"I would only consider myself outside the norm because of the way other people live. . . I could never bear to live the dull lives that most people live, locked up in offices. I live in absolute freedom. I do what I want because I want to do it. What's wrong with making a living doing something interesting?" - Bud Freeman, page 457, Working
Bud Freeman seems like a very paradoxical character - in some ways he seems like a bum who just wants to play music, and in other ways he seems like a brilliant, hardworking artist. I wonder if he really has a good point of view that just seems ridiculous because of society's value of "hard work" equaling packed days, or if he actually is lazy and won't take responsibility for his life.
While I tend to agree with him on the idea of finding a job that interests you and gives you opportunities for freedom, I feel like he has a bad attitude when it comes to his views of other people. He throws around terms like "dull lives" and states that he would be miserable as a "nine-to-five-man." I wonder if he ever allowed himself to take his focus off of himself long enough to look at other people. Supposedly, he "can't handle other people," so perhaps not.
PS. Regarding the Arendt reading, I'm really struggling with it. I'm looking forward to deciphering it in discussion tomorrow.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Housewives and Homemakers
"The reality and reliability of the human world rest primarily on the fact that we are surrounded by things more permanent than the activity by which they were produced, and potentially even more permanent that the lives of their authors." -Hannah Arendt, Human Condition, page 96
I have the dream of becoming a rural doctor and traveling to remote areas, bringing medicine where it has never been and I am willing to do whatever it takes to get there. However, my dream of becoming a wife and mother far overshadows even that dream. It disheartens me to hear mothers say "I'm just a mom" or "I'm just a housewife." What profession could possibly be greater than cultivating and nurturing new human lives here on planet Earth? What other profession could be more dynamic, more fulfilling, more exhausting, more exciting, more painful, more utterly heart-stopping than bringing life into this world, caring for it, and watching it grow?
I think Hannah Arendt speaks truth when she says that we have to be surrounded by things more permanent than we are in order to give life its reality and reliability. Think of a mother - it could seem like drudgery to wash dishes one more time, or meaningless to do laundry one more time. However, what is the greater thing being accomplished by those "meaningless" tasks? Children are being raised! People are becoming! Lives are being changed in the home! This is perhaps one of the things of permanence of which Arendt speaks. Because of a mother's (and father's, of course) love and care, her children will grow into great adults and begin raising families of their own. In this continuous cycle is permanence...not meaninglessness.
"This is my offering. I think it's the greatest satisfaction in the world to know you've pleased somebody. Everybody has to feel needed. I know I'm needed. I'm doing it for them and they're doing it for me. And that's the way it is." Therese Carter, Working, page 303
I have the dream of becoming a rural doctor and traveling to remote areas, bringing medicine where it has never been and I am willing to do whatever it takes to get there. However, my dream of becoming a wife and mother far overshadows even that dream. It disheartens me to hear mothers say "I'm just a mom" or "I'm just a housewife." What profession could possibly be greater than cultivating and nurturing new human lives here on planet Earth? What other profession could be more dynamic, more fulfilling, more exhausting, more exciting, more painful, more utterly heart-stopping than bringing life into this world, caring for it, and watching it grow?
I think Hannah Arendt speaks truth when she says that we have to be surrounded by things more permanent than we are in order to give life its reality and reliability. Think of a mother - it could seem like drudgery to wash dishes one more time, or meaningless to do laundry one more time. However, what is the greater thing being accomplished by those "meaningless" tasks? Children are being raised! People are becoming! Lives are being changed in the home! This is perhaps one of the things of permanence of which Arendt speaks. Because of a mother's (and father's, of course) love and care, her children will grow into great adults and begin raising families of their own. In this continuous cycle is permanence...not meaninglessness.
"This is my offering. I think it's the greatest satisfaction in the world to know you've pleased somebody. Everybody has to feel needed. I know I'm needed. I'm doing it for them and they're doing it for me. And that's the way it is." Therese Carter, Working, page 303
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Humans and Action
Reading Response: Working by Studs Terkel, pages xxxi-xxxviii and The Human Condition, by Hannah Arendt, pages 22-78
It's all about people and action. As Hannah Arendt muses, "Man working and fabricating and building a world inhabited only by himself would still be a fabricator, though not a homo faber: he would have lost his specifically human quality...Action alone is the exclusive perogative of man; neither a beast nor a god is capable of it, and only action is entirely dependent upon the constant presence of others."
