The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXIV

[madviking]

Previous thread

 

[FriendlyFire]

Dammit I was looking for this thread earlier.

Who here know about Takoyaki ?
I looking to buy one of the Takoyaki plates, I am getting a cast iron one instead of the cheap cast aluminium with Teflon or cheap electrical ones. But the one Iam looking to get is from Korea and the holes are rather large, the Japanese one has more holes and thus smaller.

So is it better to make large takoyaki balls or small takoyaki balls ?

 

[Arakhor]

Well, that's not a very good OP.

 

[Farm Boy]

This seems partly because the old, puritan work-values sit uneasily with the consumerist, post-modern public culture of the developed world; toil and iPads are uneasy bedfellows. But it's also because the technological development of work itself to the point where most of it lacks not only craft-values but even real, blood-and-sweat exertion as somehow ennobling has become untenably ridiculous. We can believe that a skilled worker, who knows his craft and performs it well, is engaged in a self-ennobling activity. We can even, at a stretch, find that sort of nobility in the raw, masculine exertion of a coal-miner or a dock-worker. But standing at a conveyor belt, pushing the same button all day? Standing at a shop counter, repeating the hello-thankyou-haveaniceday theatre for ten hours? Sitting a desk, mashing numbers of no significance into a spreadsheet for ends you only half understand? It's not happening.

This isn't an attack, but this sounds like theorizing with precious little actual work behind it. I've done stints and still occasionally do retail. I mash "numbers of no significance into spreadsheets," and I contribute towards a massive state sponsored bureaucracy that regularly loses parts of itself much less understands itself. And I can tell you, doing a decent job at any of these things makes other people's lives easier. It doesn't have to be your "corporate taskmaster" or whatever you would like to fill in to make the theory fit - it can be the secretary you work with, the confused freshmen registering for classes, the confused senior who has not taken the right classes, it can be the customer picking apples at the U-Pick orchard, it can be the person buying the $8 soda at the movie theater. Doing a decent job at your job is ennobling. You don't have to buy the premise that it's the end all be all of good people, but it's certainly more ennobling than drudging around lamenting "woe is me the slave of the system" and crapping half-assed work all over the people you come into contact with.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

How many Americans think Benjamin Franklin is the primary figure in the physics of electricity, as opposed to someone like Michael Faraday or James Clerk Maxwell?

 

[madviking]

Anywhere between a few and a quite a number.

 

[Borachio]

This isn't an attack, but this sounds like theorizing with precious little actual work behind it. I've done stints and still occasionally do retail. I mash "numbers of no significance into spreadsheets," and I contribute towards a massive state sponsored bureaucracy that regularly loses parts of itself much less understands itself. And I can tell you, doing a decent job at any of these things makes other people's lives easier. It doesn't have to be your "corporate taskmaster" or whatever you would like to fill in to make the theory fit - it can be the secretary you work with, the confused freshmen registering for classes, the confused senior who has not taken the right classes, it can be the customer picking apples at the U-Pick orchard, it can be the person buying the $8 soda at the movie theater. Doing a decent job at your job is ennobling. You don't have to buy the premise that it's the end all be all of good people, but it's certainly more ennobling than drudging around lamenting "woe is me the slave of the system" and crapping half-assed work all over the people you come into contact with.

Nicely put. But in my experience so much of the world of work is just plain tedious.

There can be value in all work, however it's conceived. There can be a meditative quality to some of the most unpromising repetitive work.

Yet too many people are plainly in the wrong job.

Too many people are just not getting much of anything of value from the majority of their time that they are obliged by circumstance to spend working.

 

[Traitorfish]

This isn't an attack, but this sounds like theorizing with precious little actual work behind it. I've done stints and still occasionally do retail. I mash "numbers of no significance into spreadsheets," and I contribute towards a massive state sponsored bureaucracy that regularly loses parts of itself much less understands itself. And I can tell you, doing a decent job at any of these things makes other people's lives easier. It doesn't have to be your "corporate taskmaster" or whatever you would like to fill in to make the theory fit - it can be the secretary you work with, the confused freshmen registering for classes, the confused senior who has not taken the right classes, it can be the customer picking apples at the U-Pick orchard, it can be the person buying the $8 soda at the movie theater. Doing a decent job at your job is ennobling. You don't have to buy the premise that it's the end all be all of good people, but it's certainly more ennobling than drudging around lamenting "woe is me the slave of the system" and crapping half-assed work all over the people you come into contact with.

tl;dr: my anecdotal experience can beat up your anecdotal experience

I mean, look, of course you can find people who like their job, at least certain aspects of their job. I know people who do. Some of them even work retail. There are even bits of my job that I like, sometimes, if I'm in the right mood, maybe. But for most people, most of the time, work is neither rewarding nor enriching, it's merely a burden to be shouldered for as long as is contractually prescribed.

