Re: Sustainable work
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
Re: Sustainable work
Neva Goodwin: "At some point, we need to ask, why are we using the word, "work"? There are other good words -- "self-actualization" (well, that's not a very euphoneous one, but it has a good meaning), "play" -- I've tended to assume that "work" had to do with an output of some kind that was of value, not only to the doer, but also to at least some others in society. Etc. "Work" is one of the most impossible words in the English language. It covers far, far too many things, including play (e.g. as in hockey or baseball). There are other words which fit particular situations better, words which in some cases have already become commonplace. I don't find "self-actualization" bad if that is what someone is doing -- perhaps the dancer in a Feiffer cartoon. But then many women, worldwide, still do not work. Rather, they "drudge", while their husbands and often their children "toil", if they can find work at all. Little boys on the streets of Calcutta don't work either, they beg or scam. Nor do little boys in Sierra Leone. They carry guns around and fight. Drug dealers do not work either. They "push", while prostitutes from the same neighbourhood "hook". My point is that the words are probably already there. Perhaps we should get honest with ourselves and use them. Ed Weick
Re: Sustainable work
- Original Message - Neva Goodwin: "At some point, we need to ask, why are we using the word, "work"? Exactly! In a world with Limits to Growth, only those people who are "needed" to produce essential goods and services should work. All the rest should "play". See "The Foulest of Them All" at http://dieoff.com/page168.htm Jay
Re: Sustainable work
An early childhood memory is of coming home from church and repeating what I had heard from the elderly Scottish minister: "We all must wurrrk in this wurrrld." It was something my siblings and I repeated to one another from time to time in the ensuing years -- a bit of knowledge about The Way The World Is that had arrived to us in a memorable form. But it's not so clear, any more, that it's true -- or even possible. The reasons to work are, as I see it, 1) Because there are things that need to be done 2) Because humanity has evolved in such a way that it is easier to feel fulfilled if one has some work to do than if one does not 3) Because one needs to earn money The problem with the modern world is that #1 seems to accord less and less with #3 -- that is, the activities that earn money -- especially those that earn lots of money -- are increasingly often things that don't need to be done; arguably, even, most of the world would be better off if they weren't done. And #2 doesn't accord very well with #3, either -- though I'm less sure what kind of trend there here. On the one hand, when it was obvious that there was a lot of need for human labor -- when, for example, it took more than 50% of a population to produce enough food for all, instead of, as now, in the U.S., taking well under 2% -- then the argument from necessity (#3, even when it wasn't mediated with money) was probably reasonably fulfilling. At least, it seemed obvious why one was working; it was not hard to find a meaning in one's activities. But when the link between #1 and #3 is broken, and the link between #2 and #3 weakens, too; if the work doesn't clearly produce anything that makes life possible, or better, for anyone, but is only done in order to produce an income, then the way is open for modern existential distress. So how would one seek to make work sustainable in such a context? Myself, I wouldn't start by looking at the conditions for the worker; I'd look at what it produces, and try to ensure that that is something of value. How to ensure that? One test is: what does it take to get people to purchase it? If it requires a lot of manipulative, clever advertising (as opposed to a more simple, bland effort to provide information), then that suggests that it's not very important or valuable in people's lives. If I was interested in creating a sustainable work situation, I'd start by getting the workers together to discuss things like this. If they start with a commitment to their product, that's a giant step forward. All sorts of other conditions of work are, of course, also important. But start with the meaning of what is being done! -- Neva Goodwin On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Cordell, Arthur: DPP wrote: The word work is a convention. Sustainable has, as Eva has pointed out, become very trendy. Put sustainable in front of anything and-- voila-- grants are given, research is funded. And calling something sustainable is like saying, why its ecologically sound. Good for the environment. Like paradigm, as Eva has pointed out, again, sustainable will find its proper place in the jargon dustbin. Sustainable came out of the Brundtland report and has really served no good purpose except to divert society from the reality of limits. A whole generation of thinkers seems to be thinking of nothing else but how to define sustainable. Hmmm. My two cents on sustainable work was an attempt to point out that we need to sustain community, individuals, the sense of purpose and meaning that is needed by all in society, 'workers' and 'non-workers alike' so