We work hard to protect your security and privacy. Our payment security system encrypts your information during transmission. We don’t share your credit card details with third-party sellers, and we don’t sell your information to others. Learn more

Details

Add gift options

Follow the Authors

Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk about It): 44 (The University Center for Human Values Series, 44) Paperback – 30 April 2019

by Elizabeth Anderson (Author)

4.4 126 ratings

Part of: The University Center for Human Values Series (17 books)

See all formats and editions

{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"£13.72","priceAmount":13.72,"currencySymbol":"£","integerValue":"13","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"72","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"vG6J3COvZTIYyXCe%2F%2FZ2OfBQiSPLCKHLmS1O%2BdMBaoWFqVIVohiGMRK4yoIKHAi537x2qc6RTf9D8lW%2FgOtrSGX6xH0l14VtmxnYE4zlEwsHX0YLgkPt6C5VlSlyRWsz","locale":"en-GB","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}]}

Purchase options and add-ons

Why our workplaces are authoritarian private governments-and why we can't see it

One in four American workers says their workplace is a "dictatorship." Yet that number almost certainly would be higher if we recognized employers for what they are-private governments with sweeping authoritarian power over our lives. Many employers minutely regulate workers' speech, clothing, and manners on the job, and employers often extend their authority to the off-duty lives of workers, who can be fired for their political speech, recreational activities, diet, and almost anything else employers care to govern. In this compelling book, Elizabeth Anderson examines why, despite all this, we continue to talk as if free markets make workers free, and she proposes a better way to think about the workplace, opening up space for discovering how workers can enjoy real freedom.

Report an issue with this product

Part of series

The University Center for Human Values Series
Print length

224 pages
Language

English
Publisher

Princeton University Press
Publication date

30 April 2019
Dimensions

13.72 x 1.78 x 21.34 cm
ISBN-10

0691192243
ISBN-13

978-0691192246
See all details

Frequently bought together

Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk about It): 44 (The University Center for Human Values

£13.72

Get it as soon as Friday, Mar 22

Only 15 left in stock (more on the way).

Sent from and sold by Amazon.

+

£14.99

Get it as soon as Friday, Mar 22

In stock

Sent from and sold by Amazon.

+

Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo (Hackett Classics)

£10.69

Get it as soon as Friday, Mar 22

In stock

Sent from and sold by Amazon.

Total price:

To see our price, add these items to your basket.

Try again!

Details

Added to Basket

Some of these items are dispatched sooner than the others.

Show details Hide details

Choose items to buy together.

Thomas Nagel
156
Paperback
15 offers from £9.19
Plato
2,202
Paperback
31 offers from £4.50
Simon Blackburn
1,064
Paperback
46 offers from £2.38
Aristotle
799
Paperback
22 offers from £2.50
Marcus Aurelius
6,997
Paperback
34 offers from £5.20
Aristotle
110
Paperback
23 offers from £6.96

Product description

Review

"Private Government is a welcome and important call to bring workplace governance back into political theory and discourse, and should be taken seriously if we are to promote greater democracy in the workplace."--David Cowan, Times Literary Supplement

"Anderson explores a striking American contradiction. On the one hand, we are a freedom-obsessed society, wary of government intrusion into our private lives; on the other, we allow ourselves to be tyrannized by our bosses."--Joshua Rothman, NewYorker.com

"Highlight[s] the dramatic and alarming changes that work has undergone over the past century--insisting that, in often unseen ways, the changing nature of work threatens the fundamental ideals of democracy."--Miya Tokumitsu, New Republic

"The extent of the arbitrary authority of owners and managers over employees is surprisingly neglected by political thinkers, given how much time we spend at work and how little in the polling booth. Elizabeth Anderson provides a much-needed, important, and compelling account of this overlooked subject. Private Government deserves to be widely read and discussed."--Alan Ryan, professor emeritus, University of Oxford

From the Back Cover

"The extent of the arbitrary authority of owners and managers over employees is surprisingly neglected by political thinkers, given how much time we spend at work and how little in the polling booth. Elizabeth Anderson provides a much-needed, important, and compelling account of this overlooked subject. Private Government deserves to be widely read and discussed."--Alan Ryan, professor emeritus, University of Oxford

