今为止,我们还没有足够的实证研究来探讨社会界限的产生和维持。本研究表明,在封闭社区内,社会界限是如何通过物质资源的调配、规章制度和常规化的边界策略来建立和稳定的。这些排他性的社会界限由于外部机构的存在而得到进一步加强,外部机构是迄今为止私人雇主与工人关系中新出现的重要角色。最后,我们注意到,这些界限导致家庭佣工的差别待遇常态化,从而加剧了阶级分化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Relations
Human Relations Multiple-
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
7.00%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信