Abstract
The present paper responds to calls to integrate a more explicitly intersectional framework and agenda to vocational psychology. We elucidate how several matrices of domination (i.e., interlocking systems of oppression) may shape the working lives of Americans. Although vocational psychology has made limited progress in exploring two such matrices—the impact of White supremacy and Patriarchy—and expanding research, theory, and clinical work to increasingly diverse populations, we argue that other oppressive systemic forces have been largely overlooked. In response to this gap, a close analysis of how our economic system (i.e., late-stage capitalism, neoliberalism) and Christian hegemony (i.e., protestant work ethic, the prosperity gospel) have impacted the workforce is provided. Finally, to center intersectional perspectives on change, we argue that vocational psychology must pivot to a more activist stance and provide recommendations for research, training, and clinical work.
Keywords
Over the last decade, there has been a persistent call to attend to intersectionality theory within and beyond psychological disciplines (McCormick-Huhn et al., 2019; Moradi & Grzanka, 2017; Steinfield et al., 2019). Although the current definitions, applications, and boundaries of intersectionality can be amorphous (Dill & Kohlman, 2012), the origins of the framework in Black feminist theory are clear (i.e., Collins, 2015; Crenshaw, 1989; Davis, 1983). With the experiences of Black women guiding her analysis, Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) critiqued the single-axis framework of discrimination—wherein racism or sexism are treated as discrete or “additive” forms of oppression—rather than interactive forces. Indeed, the earliest iterations of intersectionality theory emphasized the interaction of institutions, cultural norms, and social practices to create and sustain interlocking systems of power and oppression, or a matrix of domination (Collins, 2015; Davis, 2008). To challenge and reform systems of domination, both researchers and practitioners must engage in critical praxis to uncover, inform, and transform power structures (Moradi & Grzanka, 2017; Steinfield et al., 2019).
While some branches of psychology—such as counseling—have been both responsive and forceful with their integration of intersectional theory into research (see Moradi et al., 2020), career guidance and vocational psychology have lagged notably behind (Fouad & Kozlowski, 2019). Quantity of studies aside, vocational psychology research has tended to focus on a more additive, microlevel of analysis—the role of “multiple identities” (i.e., race + gender + sexual orientation) in interpersonal and intrapersonal dynamics—sometimes termed weak intersectionality (Steinfield et al., 2019). While such work is important, the overfocus on individuals, rather than systems, overlooks how injustices are rooted in broader power asymmetries. By contrast, strong intersectionality works to illuminate how oppression occurs at meso- (communities, organizations) and macro-levels (society, institutions) and speaks to the need for systemic changes through collective action and coalition building (Dill & Kohlman, 2012; Steinfield et al., 2019).
Though nuanced, understanding the distinction between weak and strong intersectional frameworks is critical for vocational psychology, perhaps even more so than other fields. Weak intersectionality bypasses the difficult work of understanding how group differences have come to be (Dill & Kohlman, 2012). An overemphasis on identity and individual-level factors (e.g., interests, skills, person-environment fit, experiences of workplace climate) has led career counseling to draw primarily on internal interventions (e.g., helping a client advocate for a higher salary, find a new job, get better DEI at their workplace). Useful in the short-term, these strategies are not enough; external interventions that place responsibility where it needs to be—on cultural values, corporations, and public policies, henceforth referred to as power-governors, that bulwark against true equality—are long overdue in vocational psychology (Liu, 2017; Steinfield et al., 2019). Importantly, power-governors operate within a matrix of domination and are interdependent via formal (i.e., legislation) and informal (beliefs, practices) relationships that serve to reproduce privilege (Liu, 2017). However, content on coalition building (i.e., unions) and direct action (i.e., strikes, boycotts) to challenge power-governors is notably absent from vocational psychology (Olle, 2018a).
There are likely several explanations for the lag of vocational psychology to directly adopt an intersectional agenda. However, our suspicion is that the insidious nature of some systems-level forces is so monolithic that, as a field, we fail to recognize how such forces shape our expectations, behaviors, and resultantly, programs of research and methods of intervention. In an effort to quickly build a more inclusive and diverse workforce, we have been eager to zoom in on the impact of identities (i.e., weak intersectionality) while losing sight of the troubled waters in which we all collectively swim. Thus, this article invites vocational scholars to become acquainted with the matrices of domination and power-governors that dictate our working worlds, including those more commonly touched upon (e.g., White Supremacy, Patriarchy) and those that generally remain unacknowledged (our economic system, Christian hegemony). At times, zooming out on such issues may feel overwhelming or disorienting, but we will return to concrete ideas and strategies for change at the end of the article.
A New Lens on Vocational History
Taking a mirror to the field may be the fastest way to understand our current lack of engagement in strongly intersectional work. Savickas and Baker (2005) highlight that initial ideas about how to be a worker were shaped by Victorian-era notions of character (generally rooted in community-focused duties and a shared moral code) that transmuted as ideas of personality and selfhood (individual expression and fulfillment) took root in the industrial age with rising urbanization; thus, realizing one’s potential was moved to the forefront and “placed a premium on different traits, especially willingness to change over stability, intelligence over moral conviction, and self-promotion over self-sacrifice” (p. 23). Most theoretical models emerged in the middle of the 1900s and were directly informed by vocational self-guidance organizations placed in urban centers to assist dispossessed boys and men (i.e., the Young Men’s Christian Association 1 or YMCA) from earlier that century.
Akin to nearly all foundational psychological theories, these influential approaches were developed entirely by well-to-do, male, Christian, White academicians; subsequently, the approaches to career counseling that emerged from these few men did not adequately attend to the experiences of those groups who most acutely feel the pressure from matrices of domination (Blustein et al., 2005). Ironically, a field preoccupied with interests, choices, and fit would take years to recognize that for the majority of workers in the US, occupational path had little to do with any of these factors (Fouad & Kozlowski, 2019). Indeed, Liu (2017) argues that it is the ubiquity of power-governors to “function in the background while privileged individuals work in the foreground, sometimes unaware that they are reinforcing institutional connections and White supremacy” (p. 351). He goes further, explaining that some people are willing to maintain the status quo because it is widely believed to be neutral and fair; in other words, individuals feel they have a stake in the stability of well-known institutions.
The uncritical commitment to institutions is clear in the history of vocational psychology. Vocational guidance came into its own by the 1920s in response to urbanization, immigration, industrialization, the rise of a middle class, and the development of more robust university systems (Savickas & Barker, 2005). Relying heavily on the scientific method and also ideas about individual differences, a burgeoning field of matching secondary school students into occupational tracks or college majors took hold. With WWI, ways to match the abilities and skills of young men with military and civilian jobs as a way to mobilize a productive workforce were welcomed. Following the war, vocational psychologists turned to aptitude and ability testing in an attempt to forecast worker success for future employers (Savickas & Barker, 2005).
