WHY (SHOULD WE) WORK?
Are there sustainable moral reasons? Neva Goodwin wrote:
> The reasons to work are, as I see it,
> 1) Because there are things that need to be done
Let me recaste this reason in 'language game' terms - to reveal some of
the unrevealed logic jumps or presuppositions.
The reason that we ALL SHOULD cooperate in (playing the game of) using
the word 'work' as a tool for communication is to differentiate between
two different classes of human activity- which we would signify as
'work'
and 'not-work'.
Why would we want (need) to cooperate in playing this game?
'There are things that need to be done', suggests Neva.
What is that NEEDS to be done to require our (universal) cooperation in
distinguishing two classes of human activity?
There are many things that one or more persons think really NEED to be
done, from their viewpoint. Eg, build an Olympic Games Stadium. But
this is insufficient reason to invoke our universal cooperation in
playing a 'work' language game. On the other hand, there is a class of
things that ALL or most people believe NEED to be done. We might call
these universal or basic needs. They are things that we can suppose all
people NEED and could readily distinguish and agree upon, (through
reflection and deliberation perhaps), despite their different cultural
backgrounds.
In order to fulfil the needs that ALL people have, we should ALL
cooperate by distinguishing between activities that fulfil these needs
and those that don't fulfil these needs. The former activities we
should ALL call 'work', the latter 'not work'.
Whenever a player uses the word 'work', according to this game, all the
other players will understand that the word refers only to those
activities dedicated to fulfilling the items on the agreed list of
universal NEEDS.
In order that players can play this game without excessive confusion,
players will first need to identify and come to some agreement about
what constitutes this list of universal/basic needs. This pressupposes
a certain level of detail. For example, the item 'shelter' on its own
would be insufficient. A plastic sheet can serve as shelter as can
Hussein's palace hide-outs.
Such a list would require some regionally variable performance criteria
and limits, without which there will be great bewilderment about what
'needs to done', and hence what players will call 'work'.
All this is logically pressuposed in the first reason Neva gave as to
why 'work' is necessary (for all people).
If we are to talk about sustainable work, I suggest that the language
game will need to be both clearer and logically sustainable. The above
is
a hurried and undoubtedly imperfect contribution to that end.
The tricky problem is, as I've noted in earlier postings: given the
multiple meanings associated with the word 'work', how are we going to
discern WHICH game a person is actually playing at the moment of our
interaction, and which they imagine they are playing at that point, and
which they are referring to when they use the word in a sincere
conversation with us?
To finish, I refer you to previous postings which argued that because of
the diverse semantic baggage already overloading the word
'work', it is clearly a dysfunctional tool for communication,
particularly noticeable when used in attempts, such as on this list, to
seriously consider humankind's future directions.
My conclusion has been (so far largely ignored) that the word is not
sustainable, and should be scrapped (along with the biblical creation
story) and replaced with some fresh new terms to denote the kinds of
distinctions we might agree are worth sustaining.
And, yes, I absolutely agree with Neva, in her comment that:
> If I was interested in creating a sustainable work situation, I'd start by getting
>>the workers together to discuss things like this... start with the meaning of what
>>is being done!
-- Neva Goodwin
Hope the above was a little more meaningful than my earlier postings.
(see thread on 'working alternatives')
Richard Mochelle
