Chap­ter 21 – “Like Mas­ter Like Man.” begins with a wry com­men­tary on the frus­tra­tions voiced by many house­wives about the per­ceived decline in ser­vant qual­i­ty. These com­plaints often over­look the com­plex­i­ties of domes­tic ser­vice and focus instead on minor incon­ve­niences or per­son­al­i­ty flaws. The irony lies in how much is expect­ed of ser­vants with so lit­tle rec­i­p­ro­cat­ed in under­stand­ing or regard. Unlike in ear­li­er times when house­hold staff were viewed almost as extend­ed fam­i­ly, the mod­ern arrange­ment, par­tic­u­lar­ly in Amer­i­ca, has become pure­ly trans­ac­tion­al. Per­son­al con­nec­tions have fad­ed, replaced by con­trac­tu­al oblig­a­tions and social dis­tance. This detach­ment strips the role of human­i­ty, mak­ing the mas­ter-ser­vant dynam­ic less col­lab­o­ra­tive and more adver­sar­i­al.

The author exam­ines how this imper­son­al rela­tion­ship erodes mutu­al respect. Ser­vants, who live with­in the walls of a home yet remain social­ly invis­i­ble, wit­ness their employ­ers’ pri­vate habits, tem­pers, and inconsistencies—details often hid­den from the pub­lic eye. Over time, this expo­sure breeds either silent judg­ment or qui­et imi­ta­tion. The result is a type of mim­ic­ry that reflects not the best of the employer’s char­ac­ter, but often their worst. In house­holds lack­ing moral clar­i­ty, the staff absorb van­i­ty, gos­sip, or indul­gence as nor­mal behav­ior. This mir­ror­ing effect high­lights a cen­tral argu­ment of the chap­ter: domes­tic work­ers are shaped not only by their duties but by the per­son­al con­duct of those they serve. If employ­ers wish to see integri­ty in their staff, they must first mod­el it them­selves.

Chap­ter 21 – “Like Mas­ter Like Man.” also explores the psy­cho­log­i­cal toll of being both omnipresent and over­looked. Ser­vants occu­py a unique van­tage point—they hear what’s whis­pered behind closed doors and notice what’s meant to remain unseen. This posi­tion gives them access to truths employ­ers often deny even to them­selves. Yet this knowl­edge is rarely acknowl­edged, and their insights are under­val­ued, if not entire­ly dis­missed. The mas­ter believes him­self unknown, while the ser­vant qui­et­ly under­stands more than he’s ever giv­en cred­it for. The lack of hon­est recog­ni­tion from employ­ers cre­ates resent­ment and dis­trust, not due to wages or work, but from emo­tion­al invis­i­bil­i­ty. It’s not servi­tude itself that is degrad­ing, but the era­sure of dig­ni­ty that fre­quent­ly accom­pa­nies it.

The divide between social class­es is deep­ened when domes­tic labor is per­formed with­out mutu­al regard. Many house­holds increas­ing­ly depend on immi­grant work­ers who, due to eco­nom­ic neces­si­ty, accept roles that offer lit­tle room for advance­ment or voice. This shift intro­duces cul­tur­al and lan­guage bar­ri­ers, adding new lay­ers to exist­ing pow­er imbal­ances. Employ­ers often regard their staff as tools rather than indi­vid­u­als, and in doing so, cre­ate a cycle of dis­con­tent. Edu­ca­tion and grow­ing aware­ness have also made it hard­er to find indi­vid­u­als will­ing to per­form such roles indef­i­nite­ly. As upward mobil­i­ty increas­es, the pool of long-term domes­tic work­ers decreas­es, espe­cial­ly those who remain con­tent under dis­re­spect­ful con­di­tions. It’s not lazi­ness or incom­pe­tence that dri­ves this shortage—it’s the sim­ple refusal to endure being under­val­ued.

Chap­ter 21 – “Like Mas­ter Like Man.” con­tends that this fric­tion is not just personal—it’s sys­temic. The struc­ture of domes­tic ser­vice pits two groups against one anoth­er in a dai­ly per­for­mance of inequal­i­ty. One com­mands, the oth­er obeys; one relax­es, the oth­er serves. Even in moments of appar­ent har­mo­ny, the imbal­ance lingers. The chap­ter argues that employ­ers who com­plain of untrust­wor­thy or ungrate­ful ser­vants often fail to reflect on the atmos­phere they them­selves cre­ate. If loy­al­ty, respect, and pro­fes­sion­al­ism are not extend­ed down­ward, they will not flour­ish upward. The dys­func­tion in these house­holds doesn’t begin with incompetence—it begins with con­de­scen­sion.

Mod­ern stud­ies on work­place dynam­ics echo these points. A 2022 report by the Eco­nom­ic Pol­i­cy Insti­tute found that domes­tic work­ers in the U.S.—predominantly women and immigrants—are among the least pro­tect­ed and most under­val­ued labor groups. Despite play­ing essen­tial roles in care­giv­ing and house­hold man­age­ment, they often lack access to fair wages, health­care, and basic job secu­ri­ty. These con­di­tions per­sist not due to skill defi­cien­cies but because of long­stand­ing soci­etal atti­tudes that dimin­ish their con­tri­bu­tions. The par­al­lels to the chap­ter are strik­ing, under­scor­ing how his­tor­i­cal pat­terns still shape con­tem­po­rary real­i­ties. When labor is stripped of respect, per­for­mance nat­u­ral­ly declines—not because peo­ple are inca­pable, but because moti­va­tion erodes in envi­ron­ments where appre­ci­a­tion is absent.

In clos­ing, Chap­ter 21 – “Like Mas­ter Like Man.” isn’t mere­ly a cri­tique of domes­tic staff—it’s a mir­ror held up to those who employ them. It asks whether dis­sat­is­fac­tion stems from poor work or from poor lead­er­ship. The chap­ter encour­ages empa­thy, urg­ing employ­ers to rec­og­nize the human ele­ment in ser­vice rela­tion­ships. To inspire trust, one must offer it. To expect excel­lence, one must lead by exam­ple. Through this lens, domes­tic har­mo­ny isn’t achieved by demand­ing bet­ter staff—it’s cul­ti­vat­ed by being a bet­ter mas­ter.