The 1930s and 1940s marked the beginning of the split of vocational psychology to field of career guidance/counseling and industrial/organization (I/O) psychology. Career guidance was invested helping individuals find work that was suited to their skills. I/O psychologists, however, were more attuned to the needs of industry; they aligned with employers to assist with hiring, management strategies, and maintaining productivity and efficiency. Unsurprisingly, those in I/O psychology have worked to help corporations with “union avoidance” and root out disgruntled employees who may serve as agitators of collective action (Olle, 2018b; Zickar, 2014, p. 221). Indeed, Bernice Lott (2014) forcefully argues that psychology suffers from a “social class myopia” that has kept us from adequately engaging in work with labor unions. By the end of WWII and the midcentury, the bifurcation of vocational psychology was largely complete; career guidance moved into the purview of counseling psychologists. Until very recently, most models of career development and counseling were rooted in ideas of choice, developmental issues, and person-environment fit—primarily tailored to the needs of relatively well-to-do people—with little acknowledgment of or adaptation to the changing working world (Blustein et al., 2005).
The Psychology of Working Framework was developed in response to the inability of traditional career models to address the realities of workers, with primary objectives of (a) building inclusiveness in vocational psychology and (b) redistributing resources equally to facilitate decent work for all who want to work (Blustein et al., 2019). Access to decent work—jobs with dignity, equality, a fair income, access to healthcare, and safe working conditions—however, is not guaranteed; economic constraints, marginalization, work volition, and career adaptability may all shape one’s ability to both obtain and maintain decent work (Blustein et al., 2016; Duffy et al., 2016). Recent research supports that a lack of access to decent work is linked to deleterious psychological and physical health outcomes (Duffy et al., 2019; Duffy et al., 2021), foregrounding the urgency for societal change.
Over 15 years ago, Peterson and González’s uniquely radical textbook The Role of Work in People’s Lives (2005) highlighted the potential culpability of systemic forces such as capitalism and religiosity in our increasingly toxic work culture. Since then, some scholars (i.e., Blustein et al., 2005, 2019; Fouad & Kozlowski, 2019) have issued powerful calls to update and reform vocational psychology to address poverty and other inequalities, yet have often failed to explicitly connect these problems back to broader matrices of domination. Naming and attending to dominant systems of oppression, as well as the interrelated social and cultural components that uphold them, is the first step to building a truly emancipatory vocational psychology, attentive to strong intersectionality. Thus, the following section of this article discusses the progress (and many growth edges) of vocational psychology in addressing two major systems of oppression: White Supremacy and Patriarchy. Later, we turn toward two highly underexamined matrices of domination: our economic system and Christian hegemony
Vocational Psychology’s Slow Movement Toward Intersectional Thinking
In recent decades, vocational psychology has become more self-reflective and critical of its shortcomings. For example, 20 years ago, the Journal of Vocational Behavior (JVB) published a special issue, wherein notable vocational psychologists identified the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the field. One concern raised was the demographic restriction of prior studies; specifically, the authors noted a dearth of knowledge regarding the career development of unemployed populations, people with disabilities, low-income communities, immigrants, school-aged youth, and elders (Blustein, 2001; Lent, 2001). Indeed, most research was conducted with college students, with very little attention to the impact of structural barriers on vocational behavior (Fouad, 2001). Given these concerns, vocational psychology has since made significant strides. In particular, the field has expanded its reach to and include historically marginalized population in research and theoretical approaches; recent content- and meta-analyses, illustrate our burgeoning commitment to understanding barriers that women and racial minorities experience in STEM fields (Fouad & Santana, 2017), the influence of socioeconomic status on career outcomes (Flores et al., 2017), and the vocational issues of LGBTQ workers (McFadden, 2015; Velez et al., in press).
Although such advancements are critical in elucidating the work experiences of diverse populations, they are not without limitations. Fouad and Kozlowski (2019, p. 384), acknowledge that while more diverse populations are being studied, there is still a “check the box” approach to capturing the experiences of those with multiple marginalized identities. Importantly, results from the aforementioned content- and meta-analyses indicate that most research has used a weak intersectional lens, generally focused on individual-level factors (i.e., interest alignment, perceptions of fit, stereotype threat) with an overarching goal to increase minority representation in particular fields. This approach overlooks important questions such as why certain occupations received so much attention, how specific “career trajectories” were codified as normal or aspirational, and who was absent in the formation of vocational theories. By contrast, a strong intersectional approach centering the study of matrices of domination—such as White supremacy and Patriarchy—can shed light on how these systems interact to craft cultural norms, values, and expectations that oppress those who are not members of the privileged majority.
White Supremacy
White supremacy is understood to be a cultural, economic, and political system that “sustains White people’s dominance over all sectors of society through everyday dynamics and a wide variety of institutional and social settings” (Grzanka et al., 2019, p. 479). Understanding the ubiquity of White supremacy (and White Nationalism) in our society, helps us comprehend how our lives as workers are directly shaped by it (Giroux, 2017). Practices such as colonization, slavery, institutionalized racism, targeted policing, and mass incarceration blocked opportunities to accrue intergenerational wealth and economic security within communities of color, contributing to higher levels of poverty (Coates, 2014). Moreover, it has been well documented that at work, White people earn more than Asian, Black, Native American, and Latinx populations (Akee et al., 2019; Katz & Kruger, 2017; Lang & Lehmann, 2012) and that they hold 78% of managerial and professional positions (U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). Considering these glaring disparities, it would seem natural for vocational psychology to take interest in understanding and addressing White supremacy, yet this has not generally been the case.
As mentioned previously, vocational psychology has made progress in increasing representation of marginalized populations within research. For example, it has moved forward in disentangling the career development of minority groups including Mexican immigrants (Shinnar, 2007), undocumented college students (Kantamneni et al., 2016), undocumented immigrant young adults (Autin et al., 2018), and foreign-trained immigrants (Novak & Chen, 2013). Additionally, through the lens of PWT, the experiences of marginalized groups have been key in identifying elements that both hinder and buffer access to decent work. Examples include the association of economic resources and oppression on decent work with racially and ethnically diverse adults (Duffy et al., 2018), and the role of marginalization and economic constraints on school to work transition (Masdonati et al., 2021).
