Recently,
freshmen students at Le Moyne College were required to read Melville’s Bartleby the Scrivener. They were even given t-shirts with the iconic
statement of Bartleby every time he was asked to do a particular task: “I’d prefer not to.” For some students, that statement matched
their own feelings about the reading of Bartleby
(or for many, any academic reading that was not a part of their major). For others, it illustrated the reason they
were in college and seeking to become professionals in their own right where theycould resist work they would rather not do (and are probably doing to pay their
tuition bills).
For those unfamiliar
with the story, the work Bartleby was engaged in as a scrivener was to copy
legal documents by hand and then spend time reading them over aloud with others
to insure their accuracy. Let’s face it:
the work was rather mundane, repetitive, and boring. (Personally, I would go stark-raving mad if
this was the only work I could find.) Of
course, we can psychoanalyze Bartleby and suggest that his underlying,
undiagnosed problem was some sort of depression brought on by his extreme loneliness
or homelessness. These are certainly
issues with which we should be concerned, especially since in some instances
they result in violent outbursts in the workplace
As an ethicist, however, I would prefer not to go down that road (pun intended). Rather, I would prefer to talk about the frustration that I think the Bartlebys of the world are voicing with their refusal to continue in this type of work (which some suggest is exactly what the author Melville intends). After all, ethics is the discipline that deals with preferences!
What Bartleby is declaring is that he prefers not to engage in a world of work that, while it may sometimes be necessary (especially in a litigious society), is pure drudgery and dehumanizing. Of course in a time of high unemployment many people would proclaim that workers should be happy to have a job and should take any job they could find. All I can do in response is to quote Albert Camus, “Without work, all life goes rotten. But when work is soulless, life stifles and dies.” (Marx was also a critic of this kind of soulless work that alienates workers from the product of their labor where workers have little control over the nature and direction of their work, which is what happens when one is simply the appendage to a machine, a task, a desk, or an internet server.)
I would contend that there are many instances today where people are standing up to work places and declaring, I’d prefer not to. For example, fast food workers who are taking to the streets to argue for living wages of ten to fifteen dollars per hour are saying they prefer not to work for wages that, while they provide many a quick, cheap meal, prohibit the workers’ ability to feed their families or to live in dignity. I would contend that the Occupy Wall Street movement was (is?) in part proclaiming that as the 99%, they would prefer not to continue an economic system that continues to generate extremes of economic and social inequality even rewarding people with bonuses for unethical even if not illegal behavior (although some think laws were broken).
The establishment of a minimum wage (I would prefer living wages) and recent attempts by legislatures to increase it are a statement to the economic structure of our society that contends we, collectively, would prefer not to allow people to work below a decent level of income, especially when work and the money it procures are what sociologist Lee Rainwater argues are the fundamental means of membership and participation in our consumption-oriented society. The generation of workplace safety regulations declares that we would prefer not to let employees work in unsafe conditions even if they are costly. The implementation of workplace discrimination laws suggests that we would prefer not to allow employers to discriminate against workers on the basis of age, ethnicity, gender, or disability.
As an ethicist, however, I would prefer not to go down that road (pun intended). Rather, I would prefer to talk about the frustration that I think the Bartlebys of the world are voicing with their refusal to continue in this type of work (which some suggest is exactly what the author Melville intends). After all, ethics is the discipline that deals with preferences!
What Bartleby is declaring is that he prefers not to engage in a world of work that, while it may sometimes be necessary (especially in a litigious society), is pure drudgery and dehumanizing. Of course in a time of high unemployment many people would proclaim that workers should be happy to have a job and should take any job they could find. All I can do in response is to quote Albert Camus, “Without work, all life goes rotten. But when work is soulless, life stifles and dies.” (Marx was also a critic of this kind of soulless work that alienates workers from the product of their labor where workers have little control over the nature and direction of their work, which is what happens when one is simply the appendage to a machine, a task, a desk, or an internet server.)
I would contend that there are many instances today where people are standing up to work places and declaring, I’d prefer not to. For example, fast food workers who are taking to the streets to argue for living wages of ten to fifteen dollars per hour are saying they prefer not to work for wages that, while they provide many a quick, cheap meal, prohibit the workers’ ability to feed their families or to live in dignity. I would contend that the Occupy Wall Street movement was (is?) in part proclaiming that as the 99%, they would prefer not to continue an economic system that continues to generate extremes of economic and social inequality even rewarding people with bonuses for unethical even if not illegal behavior (although some think laws were broken).
The establishment of a minimum wage (I would prefer living wages) and recent attempts by legislatures to increase it are a statement to the economic structure of our society that contends we, collectively, would prefer not to allow people to work below a decent level of income, especially when work and the money it procures are what sociologist Lee Rainwater argues are the fundamental means of membership and participation in our consumption-oriented society. The generation of workplace safety regulations declares that we would prefer not to let employees work in unsafe conditions even if they are costly. The implementation of workplace discrimination laws suggests that we would prefer not to allow employers to discriminate against workers on the basis of age, ethnicity, gender, or disability.
No comments:
Post a Comment