In this ethnographic study of present and former shrimp fishers in southeast Louisiana, I examine how local actors respond when traditional ways of life are disrupted by globalization and occupational decline. Most theories of neoliberal globalization and restructuring focus primarily on the global forces that disrupt, dislocate, and destroy local worlds, neglecting or downplaying the agency of local actors. As a result, local actors and cultures are often viewed as passive victims of globalization’s tide. However, my research, based on two extended periods of fieldwork in a Gulf Coast community facing occupational decline, uncovers not victimization but agency at every turn. Local actors’ choices, I show, highlight the importance of understanding globalization as a process of complex interactions between global forces and local actors rather than as a monolithic force that destroys everything in its path. I further show how local actors arrive at important decisions based upon calculations of both economic and non-economic considerations.
I use Hirschman’s influential model of exit, voice, and loyalty as my theoretical point of departure because his framework is actor-centered and thus places agency at the core of analysis: people can respond to organizational decline by choosing exit in search of better conditions elsewhere; they can exercise voice, appealing to authorities for improvements that might make exit unnecessary; or they can remain loyal, patiently waiting for circumstances to improve. My analysis, however, reformulates Hirschman by re-interpreting the meaning of his categories in three important ways.
First, Hirschman views exit as a solution to decline, a form of agency firmly rooted in interest calculation. Though he does recognize that exit may carry non-economic costs, these costs have not been adequately explored or understood. Through in-depth interviews with those who left shrimping for more lucrative employment opportunities, I analyze these non-economic costs. I reveal exactly what is lost when deeply-meaningful, traditional occupational identities are abandoned. And while former shrimpers may be better off financially, they experience exit as a personal tragedy. In many ways, therefore, exit is less agential and more passive than persisting: those who exit avoid a tragically doomed fight against market logic, but they do so by allowing the winds of the market to blow them wherever it leads.
Next, Hirschman views actors in declining organizational contexts who choose neither exit nor voice as passively loyal: they do nothing because they are hopeful that things will improve in the future. But a large number of shrimpers (“persisters”) who refuse to leave behind their deteriorating way of life do not fit Hirschman’s description. Persisters understand that they can exit; they understand that they would be better off financially if they did exit; and they do not believe that things will improve in the future. Yet, they choose to stay put, to go down with the ship, as it were. Why? The answer, I argue, is that they judge the complex web of meaning associated with their occupational identity and way of life to be worth the suffering. They are indeed loyal to this way of life, but their loyalty is not passive, resigned, or hopeful. Instead it is fiercely, even tragically, agential as they struggle to swim upstream against the logic of the market. Thus, I show how they are not victims of globalization but martyrs on its altar.
Finally, for Hirschman, voice – an individual or collective appeal to higher authorities – is the only other possible form of agency. However, my analysis of a small group of shrimpers I call “adaptive innovators,” shows that Hirschman’s conception of agency is too narrow. This group has successfully adapted to the logic of the market in ways that allow them to remain viable producers while simultaneously preserving the meaningful occupational and cultural activities associated with their way of life. By using the internet to find new and lucrative markets for their high-quality catch, as well as taking advantage of shipping and transportation technologies, these local actors are not only fighting against global forces, they are using globalization in judo-like fashion to advance their own agenda. While this option may not always be available, I argue that adaptive innovation in place is an important form of agency in many organizational settings.