"This is a very exciting and extremely important book that presents a major challenge to philosophers and social scientists to think about the modern workplace as a form of private government. It is strange that, in a liberal society, there is so little discussion of the relations of power that characterize the workplace. Anderson deftly brings together history, economic theory, and philosophy to have just that conversation. This book unsettles some very deep, unjustifiable assumptions we have about the nature and organization of work today."--Alexander Gourevitch, Brown University

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Princeton University Press (30 April 2019)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 224 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0691192243
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0691192246
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 13.72 x 1.78 x 21.34 cm

Best Sellers Rank: 223,648 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer reviews:
4.4 126 ratings

About the authors

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Elizabeth Anderson
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Elizabeth Anderson is Max Shaye Professor of Public Philosophy and John Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. I have taught there since 1987. I teach courses in ethics, social and political philosophy, epistemology, philosophy of the social sciences, and feminist theory. Within these fields, my research has focused on democratic theory, equality in political philosophy and American law, racial integration, the ethical limits of markets, theories of value and rational choice (alternatives to consequentialism and economic theories of rational choice), pragmatism, and social epistemology. I designed and was the inaugural director of the Philosophy, Politics & Economics (PPE) major at University of Michigan. I do much of my philosophical work PPE style, in close engagement with the social sciences. My latest research concerns the political economy of work--what's wrong with how it is organized today, and how we can organize work in ways that improve workers' lives.
See more on the author's page
Elizabeth Anderson
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
See more on the author's page

Customer reviews

4.4 out of 5

126 global ratings

How customer reviews and ratings work

Sort reviews by

Top review from United Kingdom

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Hande Z

Tyranny in a closet

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 19 April 2019

Verified Purchase

Anderson asks that we consider some facts. Walmart workers cannot exchange casual remarks at work because Walmart regards that as ‘time theft’; Apple employees spend half an hour of unpaid time in the queue waiting for the daily search of their personal belongings; Tyson Foods prohibits its employees from going to the toilet; untold number of workers across the USA have been subject to drug tests without suspicion; and millions coerced to support political candidates or causes.

She then asks two pertinent questions that she proceeds to answer in this book. First, ‘why do we talk as if workers are free at work, and that the only threats to individual liberty come from the state?’ Second, ‘what would be a better way to talk about the ways employers constrain workers’ lives, which can open up discussion about how the workplace could be designed to be more responsive to workers interests?’

Employers do not just govern; they dominate their workers. There are no choices. Rules are laid down and employees obey. It is as simple as that, and that brings us back to the question why do workers not see this? We wrongly assume that the private sphere is where government ends, and by extension, private liberty begins. That is an utterly wrong assumption. As Anderson says, ‘Most modern workplaces are private governments’. Employers exercise off-hours authority over their employees ‘irregularly, arbitrarily, and without warning’ such that workers are unaware how sweeping that power is.

The historical development to the present state is not complicated or long – at least it seems so by the clarity and sharpness in Anderson’s account. She begins with the worker’s lot under feudal lords, and the transformation, first from the English Civil War, and then by the industrial revolution. The growth of big corporations and government inspired monopolies all chipped away the rights of the individual worker. In the modern work place is compared to repressive state regimes. ‘The dictator is the chief executive officer (CEO), superiors are managers, subordinates are workers’.

We are treated with four thought-provoking essays by Ann Hughes, David Bromich, Niko Kolodny, and Tyler Cohen which come at the end of the book, offering their views of Anderson’s thesis, and Anderson closed with a reply to the commentators. Hughes suggests caution in making social and economic comparisons with the 17th century Levellers, Kolodny does not think that being governed by another person is necessarily bad; and Cohen thinks workers are compensated in any event. Their comments are deeper and carefully developed so there is no space in a review to report them in detail. It is a book worth reading several times.

6 people found this helpful

Helpful

Top reviews from other countries

Zach Winter

An interesting argument!

