I agree with you, I mean these are good questions, though I don't think
"coping strategies" is necessarily what is going on with our "stars".
I think pursuit of happiness is just one aspect to understanding why people
do what they do, when they have a choice. People also do what they ought to
do, and the relation between doing what you ought to do, and attaining
happiness is a very complex one. If, as a utilitarian, one simply define
"happiness" as whatever is the object of one's activity, there is of course
no problem, but nor is there any explanatory value.
I very much appreciate the contribution that the Thomist Alisdair MacIntyre
has made to this problem. He talks about institutions which are socially
necessary for the support of historically developed practices, and the
contrast between "internal rewards" and "external rewards". "Internal
rewards" are pay-offs which are internal to the activity itself (e.g. the
joy of doing the job really well, helping somone, making a new discovery,
etc.), whereas "external rewards" are the prizes - money, status, power and
so on. Institutions set up "external rewards" in order to sustain the
practices they exist for, and the community funds institutions.
Add to these concepts, wage-labour, in which people who do not have a
choice are given "external rewards" for jobs which are inherently deficient
in "internal rewards" and the ever-increasing dominance of exchange of
commodities as the means of regulating every aspect of life, and what you
have is lives which are entirely governed by "external rewards", and are
thereby "meaningless". No matter how much people are paid for their
trouble, they are left with a feeling of emptiness. Even succeeding in
raising a family is now a non-achievement. It is possible of course in a
lot of jobs to find meaning and purpose in what you do, but this is
increasingly despite the dominant forms of work organisation. The whole
ethos in which your "own time" is your "leisure time" is a recipe for anomie.
Andy
At 04:56 AM 17/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Andy,
>
>That was partly what I was getting at. Coping
>strategies like the friendly cashier, toll booth
>operater etc can appear to an outsider as enjoyment or
>to use your word happy. Those "coping strategies" may
>even become virtues so to speak such as "work ethic",
>or doing ones best.
>
>Yet, to even take your assertion that most poor
>workers are not "happy" in their jobs, what does that
>mean? What does it mean to be happy in ones job?
>
>The lottery question has, of course, as its
>assumption, money. That if ones motivation is money,
>and ones job is oppressive, then they would take the
>money and run. If there are other factors to ones
>motivation, then this would not hold true. This, of
>course has nothing to do with enjoyment or happiness
>per se.
>
>One may very well stay in an oppressive situation
>because of habit, it houses ones social network etc.
>This would be particularily true for those who have
>worked at a particular company for generations.
>
>Yet, I have to admit, I am still wondering what
>"happy" in ones job looks like.
>
>
>--- Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > I guess we like these stories because getting
> > enjoyment and fulfillment out
> > of a routine unskilled job takes a special talent.
> > One gets the feeling
> > that Ana's traffic cop, your cook or my
> > toll-collector could have earnt
> > lots of money, but their special quality allowed
> > them to get total
> > fulfillment from what we could never cope with. I
> > think this is something
> > different from the "Aunt Jamima Syndrome". Poor
> > people doing routine jobs
> > are not usually happy in their job. But the prospect
> > that anyone is capable
> > of enjoying their job is a kind of Utopian vision,
> > and just a few people
> > are capable of living that vision.
> >
> > Andy
> > At 03:46 AM 17/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> > >There is a local resturaunt by our house which is a
> > >favorite because of the cook. Usually the cook is
> > kind
> > >of hidden in the back, but this one comes out, goes
> > to
> > >your table, and cracks a joke or two. One day, the
> > >summer after 9-1-1, my kids and I went there and a
> > >group of elderly church like ladies came in with
> > red
> > >hats. This cook came out out and loudly asked,
> > "what's
> > >up with those red hats". He then loudly proclaimed,
> > >"Ladies and gentleman, beware its the red hatted
> > >terrorists."
> > >
> > >Yet, there seems to be this other side too, Aunt
> > >Jaminma factor. If one looks at old 1930's
> > cartoons,
> > >which were clearly propaganda, one sees these
> > strong
> > >images of African Americans happy as shit in their
> > >oppression.
> > >
> > >So, I have these mixed feelings. On the one hand, I
> > >agree with much of what is said. Those that are
> > >economically and socially oppressed are able to
> > find
> > >enjoyment in their work. Yet, what interpretation
> > does
> > >the powers that be make of this with studies that
> > >focus on enjoyment. Is it like the Aunt Jamina
> > >propaganda films that aim to show society that
> > 1930's
> > >African American life can't be that bad if Aunt
> > Jamima
> > >is that happy.
> > >
> > >I remember this old Christmas story that might be
> > >pertinant. Its begins like the classic two worlds
> > >story. There are two children, one rich and one
> > poor,
> > >the day after Christmas. One, the rich child, got
> > all
> > >the newest toys; DVD player, X-Box, Bratz dolls,
> > wide
> > >screen tv etc, while the other, the poor child,
> > only
> > >got a big bag of shit. After about an hour the rich
> > >kid is bored and not sure what to play with next,
> > >while the poor kid is still enjoying playing with
> > his
> > >shit.
> > >
> > >I'm not sure why I was told this story as a child.
> > >Partly I suppose to demonstrate how I was much
> > happier
> > >than any rich child with a silver spoon in his
> > mouth.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >=====
> >
>
>
>=====
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:09 PST