Ray Harrell wrote,
>But this raises another issue for me on this list. Why is it that whenever you
>guys and gals
>talk about work you "basically" are still talking 19th century manufacturing
>"hired hands" or "commodities" labor instead of the 18th and now late 20th
>century "intellectual project oriented skills"?
This is an extremely important point. The reason that *I* refer to issues
more germaine to 19th century labor is that I am critiquing a vulgar 19th
century "art form" -- neo-classical economics -- that is characterized by
maudlin stereotypes and a formulaic plot. The impressarios of this NC opera
don't admit that what they're presenting is banal trash, they tell everyone
its science. That solves the whole problem (for them) because in their
opinion science is exempt from aesthetic criticism. That should set off
alarm bells. Anything that claims to be exempt from criticism can't be science.
My point is that neo-classical economics relies on, at its heart, a
sentimentalized class perspective. You'll love the show if you identify with
the character of the 19th century factory owner as a fiercely independent,
god-fearing, self-sacrificing, hard working hero and benefactor of mankind
and if you enjoy seeing the conniving, traitorous union agitator get his
come uppance from the honest, loyal factory hands in the final scene (after,
of course, having been temporarily enchanted by the agitator's false utopia
of high wages and abundant leisure time).
Never mind that the neo-classical economic dialogue is stilted, the acting
is wooden and the singing is out of tune, the uplifting plot of supply and
demand equilibrium is calculated to send the audiences to their feet at the
final curtain with appreciative shouts of "OUTPUT!" "OUTPUT!".
To call such a performance a farce would be to insult it with flattery.
Tom Walker
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