Reviewed in the United States on 10 February 2023

Verified Purchase

“Imagine a government that assigns almost everyone a superior whom they must obey. Although superiors give most inferiors a routine to follow, there is no rule of law. Orders may be arbitrary and can change at any time, without prior notice or opportunity to appeal. Superiors are unaccountable to those they order around. They are neither elected nor removable by their inferiors. Inferiors have no right to complain in court about how they are being treated, except in a few narrowly defined cases. They also have no right to be consulted about the orders they are given. There are multiple ranks in the society ruled by this government. The content of the orders people receive varies, depending on their rank. Higher-ranked individuals may be granted considerable freedom in deciding how to carry out their orders, and may issue some orders to some inferiors. The most highly ranked individual takes no orders but issues many. The lowest-ranked may have their bodily movements and speech minutely regulated for most of the day. This government does not recognize a personal or private sphere of autonomy free from sanction. It may prescribe a dress code and forbid certain hairstyles. Everyone lives under surveillance, to ensure that they are complying with orders. Superiors may snoop into inferiors’ e-mail and record their phone conversations. Suspicionless searches of their bodies and personal effects may be routine. They can be ordered to submit to medical testing. The government may dictate the language spoken and forbid communication in any other language. It may forbid certain topics of discussion. People can be sanctioned for their consensual sexual activity or for their choice of spouse or life partner. They can be sanctioned for their political activity and required to engage in political activity they do not agree with. The economic system of the society run by this government is communist. The government owns all the nonlabor means of production in the society it governs. It organizes production by means of central planning. The form of the government is a dictatorship. In some cases, the dictator is appointed by an oligarchy. In other cases, the dictator is self-appointed. Although the control that this government exercises over its members is pervasive, its sanctioning powers are limited. It cannot execute or imprison anyone for violating orders. It can demote people to lower ranks. The most common sanction is exile. Individuals are also free to emigrate, although if they do, there is usually no going back. Exile or emigration can have severe collateral consequences. The vast majority have no realistic option but to try to immigrate to another communist dictatorship, although there are many to choose from. A few manage to escape into anarchic hinterlands, or set up their own dictatorships. This government mostly secures compliance with carrots. Because it controls all the income in the society, it pays more to people who follow orders particularly well and promotes them to higher rank. Because it controls communication, it also has a propaganda apparatus that often persuades many to support the regime. This need not amount to brainwashing. In many cases, people willingly support the regime and comply with its orders because they identify with and profit from it. Others support the regime because, although they are subordinate to some superior, they get to exercise dominion over inferiors. It should not be surprising that support for the regime for these reasons tends to increase, the more highly ranked a person is. Would people subject to such a government be free? I expect that most people in the United States would think not. Yet most work under just such a government: it is the modern workplace, as it exists for most establishments in the United States. The dictator is the chief executive officer (CEO), superiors are managers, subordinates are workers. The oligarchy that appoints the CEO exists for publicly owned corporations: it is the board of directors. The punishment of exile is being fired. The economic system of the modern workplace is communist, because the government—that is, the establishment—owns all the assets, and the top of the establishment hierarchy designs the production plan, which subordinates execute. There are no internal markets in the modern workplace. Indeed, the boundary of the firm is defined as the point at which markets end and authoritarian centralized planning and direction begin.”

2 people found this helpful

Breezy

I treasure this book; it is a real eye opener.

Reviewed in Canada on 21 December 2021

Verified Purchase

Liked it very much. It awakens us to a path of true democracy. Thank goodness Americans are rising from their slumber. They have been propagandized from birth.

just some dude

Why no one wants to work anymore

Reviewed in the United States on 17 February 2022

Verified Purchase

That is a question you hear bandied about with labor shortages everywhere in 2021: "Why don't people want to work for a living anymore?" This is a good primer on the historical and contemporary reasons why - because it sucks. Wage labor sucks. It has become clear that in an American pro-capital context, it offers no escape to a brighter future. Instead, owners and their managers seem to be doubling down on tyrannical rules for labor, like denying them bathroom breaks to the point where they are infantilized into wearing diapers on the job. Next time you hear someone express puzzlement as to why no one wants to work anymore, ask them what this country has done to make working conditions better in the last 40 years that doesn't involve demanding a worker take the huge cost of leaving if they find it too unpleasant for them (that is, if they do not have a noncompete clause). Whatever their answer may be, the widespread loathing of work proves it is not enough.

