"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Lexicus]

Are we using 'modern'/'capitalist' to describe everything from God-King Sumeria to modern New York City? Because once regional cities started emerging or a monetary economy began filtering down to the lower classes, we began to see at least some people turn what had been occasional tasks done for the family/household, such as weaving, into full time professions to sell their goods.

Selling "their" goods would be the key phrase there. Professional craftsmen owned their own tools. Makes a big difference.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's as much an argument against the modern economy as in favour of it, mind: a lot of contemporary work is characterised by a pervasive sense of purposelessness, of repetitive actions done apparently for their own sake, with any eventual social utility being so abstracted from the daily experience of work as to be a mere fairy tale. A lot of people hate their jobs precisely because those jobs represent eight hours a day (and eight hours which tend to dictate the terms of the other sixteen) during which they are explicitly prohibited from engaging in social interactions from which they can discern a purpose.

Well, couldn't agree more.

 

[innonimatu]

Are we using 'modern'/'capitalist' to describe everything from God-King Sumeria to modern New York City? Because once regional cities started emerging or a monetary economy began filtering down to the lower classes, we began to see at least some people turn what had been occasional tasks done for the family/household, such as weaving, into full time professions to sell their goods.

I think that what we are dealing with now is a huge number of people doing what they know are absurd jobs, like hamsters in a treadmill - without liking it as hamsters do (do they?). Specialization has its problems, but we have larger problems now! Worse, the hamsters are either physically compelled to remain in the treadmill (housing, food, health care costs - basics or life) or psychologically manipulated to remain (keeping up with the joneses).

And this is a modern phenomenon. Keynes wasn't wrong when he predicted that in a century (that would be 2030) rising productivity would lead to people having to work only on average only 15 hours a week. Productivity rose almost exactly as he foresaw.
But all kinds of phony "needs" were created afterwards. The commercialization of everything is certainly playing this role. The other old economist famous for forecasting talked of the "age of universal venality" We're there.

 

[Samson]

I'd be leery about ascribing that to a 'modern' economy, as if it was something unique. Apparently purposeless repetitive actions comprises most pre-modern economic activities too. Collecting wood for charcoal burning or for fires, weaving cloth, spinning thread, pulling wire, carrying goods, etc. Is working in a call center, entering data into a program, or flipping burgers any less repetitive and purposeless than spending your days sending a shuttle back and forth on a loom to make fabric to sell?

No activity is inherently any more or less purposeless than any other activity; people make meaning of what they do and can derive meaning from just about anything.

I think there is a real inherent difference between hard repetitive physical labour and the modern "invention" of "bullfeathers jobs" (note autocensor is editing the URI, change it in the obvious way and capitalise the title). My own experience of menial repetitive jobs, like hand sweeping a large area of concrete for a few days (the most similar to the examples cited), can give a certain satisfaction that doing something that you know is pointless does not. Data entry and fast food work are not what I would call the worst, from wiki:

Graeber describes five types of meaningless jobs, in which workers pretend their role is not as pointless or harmful as they know it to be: flunkies, goons, duct tapers, box tickers, and taskmasters. He argues that the association of labor with virtuous suffering is recent in human history, and proposes unions and universal basic income as a potential solution.

1. flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants, store greeters, makers of websites whose sites neglect ease of use and speed for looks;
2. goons, who act to harm or deceive others on behalf of their employer, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists, community managers;
3. duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing bloated code, airline desk staff who calm passengers whose bags do not arrive;
4. box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it is not, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers, quality service managers;
5. taskmasters, who create extra work for those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals.