Mike Lefevre's entire interview was centered around his relationships and his frustrating lack of Action. He talked of his children, his wife, the men in the tavern, coworkers, his foreman - with all of them he had a different relationship, but they all influenced his life and his work. While he was doing much labor, he felt as though he was never really accomplishing anything (action.) As he said, "Everybody should have something to point to." In his mind, he was just an "old mule," an animal, a subhuman - all because the nature of work extracted Action and provided only work.
It's all about people and action. As Hannah Arendt muses, "Man working and fabricating and building a world inhabited only by himself would still be a fabricator, though not a homo faber: he would have lost his specifically human quality...Action alone is the exclusive perogative of man; neither a beast nor a god is capable of it, and only action is entirely dependent upon the constant presence of others."
Mike Lefevre's entire interview was centered around his relationships and his frustrating lack of Action. He talked of his children, his wife, the men in the tavern, coworkers, his foreman - with all of them he had a different relationship, but they all influenced his life and his work. While he was doing much labor, he felt as though he was never really accomplishing anything (action.) As he said, "Everybody should have something to point to." In his mind, he was just an "old mule," an animal, a subhuman - all because the nature of work extracted Action and provided only work.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Stone and Immortality
Reading Response for The Human Condition by Hannah Arendt, pages 1-21, and Working by Studs Terkel, pages xlv-xlix.
According to Hannah Arendt, "by their ability to leave nonperishable traces behind, men, their individual mortality notwithstanding, attain an immortality of their own and prove themselves to be of a 'divine' nature." Is it true? Do people really seek to feel immortal through the things they do or the things they build? I was somewhat skeptical of this claim until I read about Carl Murray Bates, the stonemason, in Terkel's book.
Bates had been a stonemason since he was seventeen years old in the Depression, and had developed a real love for his career over his next forty years on the job. He talks about how much he enjoys working with the stone, what pleasure he receives from building something well, and how much he loves being able to drive by the houses he's built years later and see them still standing firm. What surprised me though, was his comment at the end of his interview : "[It's] immortality as far as we're concerned. Nothin' in this world lasts forever, but did you know that stone - Bedford limestone, they claim - deteriorates one-sixteenth of an inch every hundred years? And it's around four or five inches for a house. So that's gettin' awful close. (Laughs.)" How very profound for this hardworking, honest craftsman to have found an inkling of divine nature in the very stones with which he built. Or is it so profound? Do we find the divine in our work too, as Hannah Arendt suggests?
According to Hannah Arendt, "by their ability to leave nonperishable traces behind, men, their individual mortality notwithstanding, attain an immortality of their own and prove themselves to be of a 'divine' nature." Is it true? Do people really seek to feel immortal through the things they do or the things they build? I was somewhat skeptical of this claim until I read about Carl Murray Bates, the stonemason, in Terkel's book.
Bates had been a stonemason since he was seventeen years old in the Depression, and had developed a real love for his career over his next forty years on the job. He talks about how much he enjoys working with the stone, what pleasure he receives from building something well, and how much he loves being able to drive by the houses he's built years later and see them still standing firm. What surprised me though, was his comment at the end of his interview : "[It's] immortality as far as we're concerned. Nothin' in this world lasts forever, but did you know that stone - Bedford limestone, they claim - deteriorates one-sixteenth of an inch every hundred years? And it's around four or five inches for a house. So that's gettin' awful close. (Laughs.)" How very profound for this hardworking, honest craftsman to have found an inkling of divine nature in the very stones with which he built. Or is it so profound? Do we find the divine in our work too, as Hannah Arendt suggests?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Dollars and Lives
Reading Response: Working, by Studs Terkel - (Work Nightmares: Atkins, Grayson, Clements, Ross)
The most striking thing in these selections is the immense void that seems to permeate these people's lives. Whether they are working as a receptionist, a welder, a felter in a luggage factory, or a business consultant, they all talk about how lonely and worn down they feel. They talk about feeling less than human and numb to the world around them. It really is a nightmare.
From Tuesday's reading we saw that some people can enjoy and take pride in "less desirable" jobs, even if it seems unlikely. So what is it that causes some jobs to be so dehumanizing? Is it the job itself? Is it the management? Is it the individual employee? I look forward to discussion tomorrow!
The most striking thing in these selections is the immense void that seems to permeate these people's lives. Whether they are working as a receptionist, a welder, a felter in a luggage factory, or a business consultant, they all talk about how lonely and worn down they feel. They talk about feeling less than human and numb to the world around them. It really is a nightmare.