Congrats on Elizabeth Anderson for being an academic that is curious about how workers who do not have tenor for life live (maybe THE academic, as evidenced by how genuinely perplexed the academics at the end of the book are in response to her writing). It is arbitrary scheduling, little time off, micromanaging to the point of voodoo, and now, if you are going to make an amendment to this book, no guarantee you are not going to get a disease with known long symptoms that could persist for years and require expensive privatized medical treatment. Among other well-known problems to working that many who have worked at "the firm" beyond in an intellectual, managerial capacity know.

The American working experience is always portrayed as a temporary condition if you are thrifty enough, if you are clever enough, if you attend school in the meantime. The idea is that slavery is temporary, and soon you can be a master. But what if you have no interest in being either slave or master? That is not available in a country governed (by law from government) as default at-will employment, with a sprinkling of anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws that (in my actual experience as a worker) cannot realistically be pursued in a labor market that otherwise offers little voice for its workers., or accountability for its managers/bosses - beyond their voice of leaving the firm entirely in protest, which this book makes a good case is not enough to justify what happens within firms in the first place (it is akin to asking an Italian to leave if they don't like Benito Mussolini - a tremendous and possibly deadly cost to them, but not much cost to Il Duce).

Anderson's writing is sharp and to the point, but if there is a problem with it, it is comparing these businesses rhetorically to communist dictatorships - I think this is meant to get the right and Cold Warrior left professor audience on board with her arguments, but it won't resonate with people under 40 who do not have much memory of the Cold War. It also sets up too easily to disregard Marx's writing about the relationship between capital and labor, which to this day has the fundamental truth that the capital-labor relationship is based on conflict (and in another part of the book, Anderson chides labor unions for the conflict they present to workplaces, when all they are doing is recognizing the conflict exists and pursuing it to victory). I don't think it works with a right wing audience in particular, who I suspect did not oppose communism on the grounds of liberty (at least, the everyday conservative, not the think tank one) as much as its foreign nature. You could easily make these arguments emphasizing the alienation and foreignness of the control implemented by bosses vs. continuing to breathe life into stale Cold War arguments with hysterical accusations of communism (that don't play in particular when bosses and owners do not use Marxist language to justify what they're doing).

But overall, a great, succinct read. She is in the right place, paying attention to the right things. Which is more than I can say for the vast majority of college professors, focused as they are on their never-ending crisis of identity politics.

6 people found this helpful

Paul E Crider

A persuasive extension of the concepts of freedom and domination

Reviewed in the United States on 23 May 2017

Verified Purchase

In Private Government Elizabeth Anderson presents a compelling case that our political ideologies have been shaped by historical contingencies. Specifically, it made perfect sense for egalitarian reformers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to enthusiastically embrace free markets. State-backed monopolies were one among many forms of unjust hierarchy and domination, others being the clergy (who could forcibly extract tithes), the patriarchal family structure, chattel slavery, monopolist guilds, and the landed aristocracy. In an environment where freer markets meant more opportunities for individuals to tend their own land or their own shops and crafts, they represented an important source of independence and freedom from domination by masters (what she calls republican freedom).

But she argues no one could have predicted the Industrial Revolution or its ramifications. With the advent of factories employing hundreds of workers in repetitive tasks, the division between wealthy and powerful capitalists and poorer workers with few options became not a source of independence but just another form of oppressive hierarchy. Anderson argues that we have inherited the earlier rhetoric of free markets as a source of freedom--appropriate once upon a time--and continue to apply it today. By doing so we extend moral cover to employers to tyrannize workers anyway they see fit. Anderson laboriously documents examples of such tyranny, noting that it applies especially to poor and lower-skilled workers who are easily replaced and not so much to skilled workers and academics, who tend to have cushier careers.

Importantly, Anderson is not just another leftist anti-capitalist with their head in the clouds. She endorses not only strong (but not absolute) property rights, but also acknowledges the value of market freedom as an important arena of agency and self-development. She embraces the market economy as a vital engine of wealth creation. She even acknowledges that firms in the market have solid reasons to need hierarchical organization and relatively open-ended authority of the bosses.

But the regulatory contours of markets and property rights are socially established, and there is nothing intrinsic to the vigorous operation of a market economy that requires workers to check their dignity and so many basic rights at the door of the workplace.