This isn't just something I pulled out of my ass. There's a really substantial body of empirical sociology on the dissatisfaction produced by tedious going back to the beginning of the century, back to the birth of Taylorism, and it's an issue that grows more acute across the twentieth century. Pretty much any sociology of the workplace or history of 20th century labour, even the most bourgeois and craven, is going to address this at some point, and address the fact that this emotional (I dare say spiritual) disinvestment in work is a recognised phenomena that employers have consciously attempted to combat. It is A Thing, even if it is not Your Thing.

I mean, if you think that the reason there's a big sign at the employee entrance of my store instructing us that it is A Great Place To Work (not even kidding) is because anyone at head office is sincerely convinced of the veracity of that statement, you're free to the opinion, but I'll have to remain sceptical.

 

[Farm Boy]

You don't have to prove dissatisfaction produced by tedious to me. I buy that entirely. What you have to substantiate is that quality work and some measure of pride in such is not a virtue anymore, which is what I'm getting from your statements, and I would contend is false. I would contend it is false for the worker and I would contend it is false for those who are impacted directly or indirectly by said worker. You could certainly correct my on my takeaway if that is not what is intended.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, are you actually contesting my claim that work is no longer seen as inherently valuable, or are you merely contesting the claim as constructed in those terms? Even your defence of contemporary work appeals not to the innate virtue of work, but to work as the fulfilment of human need, to a social (and I dare say socialist) theory of meaning rather than an individual one, that the value of work comes not from the work itself as a mechanical process, but from how that work may benefit others.

If work is good for you because work is good for you, then it could be utterly non-productive and it would still be good for you, as long as it was experienced as toil. If work is good because it is good for others, then it could barely qualify as "work" and still be good for you, as long as it fulfilled some human need.

I think that what you're objecting to here isn't the content of my claim, that humans in contemporary developed societies need to look beyond the mechanical content of their work to find fulfilment in it, but my suggestion that in doing so we are no longer looking at what would traditionally be understood as a work ethic.

 

[The_J]

tl;dr: my anecdotal experience can beat up your anecdotal experience

I mean, look, of course you can find people who like their job, at least certain aspects of their job. I know people who do. Some of them even work retail. There are even bits of my job that I like, sometimes, if I'm in the right mood, maybe. But for most people, most of the time, work is neither rewarding nor enriching, it's merely a burden to be shouldered for as long as is contractually prescribed.

When my coworker says again "Why do you not just work in a job you like?", then please remind me someone to smack him in the face.
*sigh*

 

[Borachio]

Don't we need to be careful with words like "work" though? For me, all forms of activity are "work" in the strictly mechanical sense.

A job, where I have to turn up, day after day, year after year, and go through the same tedium, is a nightmare. And I swing between suicidal and murderous as the fancy takes me.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, are you actually contesting my claim that work is no longer seen as inherently valuable, or are you merely contesting the claim as constructed in those terms? Even your defence of contemporary work appeals not to the innate virtue of work, but to work as the fulfilment of human need, to a social (and I dare say socialist) theory of meaning rather than an individual one, that the value of work comes not from the work itself as a mechanical process, but from how that work may benefit others.

If work is good for you because work is good for you, then it could be utterly non-productive and it would still be good for you, as long as it was experienced as toil. If work is good because it is good for others, then it could barely qualify as "work" and still be good for you, as long as it fulfilled some human need.

I think that what you're objecting to here isn't the content of my claim, that humans in contemporary developed societies need to look beyond the mechanical content of their work to find fulfilment in it, but my suggestion that in doing so we are no longer looking at what would traditionally be understood as a work ethic.

Well, if you want to divorce work ethic from the mechanical action of moving your body in such a way as to apply joules to some objects then sure? I mean, work in that sense is really only valuable insofar as it can be construed as exercise thus possibly strengthening your body so long as you don't overdo it and destroy parts of your body through repetitive action.