From Tuesday's reading we saw that some people can enjoy and take pride in "less desirable" jobs, even if it seems unlikely. So what is it that causes some jobs to be so dehumanizing? Is it the job itself? Is it the management? Is it the individual employee? I look forward to discussion tomorrow!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Waitresses and Gravediggers
Reading Response: Working, Terkel. Selections by Pommier, Dante, Quaal, and Ruiz.
What intrigued me most about the selected readings was the amount of pride exuded by the people employed in, what many would consider, lower-class jobs. The parking attendant prided himself in his skill, how he could park a car "right in the hole" with only one hand. The waitress was filled with pride when customers requested her or when she was able to offer a bit of philosophy with her customers' morning coffee. The gravedigger considered it an honor that he was able to prepare graves for the dead and that he got to work outside all the time. The network announcer, though having a more "white-collar" job, still treated everyone with respect and never forgot his roots.
Reading these interviews makes one wonder why we even bother classifying careers based on "prestige" when people can take pride and enjoyment in any job! As Dolores Dante said, "I don't feel lowly at all. I myself feel sure. I don't want to change the job. I love it."
What intrigued me most about the selected readings was the amount of pride exuded by the people employed in, what many would consider, lower-class jobs. The parking attendant prided himself in his skill, how he could park a car "right in the hole" with only one hand. The waitress was filled with pride when customers requested her or when she was able to offer a bit of philosophy with her customers' morning coffee. The gravedigger considered it an honor that he was able to prepare graves for the dead and that he got to work outside all the time. The network announcer, though having a more "white-collar" job, still treated everyone with respect and never forgot his roots.
Reading these interviews makes one wonder why we even bother classifying careers based on "prestige" when people can take pride and enjoyment in any job! As Dolores Dante said, "I don't feel lowly at all. I myself feel sure. I don't want to change the job. I love it."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Alienation and "the Sense of Having"
Reading Response: The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844; On Alienated Labor, by Karl Marx
"We shall start out from an actual economic fact. The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces."
Marx wrote this statement in the midst of the Industrial Revolution when industry was king and people were quickly being reduced as a means to an end. Workers were slaving away on products for which they would never personally benefit, never get to see benefit another person, and in the process of spending so many hours working, were neglecting human relationships and their own creativity - Marx would even say they were neglecting their own "humanness." Take, for example, the man who sits in a factory for twelve hours a day putting heads on pins; all day long, every day of the week, he glues thousands of heads on thousands of pins. He himself will never use all of those pins. He will never see other people benefit from his pins. When he goes home at night, all he can do is eat and sleep in order to rest up for another day or gluing heads on pins. All of this work is being done so that he can receive a paycheck so he can afford food and shelter so that he can continue working, and so the cycle goes. This separation of workers from what they produced Marx dubbed "the alienation of labor" and he was acutely concerned for the condition of his fellow humans as they were being reduced to animals or worse, machines.
"We shall start out from an actual economic fact. The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces."
Marx wrote this statement in the midst of the Industrial Revolution when industry was king and people were quickly being reduced as a means to an end. Workers were slaving away on products for which they would never personally benefit, never get to see benefit another person, and in the process of spending so many hours working, were neglecting human relationships and their own creativity - Marx would even say they were neglecting their own "humanness." Take, for example, the man who sits in a factory for twelve hours a day putting heads on pins; all day long, every day of the week, he glues thousands of heads on thousands of pins. He himself will never use all of those pins. He will never see other people benefit from his pins. When he goes home at night, all he can do is eat and sleep in order to rest up for another day or gluing heads on pins. All of this work is being done so that he can receive a paycheck so he can afford food and shelter so that he can continue working, and so the cycle goes. This separation of workers from what they produced Marx dubbed "the alienation of labor" and he was acutely concerned for the condition of his fellow humans as they were being reduced to animals or worse, machines.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Labor and Self
Reading Response: Second Treatise on Civil Government, Chapter 5: Of Property, by John Locke (1690)
John Locke's philosophy on property can be summed up in a simple phrase: that which you work for is rightfully yours, provided you don't acquire more than you need. In this phrase, he puts out many of the common concerns regarding ownership of things and labor. For example, for those that worry about the rich amassing too much, Locke advises only taking as much as you need and not being wasteful. For those worried about the poor not being able to own property, he advises working hard and whatever one can care for, one can own. He felt that money was perhaps a hindrance to the "natural common law" which basically means that the earth and everything in it belongs to all men, and is enough for all men, provided they tend it responsibly. However, with the introduction of money, people were able to buy land and buy goods rather than really having to work for them. I think that Locke's views are refreshing and plain, but I doubt they could actually work in today's society with so many people striving for MORE.