I don't agree with all of Anderson's suggestions. Tyler Cowen (one of the four responders) in particular landed some well-targeted criticisms of Anderson's argument. But at the very least Anderson has succeeded in obliterating the common knee-jerk defense of absolute employer freedom with respect to how they treat workers and organize the workplace. Notions of freedom and tyranny apply to the workplace.

50 people found this helpful

Hermy909 II

A Decent Series of Lectures

Reviewed in the United States on 9 March 2020

Verified Purchase

I bought this book believing it was a sustained philosophical work on a single topic. It is not. It is a series of lectures given by one professor followed by commentators responding to her and her response to those commentators. As a result, it is not particularly rigorous or well organized. Many times it is frustrating in ways normal works of political philosophy are not. Moreover, several of the commentators are not particularly insightful. The English professor seemed almost completely batty.

There are two very helpful prologues followed by Anderson’s two key speeches. The first provides a historical discussion explaining why right libertarians use the rhetoric of the 17th and 18th century egalitarians who were radically in favor of free markets to support freedom. She argues that because the Industrial Revolution came and turned everything upside down, people failed to notice that, in its wake, markets were now no longer the tool of freedom, but either a non-free device or an anti-free device.
The second lecture is the actual “Private Governments” lecture. It argues that government exists when someone has the authority to give orders without the receiving individual having the ability to resist them. For example, states are governments, parents are governments, corporations are governments, etc. We are very resistant to state governments (national or state level) telling us what to do, but we are much less resistant to private governments in the form of our employers telling us what to do. They can fire us for our political views, have us do arbitrary and shameful things, etc. etc. There are many things our bosses get away with doing to us that we would never allow our governments to do.
While the first lecture was pretty boring, some background stuff of minimal interest, the second lecture is philosophically weighty and quite interesting. I would give it a very high rating, individually, but it is a lecture, not an article. Though she must be a very articulate speaker, the lecture is still less rigorous and organized than I would hope.

The rest of the book is very mixed. Four individuals of different academic backgrounds were allowed to respond to Anderson. The first two attempted to prove that society during the 17th and 18th centuries was worse than Anderson made it out to seem, that even back then markets were harmful to people. Being a historian and an English professor, they both seemed a bit kooky and were not very organized. The English professor proves how truly whacky English departments are by calling economics as a field a “rationalization,” proving that she both doesn’t know what a rationalization is and also that she has never studied economics. Also, their responses were too short to make any serious point except show that markets, even back then, caused problems.
The next two responses were much better. The first was a philosopher asking Anderson for clarification about what exactly it is we find wrong with private governments and arbitrary power. This one was fun to read but unfortunately still very short. The last response, written by an economist, was definitely the most interesting. Tyler Cowen attempted to use economic studies to eviscerate many of Anderson’s main claims. Some stuck, others didn’t. His response was, again, far too short, but I would have liked to hear more of it, as Cowen’s reply was by far the most interesting of the four.
The book ended with Anderson giving a reply to the four commentators. Perhaps it didn’t come off this way in person when the lectures were given, but in writing she comes off as very unpleasant and dismissive, especially towards Cowen. Several of his arguments she dismisses as simply being “fallacious” without explaining how or why. Her response to Cowen was in parts satisfying and in other parts not satisfying. I wish there had been more sustained ability for them to respond to one another.

The title essay, Cowen’s reply and her reply to Cowen are worth reading a second time or more, the rest of the book is not. The first two commentators and her replies to those commentators may not even be worth reading a single time.

8 people found this helpful

See more reviews

Delivery Options		Without Prime
Standard Delivery	FREE	From £2.99*
Premium Delivery	FREE	£3.95
Same-Day Delivery (on eligible orders over £20 to selected postcodes) Details	FREE	£5.99

Amazon Music Stream millions of songs	AbeBooks Books, art & collectables	ACX Audiobook Publishing Made Easy	Amazon Web Services Scalable Cloud Computing Services

Audible Download Audiobooks	Goodreads Book reviews & recommendations	Amazon Home Services Experienced pros Happiness Guarantee	IMDb Movies, TV & Celebrities

Kindle Direct Publishing Indie Digital & Print Publishing Made Easy	Shopbop Designer Fashion Brands	Amazon Warehouse Deep Discounts Open-Box Products	Amazon Business Service for business customers