From the preface, which I think makes the exact point of discussion here:

Certainly you meet people now and then who seem to feel their jobs are pointless and unnecessary. Could there be anything more demoralizing than having to wake up in the morning five out of seven days of one’s adult life to perform a task that one secretly believed did not need to be performed—that was simply a waste of time or resources, or that even made the world worse? Would this not be a terrible psychic wound running across our society? Yet if so, it was one that no one ever seemed to talk about.​

 

[Hygro]

Wait he defined the bs jobs as basically everyone needed for if things don’t go perfectly the first time?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd be leery about ascribing that to a 'modern' economy, as if it was something unique. Apparently purposeless repetitive actions comprises most pre-modern economic activities too. Collecting wood for charcoal burning or for fires, weaving cloth, spinning thread, pulling wire, carrying goods, etc. Is working in a call center, entering data into a program, or flipping burgers any less repetitive and purposeless than spending your days sending a shuttle back and forth on a loom to make fabric to sell?

I don't think a Medieval spinner or charcoal-burner would have viewed even these tedious activities as "apparently purposeless". They would have been able to tell you exactly why they were doing it, why it was necessary and what the outcome would be. They would understand its place in the production process, probably because they were involved in every other stage of the process to some degree. (The modern division of labour absolutely is something historically unique.) These activities weren't fun but they were meaningful. In contrast, a lot of modern work exists in a contextless bubble, an inverted black box, where tasks are completed simply because it has been dictated that they be completed. It's very difficult to derive a sense of social place from that sort of work.

 

[Hygro]

I don't think a Medieval spinner or charcoal-burner would have viewed even these tedious activities as "apparently purposeless". They would have been able to tell you exactly why they were doing it, why it was necessary and what the outcome would be. They would understand its place in the production process, probably because they were involved in every other stage of the process to some degree. (The modern division of labour absolutely is something historically unique.) These activities weren't fun but they were meaningful. In contrast, a lot of modern work exists in a contextless bubble, an inverted black box, where tasks are completed simply because it has been dictated that they be completed. It's very difficult to derive a sense of social place from that sort of work.

Is that really true? It’s my experience pretty much everyone knows how their specific work contributes to a bigger picture.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Well burglars could argue that they contribute to the success of the burglar alarm industry.

 

[stinkubus]

Is that really true? It’s my experience pretty much everyone knows how their specific work contributes to a bigger picture.

Understanding the bigger picture will only heighten feelings of alienation for those who occupy lesser roles in large organizations because it isn't going to take long to figure out that your individual contribution has no impact, isn't financially remunerative, confers no status, and does little or nothing to improve one's own community or the lives of people close to them.

 

[Angst]

Is that really true? It’s my experience pretty much everyone knows how their specific work contributes to a bigger picture.

pop culture, but i think the office and office space quite catches the sense of purposeless work; even if you do something where you know its exact purpose, it can still feel utterly devastating. the guy in office space whose primary job at that time had the purpose of updating every instance of year in data before the y2k thing. he knew that the computers would crash if he didn't, but practically, it was filling out cells for the whole day. it's quite detached from the practicality of eg making & repairing shoes, which you sell in your own shop. the question is more, imo, about proportionality of the relationship; there is a degree of difference between excel data work and actually making the shoes you sell; similar to how there is a degree of difference between walking and running when you're working out; both are being physically active, but one has qualities of intensity the other one doesn't.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is that really true? It’s my experience pretty much everyone knows how their specific work contributes to a bigger picture.

I'll grant that most people probably have an intellectual understanding of what their role theoretically contributes to the overall organisation, but I think it often breaks down on a granular level: why they have to do this specific task in this specific way at this specific time. They aren't doing this stuff because it contributes constructively to some greater outcome, even if that may well be the case: they're doing it because somebody in a position of authority said that they had to. The subjective experience of work, for a lot of modern workers, consequently tends towards the "inverted black box" experience. This isn't something that a Medieval charcoal-burner would have worried about, because ever particular part of their work, no matter how tedious or laborious, would be clearly justified in their mind.

 

[Narz]

Is that really true? It’s my experience pretty much everyone knows how their specific work contributes to a bigger picture.

Does a plumper know where the **** goes?

Does an electrician know how electricity works or a power plant?

Does the 18yo who makes your iPhone know how plastic is made and its minerals are mined?

I used to assume most people knew what they were doing, why they were doing it and what it was a part of. Now I'm much less sure.