Reading Response: The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (1776)
Where Locke encouraged individuals to care for themselves by working hard, Adam Smith advises people to care for themselves by catering to their neighbor's self-interest. For example, rather than one person trying to do everything for themselves, they should instead become highly skilled at a particular job and then "sell" their services or products to others who don't have the same skill. In return, one could by the things he or she needed from others. This is capitalism in a nutshell - the American Way. While this may seem practical on the surface, there is always the concern of what would happen to a person whose services were all of a sudden not needed. For example, if there is a cell phone repairman working in a store today, but if in the near future a new invention came out and people no longer used cell phones, the repairman would be out of a job. If he had no other skills, he would be out of luck. However, if he kept up his skills in other areas, then he would be able to move into another job with little headache. So while Smith's idea works for the most part, society still needs some of Locke's philosophy as well - work hard, work hard, work hard. Succeed.
John Locke's philosophy on property can be summed up in a simple phrase: that which you work for is rightfully yours, provided you don't acquire more than you need. In this phrase, he puts out many of the common concerns regarding ownership of things and labor. For example, for those that worry about the rich amassing too much, Locke advises only taking as much as you need and not being wasteful. For those worried about the poor not being able to own property, he advises working hard and whatever one can care for, one can own. He felt that money was perhaps a hindrance to the "natural common law" which basically means that the earth and everything in it belongs to all men, and is enough for all men, provided they tend it responsibly. However, with the introduction of money, people were able to buy land and buy goods rather than really having to work for them. I think that Locke's views are refreshing and plain, but I doubt they could actually work in today's society with so many people striving for MORE.
Reading Response: The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (1776)
Where Locke encouraged individuals to care for themselves by working hard, Adam Smith advises people to care for themselves by catering to their neighbor's self-interest. For example, rather than one person trying to do everything for themselves, they should instead become highly skilled at a particular job and then "sell" their services or products to others who don't have the same skill. In return, one could by the things he or she needed from others. This is capitalism in a nutshell - the American Way. While this may seem practical on the surface, there is always the concern of what would happen to a person whose services were all of a sudden not needed. For example, if there is a cell phone repairman working in a store today, but if in the near future a new invention came out and people no longer used cell phones, the repairman would be out of a job. If he had no other skills, he would be out of luck. However, if he kept up his skills in other areas, then he would be able to move into another job with little headache. So while Smith's idea works for the most part, society still needs some of Locke's philosophy as well - work hard, work hard, work hard. Succeed.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Socrates and Jesus
Socrates had an idea of the way society should be divided in order to secure "the greatest happiness of the whole [State]." Whether or not one agreed with him was of little significance - it was simply an idea he proposed. However, William Perkins took the principles that Socrates introduced and "Christianized" them. All of a sudden, these things that had just been ideas from one man were now the holy "will of God."
William Perkins started his argument with "...I mean to entreat of this point of vocation or calling; considering few men rightly know how to live and go on in their callings, so as they may please God." He then began to explain how God was like a General, who delegated roles and jobs among people and how they should not leave that to which they have been called.
What frustrates me is when Perkins begins to describe each role in life that "is not a sufficient calling" even though he had just said that it was God who designated callings and that we should do those things wholeheartedly, even if we don't particularly enjoy them. He also claimed that beggars and vagabonds should be dropped from society like "rotten legs" because they do not have a calling. It disheartens me to see one man's view doused with "God-language" just to make it seem more credible.
William Perkins started his argument with "...I mean to entreat of this point of vocation or calling; considering few men rightly know how to live and go on in their callings, so as they may please God." He then began to explain how God was like a General, who delegated roles and jobs among people and how they should not leave that to which they have been called.
What frustrates me is when Perkins begins to describe each role in life that "is not a sufficient calling" even though he had just said that it was God who designated callings and that we should do those things wholeheartedly, even if we don't particularly enjoy them. He also claimed that beggars and vagabonds should be dropped from society like "rotten legs" because they do not have a calling. It disheartens me to see one man's view doused with "God-language" just to make it seem more credible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
