|
Charles Brass:
Much of what is said recognises our current
thinking about 'work' - that it is tedious, often poorly constructed and
mostly about earning enough income to live. From this perspective it is
very hard to imagine how it might usefully be reconstructed (which is why the
thread dies out so quickly, to be replaced by other things which appear easier
to discuss even if they are no easier to resolve).
"Work" as we now know it has a less than two
hundred year history. This is not to say that people prior to that time
didn't work, just they didn't think of work as we do now.
The concept of 'going to work' is an industrial,
factory or mine, concept. The idea that 'work' was something you did
away from the rest of your life was invented at the same time as the
industrial revolution. Prior to that, work was what you did during your
life to provide what you or those around you needed. While there was a
distinction between 'work' and 'not work' prior to the Industrial Revolution
(people probably 'played' much more then than now, for example) it was only a
theoretical distinction - both 'work' and 'non work' were part of
life.
I wonder about this. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, in Europe,
there was a much stronger distinction between those who had to work, peasants,
serfs and slaves, and those who didn't, the nobility, who owned the principal
means of production, land. For a serf or slave, and for many peasants,
work was toil with very little liesure time. The movement from the
countryside to the city gained a huge momentum during the Industrial
Revolution, but there was a lot of movement before that. People who
could not make a living in the country moved to the cities only to find little
there. Wherever they went, many people had a difficult time
surviving.
What the Industrial Revolution and consequent socio-political change
brought about over a couple of centuries was a movement from work based on
class to work based on giving up a portion of one's time but having discretion
over the rest. A serf or slave, or even a peasant, was expected to work
continously or at least be available to do so. That was his station.
Currently, a Canadian public servant or business employee is expected to put in
37.5 hours a week, with the rest of his time being his own. I would much
prefer the latter to the former.
Many people put in more that 37.5 hours and much of the work they do is
tedious and demeaning. However, unlike the serf or slave, they can change
jobs and, if they are unionized, can negotiate the conditions under which they
work. That was less possible in earlier times.
Ed
Ed Weick
577 Melbourne Ave.
Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7
Canada
Phone
(613) 728 4630
Fax (613) 728 9382
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:33
PM
Subject: [Futurework] The world of
work
There has been a flurry of writing recently about
the nature of work. As someone who has been part of this list since it
began in the mid '90's I see this theme recur every now and again - but never
really get thrashed through.
Much of what is said recognises our current
thinking about 'work' - that it is tedious, often poorly constructed and
mostly about earning enough income to live. From this perspective it is
very hard to imagine how it might usefully be reconstructed (which is why the
thread dies out so quickly, to be replaced by other things which appear easier
to discuss even if they are no easier to resolve).
"Work" as we now know it has a less than two
hundred year history. This is not to say that people prior to that time
didn't work, just they didn't think of work as we do now.
The concept of 'going to work' is an industrial,
factory or mine, concept. The idea that 'work' was something you did
away from the rest of your life was invented at the same time as the
industrial revolution. Prior to that, work was what you did during your
life to provide what you or those around you needed. While there was a
distinction between 'work' and 'not work' prior to the Industrial Revolution
(people probably 'played' much more then than now, for example) it was only a
theoretical distinction - both 'work' and 'non work' were part of
life.
Only in the last two hundred years has work
become outside life in the individual sense, but a critical part of life in a
societal sense. And therein is the dilemma.
According to our current wisdom, we need to
sacrifice some portion of our individual lives in work in order for society to
survive. And, as many people have noted in recent days, much of this
sacrifice is painful, non productive and just plain stupid, but it does
actually contribute to societies survival (though some want to question
whether what we experience ought to be called survival).
Undoing that current wisdom is very difficult, it
pervades everything we see, and all the material things we own or watch others
own.
But the fact is that it is a recent way of
looking at the world. In my experience over the past nine years now that
I have been actively working to create a better future for work I have found
that if we can actually look beyond 'economic work' (or job as I prefer to
call it, because language becomes very difficult here) we can imagine other
ways to organise ourselves to get done what needs doing (which is after all
what our real objective is).
I know in my life and in the life of those around
me, things have been greatly enriched when we have begun from a premise which
at least provides the potential for everyone to have a meaningful place in the
world (which is not one of the premises on which economics is
based).
All of the above has been said without mentioning
money, income or redistribution. Which just shows how far we can get in
our thinking if we also put aside these post-industrial revolution concepts as
well.
Charles Brass
Chairman
the futures
foundation
PO Box 122 Fairfield 3078 Australia
phone 61 3 9459
0244
the mission of the futures foundation
is
"...to engage all Australians in creating a better
future..."
| 