 

[RobAnybody]

Does the 18yo who makes your iPhone know how plastic is made and its minerals are mined?

Heh. 18yo.

 

[Ajidica]

I'll grant that most people probably have an intellectual understanding of what their role theoretically contributes to the overall organisation, but I think it often breaks down on a granular level: why they have to do this specific task in this specific way at this specific time. They aren't doing this stuff because it contributes constructively to some greater outcome, even if that may well be the case: they're doing it because somebody in a position of authority said that they had to. The subjective experience of work, for a lot of modern workers, consequently tends towards the "inverted black box" experience. This isn't something that a Medieval charcoal-burner would have worried about, because ever particular part of their work, no matter how tedious or laborious, would be clearly justified in their mind.

Is it though? In the job I had right out of college, 90% of the work consisted of looking in a big computer folder of badly scanned pdfs and attaching it to an electronic invoice. Mind-numbing drudgery, but I still fail to see why on a philosophical level it is any more alienating or purposeless than wood carrier, thread spinner, or wool weaver. It isn't like I would be suddenly more invested in the work if I did that work as an 'independent businessman' from my owned personal computer instead of at an office with a work provided computer.
(Indeed, based on my personal experience working remotely during the pandemic, the simple act of going into the office improved my sense of investment in the work because it better split work stuff from personal stuff.)

 

[Traitorfish]

Is it though? In the job I had right out of college, 90% of the work consisted of looking in a big computer folder of badly scanned pdfs and attaching it to an electronic invoice. Mind-numbing drudgery, but I still fail to see why on a philosophical level it is any more alienating or purposeless than wood carrier, thread spinner, or wool weaver.

It's not the what so much as the how and the why. The Medieval weaver may be required to engage in work which is tedious or laborious, but there is a good reason for these tasks to be done and for them to be done in a certain way and at a certain time, otherwise the cloth will not be made, or it will be made badly, and the cloth is produced to clothe herself and her family and her neighbours. Everything is bound up in a set of clear material necessities and social obligations, and thus provides purpose. The modern worker frequently, I daresay usually lacks this context: work is done, and it is done in a given way and at a given time, simply because somebody has told you that this is the case, and you comply because if you don't, they will stop putting money in your bank account. It would be all the same to the modern worker if it was done in a different way, or not done at all. The task itself is without intrinsic significance, thus it does not provide purpose.

 

[Hygro]

Visiting the third world you definitely get a stronger sense of connection to your labor, even your adventures which take more work are that much more rewarding. So I buy that.

But virtually none of the work I’ve ever done, and my jobs have been mostly quite lowly with preordained protocols, has felt like the rules are arbitrary.

A couple notable exceptions, but mostly not. It’s not hard to value systematized work so that it can measured and copied, or even have some pride in dare I say “best practices”.

Now grade school on the other hand, especially in the lower grades, that work was extremely alienating. I refused to do it, and later as it started getting better (middle school, when the subjects required some modicum of focus and taught cool stuff) I got sick and then once again didn’t do any of it, until it was required to play an international ladder game to make a case for entry into college. And then it was kind of fun.

I am always questioning why things are done, and frequently unsatisfied with the answers, because I more than my peers have always hated arbitrary s***. It is why I got fired from the one job that was alienating. And I still, with all that experience, find little personal resonance with the claims of capitalist philosophers, that we workers don’t feel a connection to the why of what we do.

 

[Gorbles]

But virtually none of the work I’ve ever done, and my jobs have been mostly quite lowly with preordained protocols, has felt like the rules are arbitrary.

I believe you. But I also don't think this is a counterargument (sorry, am kinda assuming you intended it to be).

I had to scroll back so I didn't launch into a Thing™, and the context was specific jobs that seem to be created for the sake of having a job role to fill. Of requiring a degree (to pay for). I fully agree there are jobs where the content exists for the sake of the content, rather than literally any other purpose. Just more rungs on the ladder, which also conveniently keeps the people below that point on the ladder underneath, and the ones above, well, above. This is a very reductive take by me, but it seems to be working as-designed for the sake of modern capitalism (or at least, societies modelled on capitalism, which is a lot of them).

