In The Working Sovereign, philosopher Axel Honneth has written a timely and important book. It cannot be said enough that no political theory is complete without some explanation of what that theory means for the organization of work. Democratic theory is under special obligations here. Contemporary democratic theorists have had trouble sustaining a serious, self-reflexive conversation about labor relations, despite their general interest in the problem of economic inequality. That is because, in some not entirely articulated way, they tend to treat work as downstream. The standard view seems to be that the organization of production is not fundamental; it’s derivative — a site for the application of norms, which gain their meaning, force, and justification elsewhere. The Working Sovereign aims to upturn that conventional approach. I agree with Honneth that the organization of work is not downstream or just one issue out of many. It is fundamental. But fundamental in what way?

There are various ways one might make that case, so I want to focus on the specificity of Honneth’s argument, which is really bidirectional. From one direction, he argues that the democratic perspective is the most persuasive standpoint from which to criticize and reimagine current labor relations. In doing so, he pits his democratic approach against alternatives, like the Marxist concern with alienation or republican criticisms of domination. From the other direction, an empirically grounded understanding of the organization of work expands the normative concerns a democratic theory might have. What comes out of this bidirectional dialectic is Honneth’s basic claim: the central wrong done through the organization of work is that it undermines the willingness and capacity of citizens to participate as equals in political life. As he variously puts it, the current organization of work “brings with it mental and cultural disadvantages for the working population that may prevent individuals from exercising their right to political participation.” He then recommends a series of reforms: both alternatives to the labor market, like cooperatives, and improvements to the labor market, like labor sharing, employee voice, and more free time.

Any proposal to democratize the economy is welcome, but Honneth’s version is far too self-limiting. I am doubtful that we can give a proper account of why work matters and how to think about the division of labor while ruling out the kinds of concerns Honneth does. His democratic approach excludes any complaints workers might have about the intrinsic wrongness of the quality of their work, of the authority relations of their work, or of the domination or alienation they experience at work. For Honneth, those kinds of complaints are only conditionally admissible: conditional on whether any of those complaints can be reframed as ways in which work diminishes workers’ capacity and willingness to participate in politics. If they have a dead-end job, but it turns out they still participate actively in public life, they are permitted no further complaint. If some have the opportunity to do complex, high-status jobs, which rely on others having to do menial tasks, but this arrangement leads to no noticeable differences in public engagement, then there is no further basis for complaint. And if they find that, no matter which job they take, they end up subordinate to a boss whose orders they must follow, while there are others who do not have to take any job whatsoever, but improvements in democratic participation can be made without any fundamental changes to those authority relations, then there is no remaining objection. Those relations of power and authority are not proper targets of complaint as such. They are legitimate objects of complaint conditional on being able to show some connection with how they affect participation in politics — where politics is understood as a sphere outside the workplace. These are natural, logical consequences of Honneth’s version of the democratic argument. If we cannot find a link between some objectionable feature of the division of labor and political participation, that feature stops being objectionable.