Edward R Weick wrote:
[snip]
> Neither summary seems to say much about the social impact of rising
> education and income levels, and I wonder if Putnam said anything about
> these things. Both have enabled people to transcend their neighborhoods and
> have led to a very different set of social relations than those which
> prevailed back in the forties, fifties and even the sixties. Rising
> education levels have probably lessened the tendency to go down to the
> neighborhood pub or store for a conversation. It's not because people are
> snobs. It's that, beyond pleasantries about the weather, they may no longer
> be interested in what the people at the pub have to say. They may want to
> associate with people, wherever they may live, who share their interests,
> whatever those are.
As a 28+ year "veteran" of data processing/processors etc./et al., I think
that what persons *really* need and desire are neighborhood pubs,
and friends, spouses, etc./et al. which/who *BOTH* are immediately
present *AND* also share one's highest/deepest interests. While
immediate associations with persons who do not share one's interests
cannot be wholly satisfying, neither can distance association with
persons who do.
*IF* computers can help us realize *THIS* [teleological as
well as topographical] "homecoming",
then they will have indeed have improved our lives.
[snip]
> While it is true that many people lead miserable lives at work because all
> the time possible is being squeezed out of them for peanuts, others find a
> great deal of personal fulfillment in their work, so much so that they
> willingly put in long hours. In other words, simply putting in long hours
> does not mean people are unhappy. One would have to look at whether they
> are being coerced or willing. In the course of my career, I've done work
> that was so absorbing that I simply couldn't tear myself away from it. I've
> also done work, including many extra hours, that was not worth doing and I
> knew it. There's a difference.
I think this is the issue. Someone once told me one of the
"secrets" of the executive suite:
No person ever died wishing they had spent more time in the office.
A tycoon zillionaire is *working* when he or she is on the
golf course [conducting business among golf shots, of course, and
even, in the best cases, in truth...], or enjoying a glass of US$100
per shot cognac [again, talking -- and perhaps even savoringly
reflecting upon -- business along with the cognac, which latter
may even *be* one of his or her *businesses*!]....
I wonder, however, whether the New Global Economy will be able
to support such ("/*)work("/*) -- just as, long ago, the economy
ceased to be able to support such amenities of life as
local banks.... Perhaps even the very rich may succumb to
the toxins their enterprises secrete? (<-- this is a question,
not a prediction!).
>
> It would also seem that Putnam does not say much about alienation. That a
> lower proportion of Americans vote now than before suggests that they feel
> that they have little stake in their society. It may not be apathy; it may
> be alienation.
"Alienation" is not so popular a word, even among the
educated, as it was, say, 40 years ago. The "currency" of a
word does not, however, necessarily have anything to do with
the "prevalence or even the ubiquity" of what it names. Indeed,
what is most prevalent and ubiquitous -- the "obvious" -- is
generally not noticed at all (and certainly not recognized for
what it is! --ref. Edward Hall's _The Silent Language_, etc.).
> The system is not about them, so why should they bother?
Cornelius Castoriadis (among others) emphasized that
"representative democracy" is a self-contradiction.
*Democracy* is active engagement in shaping the course of
one's life-world. *Representation* is the delegation of this
activity (praxis) to others. A "representative democracy" is
primarily a democracy of the representatives.
[snip]
I was away on vacation in Quebec for the past week. Just to
absorb the slogan on the province's automobile license plates
alone would have been almost enough to justify the entire time:
Je me souviens.
I remember.
"Yours [still...] in discourse...."
+\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