Although such strides have been important in identifying unjust barriers that marginalized communities face in the world of work, they do not necessarily hold White supremacy accountable or facilitate large-scale change. Outside of vocational psychology, the American Psychological Association (APA) has sometimes harnessed its power for such causes. Examples include APA’s letters and position statements urging social and policy change to support immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers (DeAngelis, 2019), ending deep poverty (APA, 2019a), housing vulnerable populations (APA, 2019b), among many more. In the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, APA promised to harness the power of psychologists to fight the “pandemic of racism” and White Supremacy with increased focus on policing, racial disparities, and institutional racism (Abrams, 2020). That said, there is also more room for psychologists to take a proactive—rather than reactive—stance in the fight for changes to dismantle systems of oppression. For example, scholarly calls to reform the minimum wage (Smith, 2015) preceded APA engaging in national dialogue on this topic. Sustained efforts like these could be beneficial in moving the field toward a more strongly intersectional lens, yet we suggest there is room for more radical advocacy efforts as well.
While powerful arguments for the decriminalization of underground economies (i.e., sex work, drugs) have been made elsewhere (see Comte, 2014), vocational psychologists have yet to jump into the fray. However, it goes without saying that work cannot be made “decent” while it is illegal. Building a truly intersectional vocational psychology means attending to workers who are also pushed to the margins of a broken economic system—generally people of color—and fighting for their rights and protection. It also means taking a closer look at the ethics and moralizing inherent in determining which forms of work are valid and which subject to punishment. Joining broader fights for abolition and prison reform may initially seem out of the scope of vocational psychologists, yet this interconnection is clear when acknowledging that the US criminal justice system holds over 2.3 million people (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020). While incarcerated, individuals are forced into horrific labor conditions and thereby removed from the possibility of decent or fulfilling work; broader communities who may rely on those incarcerated, disproportionately Black Americans, suffer. Returning to calls for emancipatory communitarianism in vocational psychology, we have to expand our role to activists and advocates—not just denouncing unjust practices, but taking a stand to annunciate and fight for alternatives (Blustein et al., 2005).
Patriarchy
Patriarchy refers to implicit and explicit ways that men exert their domination across all walks of life (Beechey, 1979). Patriarchy then functions as a social system in which men and traits associated with hegemonic masculinity (e.g., dominance, individualism, heterosexuality) are viewed as superior and desirable (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Resultantly, women and LGBTQ+ groups have been historically marginalized and excluded from male-dominated spaces, including much of the workforce (Hunt, 1979; Melson-Silimon et al., 2020). While women have steadily been incorporated to the workforce since the beginning of the 20th century (Yellen, 2020), and there has been improvement in work protections for LGBTQ+ groups (Badgett et al., 2021, p. 159), there continues to be evidence of discriminatory practices, such as harassment and wage gaps for both women and openly LGBTQ+ groups (Badgett et al., 2021; Blau & Kahn, 2017). It then becomes relevant for vocational psychology to understand the ways in which Patriarchy continues to exert power.
Vocational psychology as a field has advanced our understanding of workplace experiences for women and LGBTQ+ people and the impact that these have on their overall well-being, career success, and advancement. Some examples include identifying the importance of working climate in achieving decent work for women (England et al., 2020) documenting the marked experiences of sexual harassment that women experience in the workspace (Cassino & Besen-Cassino, 2019). Additionally, our field has been pivotal in documenting the role of heterosexism in blocking decent work for sexual minority people (Douglass et al., 2017), and articulating workplace heterosexism, discrimination, and harassment as key minority stressors (Tebbe et al., 2019; Velez et al., 2013; Waldo, 1999). Such research documents the micro-level impact of patriarchy, but does not always clearly address broader systemic issues. However, in June of 2020, the Supreme Court of the US, passed the ruling that the 1964 Civil Rights Act extended protections to LGBTQ+ employees from discrimination based on sex. To support this ruling, the American Psychological Association submitted an amicus brief that included research focused on experiences of discrimination for LGBTQ people and called for workplace protections (i.e., Tebbe et al., 2019; Velez et al., 2013).
LGBTQ+ workplace oppression sometimes occurs at the macro-level with policies such as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in the military which barred openly gay, lesbian or bisexual people from serving (Van Gilder, 2019). Research by psychologists and political scientists demonstrating that allowing “out” lesbian and gay individual to serve did not undermine the military or impact unit cohesion was pivotal in repealing the ban in 2010 (Belkin, 2011). The Trump administration later imposed a ban on transgender people’s ability to serve in the military which was only recently revoked (Jackson & Kube, 2019). Such egregious bans were clear examples of how matrices of domination (i.e., patriarchy, heterosexism) and power governors (i.e., politicians) can come together to create oppressive working environments; yet, they also demonstrate how vocational research can be used as an instrument of systemic change. Research by vocational psychologists to debunk myths that the presence and participation of transgender athletes is harmful for sports teams and professional athletics could be one future advocacy effort for scholars in our field.
New Directions for Vocational Psychology
An Immoral Economy
Attention to the impact of economic systems on the lived experiences would seem to be a natural fit for vocational psychology, yet such systems remain largely unexamined as sociocultural forces (Borgen, 2005). With the publication of Piketty’s (2014) Capital in the 21st Century, conversations previously reserved for economists began to hit the mainstream; in this book, he outlined the ways in which unregulated capitalism has promoted and deepened vast inequalities. Wealth has unevenly clustered around “supermanagers” (financial professionals and other high-income workers) who have not been subject to adequate taxation—as a result, wealth has grown faster than the economy itself. What this means more practically is that inherited wealth by far surpasses what is possible in a lifetime of labor, creating a system of inequality that is incompatible with democracy and social justice. Piketty debunks the myth that the market will regulate itself by illustrating that when inequality due to wealth becomes too large, the international power of capital is too great, labor is too weak, and technological innovation is too slow; thus, regulation of wealth is essential.
Whether or not there can be a moral economy (one based on fairness and goodness) has been widely argued in fields outside of psychology; the economic anthropologist, Karl Polanyi, for example, disavowed the idea that “a disembodied and self-regulated market can exist without destroying the human character of labour and the natural resources of the environment” (Bolton & Laaser, 2013, p. 512). The global economy and infrastructural factors are primarily responsible for job availability and working conditions, not deficiencies in individuals (Peterson & González, 2005). Taken together, a strongly intersectional, systems-level perspective is essential for bringing greater clarity to the disempowerment of workers; two interrelated avenues of foci for vocational psychologists should be late-stage capitalism and neoliberalism.
