Re: [Futurework] The world of work

[Selma Singer]

It seems to me this whole discussion is about specialization and fragmentation as vs. 'wholeness', whether you all agree that there is such a thing as 'wholeness' for a community, or not.   One thing the discussion suffers from IMHO, is that it is based on and either/or mentality. I have long believed that it is possible to have human communities in which there is specialization without fragmentation as long as the specialization is kept in context and treated the way we treat tools. There is absolutely no reason why, if some people are expert at some specialized task, their lives should be fragmented  in the way this is true in our society.   We can have both/and; we can have specialization and community and transcendence. This issue has a great deal to do with some concepts I have mentioned a few times on this list. The distinction between authority and status. It is possible for a person to be respected for their authority in a particular area without that person being labled as 'better' because of that expertise or 'worse' because of a lack of it.    The whole issue has to do with our ideas about how people should be valued and our ideas about equality.   Again, I refer to Dorothy Lee's wonderful book-still in print, by the way, *Freedom and Culture*.   Everything in that book is directly relevant to everything we discuss on this list. I keep wanting to summarize some of her ideas as they relate to various discussions and I never seem to be able to carve out the time to do that but-one of these days, maybe I will.   Selma       ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:05 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] The world of work The economies that arise from comparative advantage and specialization lead to great productivity, at the same time it cuts of off and makes us insensitive to those many tasks that are done by others so that we may continue to do our specialized job in this economic productive beehive.   Maybe people should rotate and do other things if only to realize the enormous complexity and interdependency of society.  Even if such knowledge comes at the cost of lowered measured productivity but heightened awareness of our basic interconnectedness.   arthur -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 6:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of work My comments about cleaning toilets in various posts about the changing nature of work have begun to be taken too literally.   Arthur Cordell wonders whether there is something Freudian in the analogy, and points out that a much more unpleasant task for him is completing his tax return.   This will do just as well as an example, except that those who help you complete your tax returns are generally seen in a better light than those who help you clean your toilet.   The principle is the same, however.  These are both kinds of work which need to be done.  One way to do them (the very old fashioned way) would be for everyone to do them for themselves.  This is highly inefficient, which is one of the major reasons why societies move to a system in which labour is more specialised - ie you train to become an accountant and as a result become better at a particular kind of work, completing tax returns.   Some people think that until we reach the ulltimate in this sort of specialisation we won't have fully implemented capitalism.  These people point out that outsourcing domestic activity has created all the industries which currently exist, and that there is about 40% of human activity which is still done domestically and that outsourcing this represents the next great hope of an economic revival.   This may be true, but as I say to the greatest Australian exponent of this way of thinking - thanks Phil, but I want to wipe my own arse.....   Whether or not outsourcing everything is the future of work is not the real question I am addressing here.  It certainly represents one alternative, and as near as I can see one which achieves my fundamental objective (which is to create a world which has a viable place for everyone).   It certainly, however, does not represent the sort of world I would prefer to live in.  As I colourfully said above, some things I want to do for myself.  I don't want to be defined simply as a 'doer of things for others'.   Back to toilet cleaners.  In our modern world people are defined by what they do for others (after our name, the first thing we are asked for when we are introduced is 'what we do').  Hence, we have people who are defined as toilet cleaners (or, for Arthur's benefit, tax accountants).   The fact is all of these people are more, so much more, than this simplistic definition of themselves.  But we focus so much on this job approach to work that it hard for us to see behind the 'job definition' which first confronts us.   And then, as has happened in recent years, when there aren't enough jobs to go around, we define people as jobless and that's a whole other ball game.   So, when I talk about cleaning toilets I am not talking about a job, I am talking about work which needs to be done and looking to find a model for how it might be got done in the most preferred way.       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..."