But isn't the ethic what people usually talk about, Protestant work ethic or somesuch other conglomerate of actions/morals as they apply both the the individual and society? Working hard is good for you because, presumably you will do good things for other people with the work directly, indirectly through earning a wage for you and your family, and for yourself in becoming more "Christ-like" in your serving the world and those you love with your life(time, actions, and decisions - really the essence of how you could choose to expend a life).

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, if you want to divorce work ethic from the mechanical action of moving your body in such a way as to apply joules to some objects then sure? I mean, work in that sense is really only valuable insofar as it can be construed as exercise thus possibly strengthening your body so long as you don't overdo it and destroy parts of your body through repetitive action.

But isn't the ethic what people usually talk about, Protestant work ethic or somesuch other conglomerate of actions/morals as they apply both the the individual and society? Working hard is good for you because, presumably you will do good things for other people with the work directly, indirectly through earning a wage for you and your family, and for yourself in becoming more "Christ-like" in your serving the world and those you love with your life(time, actions, and decisions - really the essence of how you could choose to expend a life).

Bluntly? No. That is an ethical relationship to work, but it is not a work ethic as traditionally understood. The traditional notion of "work ethic" is not about serving others- the concept of a "Protestant work ethic", remember, was developed as an attempt to explain the rise of capitalism- it's about self-improvement through toil. The idea isn't simply that one should do good things, and that doing good things usually involves putting your shoulder to the wheel, it's the belief that putting your shoulder to the wheel is in itself a good thing, whether or not it produces any social goods whatsoever.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, if we would be so dense as to think that the rise of capitalism through Protestant work ethic could possibly be caused by individuals alone rather than a synergy of individually productive individuals in a society of such people then I don't know. That would be stupid? Why would we even talk about that, wouldn't it be like arguing that the theory of gravity is wrong because Carnegie liked to eat eggs in the morning and invented libraries?

 

[Dachs]

Also, the Protestant work ethic as originally constructed was a crock of piss.

 

[Borachio]

Oh? Did someone sit down one day and write it?

If you see what I mean. No. Probably not. Never mind.

("Right, lads. Take no notice of those lazy catholics. Here's what we'll do...")

 

[Tee Kay]

Also, the Protestant work ethic as originally constructed was a crock of piss.

Is there a widely circulated version that is not a crock of piss?

 

[Dachs]

Oh? Did someone sit down one day and write it?

If you see what I mean. No. Probably not. Never mind.

("Right, lads. Take no notice of those lazy catholics. Here's what we'll do...")

What?

Max Weber was the guy who came up with this idea to describe something that supposedly already existed. He claimed - in a much more drawn-out argument - that capitalistic societies and, correlatively, strong economies grew up in places where Protestantism was a strong element of the local culture: Britain, Scandinavia, Germany, the United States. He then went on to explain this phenomenon by an analysis of a work ethic that was supposedly unique to Protestant societies.

The problem is that capitalistic societies and strong economies were actually not all that strongly associated with Protestantism even in the early stages of the industrial revolution. Belgium, one of the most industrialized states on Earth, was notably very Catholic, and the motor of industry in Germany was the strongly-papist Rhineland. France, of course, was a heavily industrialized society early on as well. Industrialization in America didn't necessarily have anything to do with Protestantism; most of the big industrial cities had strong Catholic populations as well, like New York, Chicago, and Boston. Northern Italy is also a strong counterexample, as is the general lack of industrialization in some places that were very strongly Protestant at the time Weber published, such as Denmark.

Weber hypothesized a Protestant work ethic to explain a phenomenon that did not, in fact, exist, even when he wrote about it.

Is there a widely circulated version that is not a crock of piss?

A fair point. I don't know enough about sociology to say, so I kind of left that in there as a CYA.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, if we would be so dense as to think that the rise of capitalism through Protestant work ethic could possibly be caused by individuals alone rather than a synergy of individually productive individuals in a society of such people then I don't know. That would be stupid? Why would we even talk about that, wouldn't it be like arguing that the theory of gravity is wrong because Carnegie liked to eat eggs in the morning and invented libraries?

I think you're really putting too much weight on an off-hand comment, here. The point isn't the validity of the theory of the Protestant work ethic (as Dachs said, it's flatly incorrect), but that even on a surface level, the ethical attitude to work traditionally encompassed by the concept of "work ethic" is not an altruistic one.