Late stage-capitalism
Late-stage capitalism is one, somewhat vague, phrase that has been used to describe the “indignities and absurdities of the modern economy” (Lowrey, 2017). Though its intellectual origins are credited to thinkers including Sombart, Mandel, and members of the Frankfurt school, the modern dangers of late-stage capitalism became most apparent during the Regan and Thatcher years and have only escalated. In late-stage capitalism, the cruelties of the economy and the incompatibilities of big business with social democracy and public welfare are laid bare. A result of this collision between industry and government has been the technocratic push toward “legitimate” careers (i.e., those in STEM fields) that, presumably, benefit society but may not be aligned with the goal of the worker. Unsurprisingly, STEM fields generally garner more private grants and public funding, further “legitimatizing” their prestige and desirability.
By contrast, jobs in service sectors are deemed the lesser options. Although retail is the lifeblood of modern capitalism, work in retail and service industries is generally denigrated or seen as a stepping-stone to a “real job.” Such perceptions are harmful and contribute to employers prioritizing the hiring of part-time, expendable labor that requires none of the associated investments of full-time workers (i.e., healthcare, paid leave). The precarity of part-time positions also makes it harder for workers organize collectively: in 1983, 11% of American retail workers were in unions, but by 2013 this was down to less than 5% (Jaffe, 2021). The importance of retail and service industry workers was brought to light in the early days of the covid-19 pandemic when such jobs were deemed “essential” to the function of society—however, such recognition did not generally translate to higher wages, benefits, safer working conditions, or greater job stability (Selyukh, 2020).
Late-stage capitalism puts a premium on social efficiency and human capital by privileging the functioning of the economy over anything else; indeed, this perspective leads workers to “be realistic” and adapt to the prevailing employment market, not question what is available or ask for more (Sultana, 2014). The idealization of ‘hustling’ or successfully balancing multiple jobs is one way that the abuses of late-stage capitalism have been rebranded as glamorous or noble (Griffith, 2019). Contract work (e.g., being hired to complete a project) and the gig economy (i.e., ride share companies) have created an on-demand class of labor subject to exploitation, wherein employers can sidestep responsibilities to provide benefits, even if workers accrue 40+ hours a week. If stable and benefited employment is perceived to be a luxury, those who manage to secure it may not want to ruffle feathers or organize for improved working conditions. Subsequently, there are a number of social and cultural outcomes to late-state capitalism including the rising need for self-care and wellness practices to mitigate stress and burnout, while simultaneously pushing lifehacking and time management strategies to “empower” workers to be more productive with less time (Griffith, 2019; Moss, 2020). In short, the concept of a boundaryless career—job opportunities that go beyond single employment settings, without structural constraints—may only work for “educated elites who are more likely to have some power in negotiating autonomous contract-based careers” (Roper et al., 2010, p. 673), not those with less economic privilege and more time commitments (i.e., community or family obligations).
By contrast, research supports that people with decent work have fewer negative mental and physical health consequences than those without decent employment, probably stemming from less fatigue and a greater ability to cultivate healthier habits around exercise and diet (Duffy et al., 2019, 2021). However, late-stage capitalism (driven by neoliberal values, defined below) creates widespread inequalities, rising unemployment, and precarity of positions that influence the availability and quality of decent jobs (Piketty, 2014). To fully engage with these consequences at the vocational counseling level means acknowledging the systems-level. Pouyaud (2016, p. 11) explains that [t]he work conditions of today are led by fear (fear of unemployment, fear of the future, fear of climatic evolution, fear of communities, fear of exclusion). Economic health is determined by the stock market’s confidence thermometer, like an aggregate of all individual fears. The result is suffering and malicious behavior that have become structural components of today’s societies. When fear is accepted as a natural dimension of working conditions, work becomes a theater for the normalization of evil (where inequalities and equities are perceived as natural).
Neoliberalism
The market mentality described above fosters worker distrust, detachment, and fails to connect to values or aspirations in communities outside of the workplace (Bolton & Laaser, 2013). Closely linked to late-stage capitalism and defined by values at the heart of American society—individualism, choice, and personal responsibility—neoliberalism is generally faulted for the biased expectations, harmful adaptations, and restricted outcomes to modern living that result from our inhumane political and economic agendas (Fine & Saad-Filho, 2017; Leotti, 2020). A hegemonic project from the 1970s onward, neoliberal regulations became deeply engrained in class relations, ideological norms, and institutions, reaching a crisis point with the financial downturn of 2008 (Cahill, 2018). One of the reasons it is challenging to pinpoint the boundaries of neoliberalism is that this orientation is pervasive. The normalization and rise of precarious work—a multidimensional construct defined by job insecurity, vulnerability, lack of benefits or protections, and low income—upholds exploitive systems wherein workers have little agency or bargaining power (Blustein et al., 2016). As Hooley et al. (2018, p. 9) incisively write “it no longer feels morally reprehensible to declare that the unemployed are responsible for their own misery, that citizens should be relabeled ‘consumers’, that trade unions are an obstacle to progress, that zero-hour contracts, individual rather than collective bargaining, and insecurity of tenure are not only acceptable, but commendable aspects of protean, boundaryless careers, presumably infusing not angst and anxiety but motivation, zest, and excitement into one’s life.” In such a system, workers conditioned to believe inequality is a motivating force, so they must be rational, self-serving, and hold themselves personally accountable for economic failures and successes (Irving, 2018; Read, 2009).
Franceschelli and Keating (2018) speak to the importance of an ingrained meritocratic thinking in neoliberalism that manifests as different levels of optimism at micro- and macro-level. Specifically, millennials and younger generations tend to report that they have faith in their own success and future, but they are pessimistic about the future of society. Ignoring the “dissonance between optimism and actuality by unveiling a belief in the power of agency to overcome obstacles” (Franceschelli & Keating, 2018, p. 106) may be one reason why see the rise (and fall) of so many startups by young people. Indeed, entrepreneurship is tongue-in-cheek referred to as the Ultimate White Privilege, and often impossible for those without vast economic safety nets (Weissmann, 2013). Startups that foster an enthusiastic culture of workaholism—wherein all employees and collaborators must be “down for the cause”—rely on the optimistic meritocracy of neoliberalism; indeed, many fledging startups compensate workers with equity rather than income, a venture that does not pay if the company does not sell.
