A few comments on Sally's Posting of Sennetts material. Of course I and I'm sure most of us on FW would find alignment with Sennet's thoughts and conclusions and it would be redundant to go through this posting because he has said it as well or better than I could say it. The problem, as I see it, is how can we get those who are articulate in seeing the problem our way, is how to involve the media in such a way that a debate can be started between those who hold views such as the paragrapgh below. Like the ecology movement which often talks to the converted and is ignored by the mainstream, so the problems of work is often our articulate spokespeople are talking to the converted, rather than debating those making policy. >>"First, there is the "nevertheless" policy, which enforces full >>employment after the end of normal full employment. This "New >>Labour" policy believes that only work guarantees order and the >>inclusive society. In this view, waged work has the monopoly of >>inclusiveness. Thomas: The "nevertheless policy" which enforces full employment etc. Shades of "The Servile State", enforces! Belloc states that whenever you are forced by the full power of the state - or by the law - then your state is servile. Can we read these lines to mean that it is not the result of work to produce goods or services, rather that the result of work is to guareentee "order" and that through working we are included in our society but if we don't work at acceptable work then we are excluded! Can it really be stated that boldly! Have we reached the state of acknowledging our servile state as an atribute of citizenship - that we are only included if we work? >> >>"The second option is to rethink and redefine work as we have >>done with respect to the family. But this also implies rethinking how >>we deal with the risks of fragile work ... >> >> "Has work always had the monopoly of inclusiveness? If the >>ancient Greeks could listen to our debates about the anthropological >>need to work in order not only to be an honourable member of >>society but a fully valued human being, they would laugh. The value >>system that proclaims the centrality of work and only work in >>building and controlling an inclusive society is a modern invention of >>capitalism and the welfare state. >> >> "We need to see that there is a life beyond the alternatives of >>unemployment and stress at work. We need to see that the lack of >>waged work can give us a new affluence of time. We need also to see >>that the welfare state must be rebuilt so that the risks of fragile >>work are socialised rather than being borne increasingly by the >>individual. >> >>"I would argue for a citizen's (or basic) income. My argument is >>that we need a new alternative centre of inclusion -- citizen work >>combined with citizen income -- creating a sense of compassion and >>cohesion through public commitment. The decoupling of income >>entitlements from paid work and from the labour market would, in >>Zygmunt Bauman's words, remove "the awesome fly of insecurity >>from the sweet ointment of freedom". >> >>"We must, in short, turn the new precarious forms of >>employment into a right to discontinuous waged work and a right to >>disposable time. It must be made possible for every human being >>autonomously to shape his or her life and create a balance between >>family, paid employment, leisure and political commitment. And I >>truly believe that this is the only way of forming a policy that will >>create more employment for everybody ..." >>-- German sociologist Ulrich Beck, from "Goodbye To All That >>Wage Slavery" New Statesman 5 March 1999. Thomas: Can one of those "new precarious forms" become a fixed time or quality deficit required by every citizen ie 10 years of work or so many hours in a lifetime? Or can another be, as they have suggested a redefinition of work to include child rearing and care of family as a useful societal condition - shades of WesBurt here. What other criteria might we consider - to have given to us the state of inclusiveness? How about just being born? No criteria except we exist. This kind of thinking and these kind of questions need to brought before the public. These are the kinds of questions that a true demcratic society would consider of value to discuss. How do we bring the right problems before the populace? How do we contribute to those who are articulate so that they can espouse these questions. Now it is true, that the answers of society may be different from my view - or your view, but I think we could agree, that these are the ideas a democratic populace should evaluate and decide. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde >> >> >> >>C R E D I T S >>------------------- >>edited by Vivian Hutchinson for the Jobs Research Trust >>P.O.Box 428, New Plymouth, New Zealand >>phone 06-753-4434 fax 06-759-4648 >>Internet address -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>The Jobs Letter -- an essential information and media watch >>on jobs, employment, unemployment, the future of work, >>and related economic and education issues. >> >>The Jobs Research Trust -- a not-for-profit Charitable Trust >>constituted in 1994 to develop and distribute information that >>will help our communities create more jobs and reduce >>unemployment and poverty in New Zealand. >> >>Our internet website at >> >> http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/ >> >>contains our back issues and key papers, >>and hotlinks to other internet resources. >> >>ends >>------ >> >>The Jobs Letter >>essential information on an essential issue >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>phone 06-753-4434 fax 06-759-4648 >>P.O.Box 428 >>New Plymouth, Taranaki, New Zealand >> >>visit The Jobs Research Website at >>http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/ >> > > > >