that social cohesion can be maintained. So that alienation can be minimized. For me I define work as something that I get paid to do that, at that moment, I don't much feel much like doing. By luck or through careful planning (or rationalization!!!) I find that my work time coincides with my interests. For all those economists out there I might add that I am earning economic rents. But that is another story. arthur cordell -- From: Neva Goodwin To: Cordell, Arthur: DPP Cc: deborah middleton; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sustainable work Date: Monday, January 25, 1999 9:16AM At some point, we need to ask, why are we using the word, "work"? There are other good words -- "self-actualization" (well, that's not a very euphoneous one, but it has a good meaning), "play" -- I've tended to assume that "work" had to do with an output of some kind that was of value, not only to the doer, but also to at least some others in society. Thus, child care, while not paid, and writing a novel, in hopes that it will be published (even if that seems unlikely) could be work, while taking singing lessons and practicing every day, if one never intends to offer the results to others, might not (by this definition) be included. So, bef
Re: Sustainable work
I guess I would like to add that sustainable work is that which is something that the doer finds interesting and/or creative and/or a reflection of him/her self. Something that seems to provide meaning for the doer. Something that even in the absence of payment, the doer might continue to have some interest in. arthur cordell -- From: Neva Goodwin To: deborah middleton Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sustainable work Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 8:21PM Shouldn't an important part of sustainable work be that it produces something that people want -- that, indeed, enhances the lives of those using the output? I'd be inclined to put this very high on the list. (See my essay on "Human Values in Work" in _The Changing Nature of Work_, ed. Ackerman et al, Island Press '98) Neva Goodwin, Co-director Global Development And Enviroment Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] web address: http://www.tufts.edu/gdae street address: G-DAE, Cabot Center Tufts University Medford, MA 02155
Re: Sustainable Work
deborah middleton wrote: My thoughts are that the concepts of sustainability may also be able to be applied to the individual in relation to the organization/social environment. Perhaps so; but the number of individuals in relation to the local ( global) environment (includes org./ social) ultimately overrides all design based improvements. The transition between fordist production processes to post fordism suggests a space of opportunity to redefine work based upon an ideology of sustainability. The individual is situated in a social system within the context of work where components of sustainability are related to meaning, health, individuality, learning, freedom and flexibility in the organizaiton and direction of work. Just what is being sustained? Temporary well being? Paul Hawken: "Principles of sustainaiblity in business work" suggests that working sustainably is the performance of tasks and services that are sustainably produced or that promote sustainability in the society as a whole. He suggests that sustainability is the carrying capacity of the ecosystem - (an organization or society), described with input/output models of energy and resource consumption. An economic state where demands placed upon the environment(social,physical)can be met without reducing the capacity of the environment to provide for future generations. Yes. Physical limits ultimately rule. Aspects of adding value, sense of will, a direction or meaning, production processes that are human, worthy, dignified and intrinsicaly satisfying. Perhaps you are suggesting that workers with these attributes and conditions will be more mindful of sustainability issues and better cooperatively persue them. It makes sense to me. Don't you think that if there were an undersupply rather than oversupply of labor these conditions would be more easily obtained? Growth is managed with moderate amounts of outside capital. Determining codes of conduct for corporate life that integrate social, ethical and environmental principles. Growth is ultimately UNmanageable. The principles you mention may be positive, but they cannot provide sustainable(perpetual) anything on their own IMHO. Nature uses triage as needed. Humans are part of nature. So I am trying to make this linkage, redefining sustainability in the context of work practice. Deborah :) Enriching the definition - part of the "resolutique" for the "problematique", maybe ok. Cheers, Steve
Re: Sustainable work
Shouldn't an important part of sustainable work be that it produces something that people want -- that, indeed, enhances the lives of those using the output? I'd be inclined to put this very high on the list. (See my essay on "Human Values in Work" in _The Changing Nature of Work_, ed. Ackerman et al, Island Press '98) Neva Goodwin, Co-director Global Development And Enviroment Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] web address: http://www.tufts.edu/gdae street address: G-DAE, Cabot Center Tufts University Medford, MA 02155