Another version of this neoliberal optimism can be found in “socially-good” jobs. Unrealistic expectations for workload are magnified in these—often women-dominated—industries including teaching, healthcare, and nonprofits. A worker’s “willingness to go above and beyond is read as a passion for the work, but this modus operandi leads to people justifying the exploitation of those passionate workers” (Jaffe, 2021, p. 161). The optimistic belief that extra hours of labor translate directly into positive societal changes is perpetuated, without acknowledging systemic barriers that often preclude such strides. When workers in these fields speak out against their working conditions or attempt to organize, they may face additive scrutiny that they are selfish and uncaring. Indeed, the promise that an industry serves a greater good (i.e., educating children or charity work) is weaponized to create a culture of workaholism.
Neoliberalism may also contribute to biased beliefs about which academic fields and job sectors are worth pursuing. For example, a recent bill set forth by Florida lawmakers (SB-86) aimed to limit public aid to college students who pursue degrees that “don’t lead to jobs” (i.e., humanities degrees). The myth that liberal arts degrees do not lead to lucrative positions compared to STEM degrees is widely promulgated, but also untrue. While a job right out of college may be higher paid in STEM, the salary gap rapidly closes and may even be surpassed by liberal arts positions; some reasons for this include the rapid obsolescence of technological skills (learned in STEM degrees) and the value of “soft skills” (from liberal arts degrees) for higher paid managerial positions (Deming, 2019). The unfortunate assumption that work is most valuable when it is hard means that jobs in fields that have just as much earning potential, but that might be more enjoyable to workers, are looked at skeptically.
Perhaps most importantly, an unchecked neoliberal agenda “erodes government commitment to social welfare in favor of policies that focus on individual responsibility and market-based rationalities, and it brings with it a hyper-focus on the individual as both the cause of and solution to social problems”—it rolls back a welfare state in favor of a carceral state (Leotti, 2020, p. 446). Considering this, it is not difficult to see how neoliberalism disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, such as Black Americans who make up 40% of the incarcerated population despite being only 13% of the US (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020). It is also linked to criminalizing—and thereby harming—those who work in the ‘indecent’ jobs of underground economies. Finally, the lack of resources that are a byproduct of neoliberal thinking systemically limits and excludes people—often women—from the workplace who may require paid-family leave, childcare, or other support structures.
Recommendations for vocational psychologists when considering the economy
The working conditions and expectations that have arisen as a result of late-stage capitalism and neoliberalism may be clear, but what is less evident is the ways in which vocational psychology participates in this process. The rise of social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 2000) and its emphasis on research with diverse populations marked important progress for modernizing our field; however, in more recent years, SCCT has hyper-focused on science and health education, feeders for STEM careers that are perceived to be the most socially valuable, lucrative, and fundable (Fouad & Kozlowski, 2019). Widely spread myths about the future earnings and employability of liberal arts majors (see Deming, 2019) have also narrowed the range of possible fields of study for young people, which will be discussed later. The continued focus on and reification of STEM sends a message to high school students, current workers, and vocational psychologists in training that these jobs should be our aspirations. Success in these fields, however, is not even across all groups. As women enter STEM fields, the salaries typically drop (Miller, 2016)—with notable examples including accounting, biology, veterinary science, and medicine. By contrast, when men flood previously women-dominated fields (i.e., computer programming), the salaries rise (Miller, 2016). The push to get more women and racial/ethnic minority students to “learn to code” does not acknowledge that training marginalized people to enter coveted knowledge-economy jobs may drive down wages and perceived prestige of these positions (Jaffe, 2021). In an ideal world, SCCT would not only help people recognize occupational barriers and increase self-efficacy, revise outcome expectations/goals, or work on negotiation tactics—it would take an emancipatory communitarian approach to help individuals change the larger system rather than adapt to it (Blustein et al., 2005).
Labor movements are not covered in the vast majority of popular vocational psychology handbooks, textbooks, or coursework. Training our students in the history and tactics of successful labor movements (from trade unions to teachers’ unions) would bring in a previously missing intersectional agenda to class content. Lott (2014) highlights that there has been a paucity of attention paid to American labor movements in psychology, despite their direct and indirect benefits on society (i.e., economic benefits, safer and healthier working conditions, heightened self-esteem, respect, and community-building). Unfortunately, the omission of emancipatory dimensions in career counseling is a top-down concern, as few scholars (i.e., Blustein et al., 2005) have focused research on these critical issues.
As noted previously, vocational psychology has severely lagged in adapting its theories for workers in the gig economy or other precarious jobs. Turning toward PWT and other frameworks that are realistic about the world of work, crafting clinical and vocational interventions from these models is important (Blustein et al., 2019). Moreover, we must continue the progress made during the covid-19 pandemic to give recognition and support to retail and service-industry workers; this means discontinuing any subtle propagation of the ideas that such workers do not have “real jobs” and presenting these occupations as legitimate options for our young people. Alongside discussion of interests and aptitudes, vocational guidance must include consciousness raising activities to heighten awareness about the role of late-stage capitalism in job options (Kenny et al., 2019). Furthermore, refining career counseling strategies to challenge clients to examine their attitudes about boundaryless careers and disrupt ingrained neoliberal ideals that workaholism is aspirational. Rather than promoting self-care as an individual-level strategy to combat burnout, pushing employers to rethink their labor policies is a more sustainable option that contests neoliberalism (Moss, 2020). Therapist and scholar, Paul Hoggett (2017, p. 366), discusses the need for vocational counseling to hone-in on the affective consequences of neoliberalism, such as shame and anxiety; he writes: A gnawing, semi-permanent feeling of failure and inadequacy is the consequence of such performative regimes where the ideal remains forever elusive. Under neoliberalism, both the new workforce and the traditional manual workforce have been subject to the same processes of downsizing, casualisation and flexibilisation…The consequence is a survivalist culture in which performance anxieties reach right down through the body and into the soul.
We argue that at least one of the systems of oppression discussed in this article, late-stage capitalism, could begin to be redressed by increasing taxes on high earners and capital, enforcing transparency in banking, and using inflation to redistribute wealth downward (Piketty, 2014). APA should take a stance on this issue, and researchers should work to firmly establish the merits of wealth redistribution. Even more specific to vocational psychologists, fair wages, safe working conditions, and universal access to healthcare are important issues at the heart of movements for decent work and central to the Psychology of Working Framework (Blustein, Kenny, Di Fabio, & Guichard., 2019). Beyond bringing the minimum wage to a living wage, we must also turn our attention to key changes in our labor market such as the gig economy and exploitation of on-demand workers by multinational corporations. Following the lead of other nations such as the UK (Russon, 2021), it is essential ensure that drivers and other workers cannot be denied healthcare and other benefits because of their designation as contractors rather than employees and other pernicious loopholes. Finally, taking a closer look at our economic system may provide answers to longstanding questions about why caregiving, emotional labor, and other unpaid work goes largely unrecognized in the US.