I didn't get on with school. I didn't hate it, but the whole arbitrary grading system of predetermined answers . . . yeah, I didn't get on with that either. But I haven't been fired from a job, because every job I have had I have needed. I do not, nor have I ever, had the luxury to be able to be fired from a job even if I wanted to. The money in the bank account thing is what's important. And there are jobs, like TF is saying, where that is literally the only carrot. Because, well, you need it, and for no other purpose. The carrot and the stick are kinda the same thing, there. But there's no purpose to it, unless "the minimum money required to survive" is considered purpose (and I don't think it is, nor am I assuming anyone here thinks it is either).

 

[Synobun]

I don't see how pursuit of a paycheque is measurably different than pursuit of direct material survival.

 

[Angst]

I don't see how pursuit of a paycheque is measurably different than pursuit of direct material survival.

why do people go fishing for fun today instead of buying it at the store?

i understand and agree that there's a difference doing it for fun and doing it every day to survive, the latter is much more dull, but i believe there's a component here of going, fishing, gutting, cooking and eating it as a whole process instead of just picking it up from a supermarket. there is a connection to materially doing something and having a relation to the process that's lost when most of our resource allocation is transaction

maybe it's just me but as a writer and musician i have a very close understanding to how relating to the material process is very pleasant, and maybe that's part of my bias since i do these connections in ways most detached from hard labor. still my corporare office type uncle very much enjoys huge costs of calories and resources, going to norway and elsewhere just for the experience of making his own catch, figuring out how to catch it, the local species, how to properly prepare them, etc. there's a reason beyond cultural capital for this (cultural capital is a reason that segment often fishes), same in writing; while using a typewriter or notebook is vintage and stylish, there's something material there where you easier connect to what you're doing. i love writing on typewriters, feeling the weight of my fingertips smashing ink into dead trees. i can't explain why it's so pleasing compared to a computer

 

[Hygro]

I believe you. But I also don't think this is a counterargument (sorry, am kinda assuming you intended it to be).

I had to scroll back so I didn't launch into a Thing™, and the context was specific jobs that seem to be created for the sake of having a job role to fill. Of requiring a degree (to pay for). I fully agree there are jobs where the content exists for the sake of the content, rather than literally any other purpose. Just more rungs on the ladder, which also conveniently keeps the people below that point on the ladder underneath, and the ones above, well, above. This is a very reductive take by me, but it seems to be working as-designed for the sake of modern capitalism (or at least, societies modelled on capitalism, which is a lot of them).

I didn't get on with school. I didn't hate it, but the whole arbitrary grading system of predetermined answers . . . yeah, I didn't get on with that either. But I haven't been fired from a job, because every job I have had I have needed. I do not, nor have I ever, had the luxury to be able to be fired from a job even if I wanted to. The money in the bank account thing is what's important. And there are jobs, like TF is saying, where that is literally the only carrot. Because, well, you need it, and for no other purpose. The carrot and the stick are kinda the same thing, there. But there's no purpose to it, unless "the minimum money required to survive" is considered purpose (and I don't think it is, nor am I assuming anyone here thinks it is either).

The only job I ever got fired from was “unpaid” and that moment still set me back financially and academically a number of years.

But ultimately why you are a software engineer and or medieval basket weaver is the same. Presumably both versions of you would rather be a traveling romantic and/or porch chiller, occasionally producing works of art and science and otherwise enjoying your friends, family, and nature.

I don't see how pursuit of a paycheque is measurably different than pursuit of direct material survival.

It’s definitely fun when the solution to your needs is step by step directly and nonfungibly in front of you, and you win.

But it’s also fun when you enter a ladder and win the “game” as well.

I am inclined to agree.

I would dare say the biggest difference is how much exercise as well as diversity of movements you time spent between direct survival and earning a paycheck requires. More different movement is more energizing.