Following up on recent postings by Bob McDaniel, Tom Walker,
Keith Hudson, Brad McCormick, Christopher Reuss, Brad again,
and Arthur Cordell; drawing selectively from them in
slightly rearranged order; and (confessedly) putting a bit
of a spin on them ....
Bob speaks of "images in motion" unsettling our formerly
fixed categories.
Suppose, then, that we were to think of work not as the
established social institution of "paid employment" but as
"working" -- a dynamic life-long activity taking different
forms at different times during each day and throughout our
lives.
Tom's research has been on work as a utility rather than a
disutility.
Suppose, then, that we think of "lifelong working" as we do
"lifelong learning" -- something desirable to be celebrated
and pursued.
Keith, rejoicing in self-employment, notes that freedom and
satisfaction in work is now, probably for the first time in
history, becoming significant.
Suppose, then, that we were to think of "self-defined
working" as the most desirable form of working -- a social
goal to be collectively pursued.
(Christopher, and Brad, express concern about working when
it takes the form of paid employment in large corporations.
Suppose then, we were to re-organize work in those
corporations to become more self-directed in terms of tasks,
time and location. (There are reinforcing arguments for
coroporations to support such moves, including improved
customer service, employee productivity and initiative,
wqorking at home, etc.) It is possible too that some
corporate workers, despite "doing work for wages," perceive
themselves as engaged in self-defined, self-employed
working: "He likes his work: it's what he wants to do.")
Arthur, by quotion, suggests that "It is theory that decides
what can be observed." (Albert Einstein)
Suppose, then, that we decide to take "a fresh theoretical
approach" to the world of work, assuming we consume work
rather than that work consumes us. "Work is made for man,
not man for work." (Manus)
Brad speaks of "self-examination" not only of science by
itself but by persons and societies of themselves.
Suppose, then, we search our own lives and our societies for
the times and places where we are already working or have
worked in self-defined ways.
In sum, let's suppose that we re-map the "domain" of work,
currently seen as a static set of objectively-defined
activities called "work," and instead consider it as a
subjectively-defined dynamic process throughout the life of
the individuals involved that is experienced by them as
"working." Then let's suppose that most desired form of such
working is self-defined voluntary working pursued throughout
the life of the individual, facilitated by a variety of
income arrangements (which needn't exclude receiving "wages
for work").
Hypotheses for testing:
Having thus redefined work from being a distasteful task for
which we must be compensated to a desired form of activity
voluntarily pursued, can we then disprove
- that some proportion of the working activity that is now
being pursued throughout our lives and our societies is
already self-defined and self-employed and contributes
toward a satisfying process of life-long working for the
persons involved?
- that many of us are in a position to increase the
proportion of our time and energies going to this form of
working?
- that we could, by our actions, reinforce the possibility
that more persons could put more time and energy into
self-directed self-employment, e.g. caring and sharing and
nurturing, researching, producing goods, writing, providing
services -- in fact any of the activities of a healthy
society, done willingly?
- that governments. now having policies that laud and give
support to life-long self-directed learning, should also
develop policies that laud and give supporting life-long
self-directed working?
- that future work -- a 21st century concept of work --
consists of just such changes in the nature and forms of
work?
Arthur again: "Problem-solving techniques can't tell us what
the problems are." (anon)
In applying problem-solving techniques within the box of the
conventional economic theory of work, we seem to have denied
the pleasures of work and, quite possibly, increased its
pains. Maybe the problem has been the box. In enfranchising
ourselves as consumers of work and not merely its producers
(i.e. bringing a different theory to bear on work, thus
changing its perceived domain and nature), might we improve
our well-being?
And Arthur gets the next-to-last word: "It is theory that
decides what can be observed." (Albert Einstein)
--__
I hope we'll hang in for a bit and see if we can make
something from our various contributions, i.e. "turn to
discourse" (which, ironically, may be the latest approach in
policy studies --says Tom). It is always possible, I
suppose, that what we are talking about and how we are
talking about it is not on the outer margins of economic but
on the leading edge of new theory. Conversation, stories --
what a friend used to call "pub talk" -- have a way of being
there, intuitive.
And Arthur gets the last word too: "The intuitive mind is a
sacred gift; the rational mind is faithful servant. We have
created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten
the gift." (Albert Einstein)
Gail
Gail Stewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