Christian Hegemony
The concept of Christian hegemony refers to the ability of this group to dominate social realities, norms, and futures in a manner so unquestioned that their assertions are assumed to be totally normal and/or common sense (Blumenfeld, 2006). A Christian ethic or mission has undergirded oppressive systems throughout the history of our nation, from the subjugation of indigenous peoples and colonial pursuits, to justifications for racism and slavery, to patriarchal values that dictate our family systems, to cultural imperialism intwined in our education and governmental systems (for a review, see Blumenfeld, 2006; Brewster, 2014). Beginning to reckon with the role of White Christian theologies in perpetuating systems of White supremacy and nationalism is an important task of intersectional scholars (Fletcher, 2016).
White Evangelical Christianity shaped and cultivated a devotion to corporate globalization, free markets, and free enterprise in the decades following World War II (Moreton, 2010). For big-box retail jobs (i.e., Wal-Mart) wherein deeper purpose was not readily apparent in the day-to-day labor, employers worked to imbue workplaces with a protestant ethic, an aura of Christian and family values, and a culture of belongingness; simultaneously, these employers actively fought unionization attempts by the company’s low-income, primarily female workforce (Jaffe, 2021; Moreton, 2010). It is worth noting that the infusion of traditional Christian values in workplaces often occurs concomitantly with another axis of oppression: patriarchy. In 2001, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Wal-Mart for sex discrimination. Women made up 67% of the hourly workers, but only 14% of manager positions; they also earned less than men at every level of employment (Covert, 2019). White Evangelical Christian capitalism has worked to expand corporate rights while fighting against government-sponsored welfare and redistributive economic plans to help disenfranchised populations—in sum, it is “a nostalgic patriarchal reconstruction of American society characterized by patriotism, hard work, individual freedom, responsibility, and morality” (Nadesan, 1999, p. 32).
Protestant work-ethic
In his Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) writings, Max Weber outlined that modern capitalism (which sees profit as the goal and pursing profit as a virtuous endeavor) was fueled by the ethics of Protestantism/Puritanism (which believes that hard work in itself is a calling). The protestant work ethic presupposes an extrinsic motivation to prove one’s worthiness through labor and denial of earthly pleasure or gratification; indeed, research supports that endorsement of this ethic is correlated strongly with entrepreneurial behavior (Neubert et al., 2014). Another related Puritanical holdover is the myth of quality time which is a byproduct their preoccupation with productivity and optimizing how time is spent; to the Puritans, scheduling “quality time” with spouses and children outside of working hours was “a way to compensate for work’s encroachment in the familial domain” (Peterson & González, 2005, p. 64). Within modern workplaces, it is typical to find a culture of benevolent paternalism toward employees, in exchange for their obedience, loyalty, and deferral of the pursuit of ‘selfish’ interests that do not directly benefit the job (Nadesan, 1999). Links between those early, protestant ideas of “calling” and work persist today in the form of vocational calling scholarship (Thompson & Bunderson, 2019).
Definitions of calling vary widely, yet are generally associated with work being perceived as meaningful and purposive (Duffy et al., 2018; Thompson & Bunderson, 2019). Research has linked calling to outcomes such as perceived well-being, meaningfulness, fulfilment, and work engagement (for a review, see Dik & Duffy, 2009, 2015). That said, vocational calling may also be a double-edged sword, with potential links to workaholism, burnout, and organizational exploitation (Choi et al., 2020; Duffy et al., 2018; Keller et al., 2016). When situated in our immoral economy, the risks of valorizing excessive work and productivity may be heightened for those who are lucky enough to find meaningful work. Two studies of vocational calling have supported that there is not a difference in perception of calling across income and education levels, but people with more privileged socioeconomic status are more likely to report that they are living a calling (Duffy et al., 2012; Duffy & Autin, 2013). Indeed, the idea that a job should be a calling—imbued with meaning and made more powerful by the level of time and labor dedicated—may negate the reality of many workers for whom a job is just about the paycheck or health insurance.
The paradoxes of protestant work ethic and vocational calling are apparent in creative industries. The notion that art is not “real work” continues to limit government funding for arts education, public programs, and commissions. More insidious still, falsely stereotyping artists as a privileged and highly educated has allowed the promulgation of unpaid experiences such as internships, residencies, and apprenticeships keep out members of lower income communities who cannot afford to engage in free labor to pursue a career in art. Although there are a few breakout stars who gain financial success, most artists cannot live off of their work—the largest representative study of independent artists in the US found that 75% of those surveyed made less than $10,000/year from their art (Kinsella, 2017). Yet, rebranding starving artists to a creative class in the 1980s–1990s meant that, as a society, we had no responsibility to fund the arts as other wealthy countries do (Kennicot, 2016). Artists are left with few options aside from entering the gig economy and other precarious work. Being honest about the insidious nature of the protestant work ethic—its ability to denigrate some workers and reify others—may be a first step to redressing this some of these systemic labor inequalities.
The prosperity gospel
Aside from the protestant work ethic, another dimension of modern evangelical Christianity has been deeply influential in shaping our economic system: the prosperity gospel. At its core, this stance argues that monetary rewards are divine; it follows that those who reach their financial goals have managed to compel God to bless them, hence the #blessed social media trend among the rich and famous (Bowler, 2013). Prosperity preachers convey that fortune is not reserved for the afterlife, but part of Jesus’s plan is to deliver good Christians from poverty; thus, the gospel is often used as a source of hope and empowerment in communities with lower socioeconomic status (Neubert et al., 2014). In prior times, Christianity has had an ambivalent (or even negative) relationship with money, yet wealth has now become a marker of virtue with “the overt promise of temporal, material rewards” at the heart of this belief (Bowler, 2013; Eyo et al., 2020, p. 440). Despite its fundamentalist roots, such beliefs have even reached people who are not Christian (Neubert et al., 2014).
Outside of megachurches and in more secular communities, residue of the prosperity gospel informs beliefs that being mediocre is sinful or wasteful, as everyone has the capacity to rise to the level of their ambition (Bowler, 2013). Stereotypes about people living in poverty as sinful, immoral, unluck and the resultant cognitive and behavioral distancing that occurs from others (for a review, see Lott, 2002; Smith, 2005, 2015) may be byproducts of internalizing prosperity gospel beliefs. By this line of thought, those working in low-income jobs or struggling financially have done something to “deserve” it and should be avoided or shunned (Lott, 2002). Misfortunes such as poor health or poverty may be “attributed to satanic attack that has not yet been overcome, or the result of a weakness of faith” (Eyo et al., 2020, p. 454). There are a number of ethical implications to spiritualizing wealth and poverty; namely, this belief reinforces that supernatural intervention paired with will, hard work, and innovation is the formula for success (Eyo et al., 2020). In this way, the prosperity gospel reinforces individualism, meritocratic beliefs, and fails to attend to any systemic oppression that may prevent some groups from being as “blessed” financially. Indeed, research finds that greater endorsement of prosperity gospel beliefs are correlated negatively with both conscientiousness and helping behaviors (Neubert et al., 2014). Belief in divine intervention and reward is, unfortunately, one way to defer social and government responsibility to take care of those in need.
The benefits of wealth—resources, access, comfort—understandably make it something to aspire toward for many people. However, we cannot overlook the ways in which the prosperity gospel has created maladaptive narratives about what it means to be wealthy. Turning back to matrices of domination, power governors such as the financial industry, oil and gas corporations, and multinational corporations can perpetuate exploitive systems under the guise that the capital they earn demonstrates their morality. Rather than challenging the structures and people who help to keep our economy immoral, the prosperity gospel reinforces that the abundant wealth accrued is a blessing. We are left with a populace who has no concerns with pursuing jobs in high-income, unethical industries and guidance counselors who generally have no qualms about supporting their pursuit of this goal. Indeed, if part of our work as vocational psychologists is to help individuals find jobs, but another part is to “do no harm” how do we square our contribution to this system?
Recommendations for vocational psychology
Taken together, a protestant work ethic and the prosperity gospel, both manifestations of Christian hegemony, have deeply shaped our working worlds. Additionally, vocational psychologists contributing political and social action to increase private and public funding for fields such as the arts and humanities would help to combat the systemic exclusion of lower income communities from these career paths. Second, the continuation of unpaid experiences such as internships require a critical reevaluation. Promoting the idea that students and workers are “lucky” to find unpaid labor in a field they are passionate about reinforces the protestant work ethic; indeed, work for the sake of work and following a calling at any cost should be challenged, not encouraged. Relatedly, the concept of vocational calling should be used cautiously, as it may create undue stress and feelings of failure for those who cannot pursue their desired path; thus, personality factors and psychological climate should also be considered (Duffy et al., 2018). For clients who do manage to find meaningful and fulfilling work, conversations about burnout are critical. While passionately taking on an unmanageable workload for a ‘good cause’ may seem virtuous under a protestant work ethic, challenging our clients to think about who this really serves, via fostering critical consciousness, is important (Kenny et al., 2019). Finally, as mentioned before, therapists and career counselors are generally in reactive rather than proactive stances when it comes to worker burnout. As a result, they may feel inclined to promote self-care strategies to mitigate the stressors their clients are facing; instead, empowering clients to set workload boundaries with their employers should be a first step (Moss, 2020) and helping clients organize collectively can be another step (Lott, 2014).
Challenging the widely held belief that wealth is a sign of divine blessing and morality will, inevitably, be difficult for vocational psychologists. Beyond its stronghold in Christian faith communities, the prosperity gospel aligns with meritocracy beliefs and mythologies of an American dream that can be achieved with hard work. Vocational psychologists historically focusing on “careers” and higher paying jobs, rather than attending to the needs of the majority of Americans who work in service, retail, or other less lucrative industries has spread an implicit message that accruing wealth is important. Of course, wealth does make life easier and helping clients obtain fair wages and financial security is a part of our role—but prioritizing its endless pursuit should be reevaluated. This may also mean taking a more active stance in speaking out against industries whose sole purpose is sustaining and generating wealth, rather than simply supporting clients to enter any field in which they express interest.
Lending support to the sociopolitical fight for universal basic income (UBI) would be a beneficial, if profoundly radical, cause for vocational psychology to undertake. It would position us as proactively caring and compassionate (rather than reactive) in the fight for distributive justice, values at the center of building a more emancipatory communitarian stance (Prillleltensky, 1997). Aligned with the fields’ goals, a UBI would allow individuals to pursue meaningful work that aligned with their interests, skills, or desires without fear that they would be unable to feed, house, or clothe themselves. UBI would also support those who are providing essential—often unpaid or underpaid—roles in our society such as caregivers. Most importantly though, UBI would give us space as a society to begin to ask important questions about the necessity and meaning of work. Lastly, moving toward a place of self-reflection in the field about how ingrained Christian values may contribute to criminalization or disapproval of certain types of labor (i.e., sex work) is an important future step for scholars and practitioners. Looking toward more secular societies (i.e., The Netherlands) for reform and advocacy ideas may be fruitful.
The Need for a More Radical Vocational Psychology
From its inception, vocational psychology has wielded vast systemic and cultural power; indeed, Olle (2018a) argued that because “career guidance mediates between the individual and society in the realm of work, it is uniquely positioned at a potential nexus of social transformation” (p. 162). Yet, our field has more often colluded with power-governors than worked toward emancipatory goals. We argue that the values of vocational psychology are made most clear when you look at what is absent. Ironically, even in the most progressive of calls to reform vocational psychology, the economy remains an unnamed and unexamined specter (Borgen, 2005). The same tentativeness to directly address the role Christian hegemony on well-being—within all branches of psychology, not just vocational—is also at play (Brewster, 2014). The recent attempts of some scholars to center the experiences of marginalized groups, counter White Supremacy and patriarchy, and advocate for more affirming work environments (England et al., 2020; Tebbe et al., 2019; Velez et al., 2013) should bring some optimism that vocational psychology is shifting to a more modern and inclusive field. However, taking a more transparent and critical lens to the ways in which matrices of domination shape the working lives of all Americans is essential so “career guidance can become a part of the struggle for social justice” (Hooley et al., 2018, p. 1). The following recommendations offer suggestions for steps forward. 1. Take a more expansive, political, and activist lens when conducting research.
Throughout this manuscript, we have touched on topics that may initially seem outside the purview of vocational psychologists, yet still deeply impact workers. Immigration reform, drug and sex work decriminalization, and prison abolition, as well as living wage, universal healthcare, and UBI advocacy are among only a few issues that would improve the lives of Americans, particularly those from marginalized groups. When beginning a research project, rather than starting with a population in mind, instead try to make a harmful law or policy your subject. For example, in the case of sex work criminalization, exploring how interlocking systems of oppression (and power governors) create policies that impact specific subpopulations could be a way to narrow who your participants should be and where to draw samples. The communities impacted should help form research questions, though some ideas might include: how do we make this work safer? What could ‘career guidance’ be for those in stigmatized or illegal industries? What data points can researchers contribute that would be helpful to activists fighting to reform these laws? 2. Acknowledge the values inherent in our field (and reimagine them).
We have a moral imperative to examine the values, assumptions, and practices embedded in the field (Prilletensky, 1997). Akin to recent movements to “center White supremacy as a key problem for the field of counseling psychology and allied helping professions” (Grzanka et al., 2019, p. 478), vocational psychologists must take ownership for their explicit and tacit participation in oppressive systems. It is essential to be forthcoming about the ways in which White supremacy, Christian hegemony, patriarchy, neoliberal values, and unquestioned capitalism have shaped everything from our clinical tools (i.e., aptitude tests), to the romanticization of unpaid work (i.e., internships), to the types of industries we most commonly promote to students (i.e., STEM). In focusing on the accrual of wealth and heightening productivity as overarching goals, what have we overlooked? From an emancipatory communitarian perspective, “the concept of empowering disenfranchised people in their education and working lives is limited as long as systems that reinforce and replicate the disempowerment remain untouched” (Blustein et al., 2005). 3. Update our graduate student training and coursework.
How we teach career theories is overdue for modernization. Prior scholars (i.e., Blustein et al., 2019) have spoken at length to the dominance of theories—trait-and-factor, developmental, social cognitive, constructivist—that place the role of human agency as primary in shaping career paths, even when a person-environment interaction is acknowledged. Testing the applicability of these theories with more diverse samples is important, but the theories themselves were developed for a system that values profit over people (late-stage capitalism), hinges on individual rather than collective effort (neoliberalism), and assumes that hard work in itself is inherently good (Christian hegemony). Discussed in more detail by Blustein and colleagues (2019), newer theories such as counseling and work relationships perspective (CWP; Richardson, 2012), socio-cognitive model of career self-management (Lent & Brown, 2013), as well as a slew of constructivist approaches such as the life-design approach (Savickas et al., 2009) and contextual action theory (Young & Domene, 2019) may be key to overhauling syllabi and training new generations.
No matter the theory taught, using an intersectional lens to explicate how interlocking systems of oppression and power-governors shape working worlds will be key. Furthermore, no student should leave an applied psychology training program without a working knowledge of direct-action strategies, labor laws, and community-based organizations that they can share with their clients. Some may argue that such a position is extreme and outside the scope of universities, however “injunctions to forego confrontational methods suggest a convenient, privileged distance from the revolting social realities many face” (Olle, 2018b, p. 172). If not us, then who? 4. Ask different questions of our clients.
Career counseling itself may benefit from examining the techniques of more progressive models of psychotherapy such as feminist, existential, and narrative therapies that make space for critical consciousness. One way to include a strongly intersectional frame into vocational counseling would be to leave room for discussions of how systemic structures may be impacting the content and execution of therapy (Adames et al., 2018). Approaches that infuse a social reconstruction or emancipatory posture with clients help them to “develop knowledge that leads to freedom” and “become able to decode the way in which the economy and labor market function such that they jeopardise the development and fulfilment of whole groups of citizens” (Sultana, 2018, p. 65). Using critical consciousness within vocational psychology and career guidance is one direction that may enliven these topics for clients (Kenny et al., 2019). Applying an intersectional lens facilitates and “encourages us to ask novel and important questions of the work we already do” (Grzanka et al., 2017, p. 455). 5. Get our house in order (change the culture of academia).
Applied psychology programs are the primary training grounds for vocational psychologists, yet they are rife with their own labor concerns. Fueled by neoliberal ideology, there has been a level of complicity of the field, wherein psychology has been “both institution and accomplice to larger systems” (Grzanka et al., 2016; Olle, 2018a, p. 6). Thus, it may be difficult for vocational psychologists raised in these systems to recognize their toxicity. Graduate Teaching Assistants are often the backbone of universities, but are not paid living wages (Flaherty, 2018). Trainees are placed in unpaid clinical practicum sites wherein they do not have the same protections as site employees, but often do similar work. Most predoctoral internships are severely under-compensated (Dittman, 2003). Taking an intersectional lens to our own training models, it becomes clear that students with less economic privilege and/or more caregiving responsibilities will not be able to thrive (or even attend) our programs without taking on significant debt and/or role strain.
Circumstances for international students highlight labor concerns in academia and speak to embedded White Nationalism. Federal laws that require international students prove they have enough liquid funds to cover for a year of tuition and lived expenses, automatically excludes prospective scholars without wealth; additionally, international students are limited in their ability to work outside their institutions, making it difficult to secure additional income during their programs (Federis, 2019). Other barriers in psychology doctoral programs emerge with being denied access to specific clinical training sites such as veteran hospitals, disqualified from federal research grants, and difficulties in securing post-doctorate positions and hence qualify for licensure due to CPT and OPT limitations (Lee, 2013). These barriers ultimately have a negative effect on international students, placing them at disadvantage once they begin work (Banjo & Carville, 2020).
Although the APA science student council has written about the benefits of graduate student unions (Mumper, 2017) and APAGS created a student bill of rights (Cummings, 2016), little larger-scale work has been done to support these efforts. Indeed, psychologists themselves are split on the benefits of unionization for faculty—some view it as essential to fair salaries, resources, and the protection of adjuncts while others view it as a hindrance to flexibility; the latter argument is typified by past president of APA, Ronald Levant’s statement that “Unionization is a model that doesn’t fit intellectual activity very well” (Clay, 2007). As discussed previously, the idea that some fields do not need systems for collective bargaining and action because ‘just being able to do the work is a privilege in itself’ is dangerous (Jaffe, 2021); in psychology, it hits our most vulnerable members of academia—students, untenured, and part-time faculty—the hardest. Modeling the importance of labor rights at our own institutions by fighting for protections is a way to enliven content on of activism and coalition building—both core components of intersectionality theory.
Conclusion
Taken together, vocational psychology needs a radical reassessment our core assumptions and practices; as participants in this field, we can begin by asking “fundamental questions about what work, the state, the economy and career guidance are for and in whose interest we believe they should work” (Hooley et al., 2018, p. 19). We must start naming and facing the core systemic obstacles that hinder our social justice efforts. This would be an important step toward adopting a truly emancipatory communitarian approach, wherein the values, biases, and assumptions of the field are challenged (Prilleltensky, 1997), a strongly intersectional training, research, and practice agenda is enacted, and more honest and comprehensive conversations with clients about the realities and potentials of work are possible.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
