| | |
|
TheWarOnWork 9 - 15 Apr 2010 - Main.CeciliaWang
|
| | I'm a UAW kid. For that reason I'm sure it isn't coincidental that Mike Rowe, host of the television show Dirty Jobs, has always been a source of constant fascination for me. In case you're unfamiliar with the show, each episode of Dirty Jobs documents Mike Rowe spending one day doing some socially integral job that we, despite having reaped the efforts of the workers, have probably never ever considered. It's fascinating if you have any interest in learning how exterminators kill rats or how old mattresses are disposed of, but there's probably sufficient entertainment value to be found in watching Rowe inseminate sheep or fall in pig shit even if you couldn't care less about the industrial foundations that make "civilized life possible for the rest of us," in the words of the show's introduction. It depends on your entertainment goals I suppose.
After reading the first few chapters of Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class, I definitely was reminded of Mike Rowe, but I started thinking less about what he taught me about how the Golden Gate Bridge gets painted and more about his opinions regarding societal attitudes about industrial work. I think that Mr Rowe, having spent thousands of hours actually performing over 250 different jobs, is in a fairly unique position to comment. | | | I mention this because I thought Stephen's post was particularly on point. We, as a society, venerate our CEOs. We tend to give people like Blankenship and Dick Fuld the benefit of the doubt, despite the gravity of their wrongs. And when things truly do fall apart, they drop from our consciousness pretty quickly. Until Amanda mentioned him, I had never heard of Blankenship and I certainly haven't seen very many profiles of Dick Fuld in the Times lately.
-- DavidGoldin - 13 Apr 2010 | |
>
> | I think we venerate or at least wish to believe the best of CEOs and such leaders for a couple reasons. One, without NYT and Vanity Fair articles about how these people are so intelligent, wonderful, principled and superior, and more posts like Amanda's, we'll want change and change is messy. Even in that NYT article profiling families of miners after the last disaster, there was much respect and nostalgia for the industry as a tradition of the area and a great employer - it was presented as something people really want because the $30+/hour will provide a kid right out of high school with a wife, kids and a house. Such an article is a lot easier to right than one outlining what could be done to avoid disasters, how to limit and phase out the industry in general and how to enable the mining families to find other sources of middle-class comfort. And two: Remember our first lessons about the Civil War, how we learned that most of the pro-slavery advocates were actually middle-class or poor farmers with one or zero slaves? One of my teachers explained that with slaves around, they can feel better about themselves and aspire to own one or two. Perhaps we give the CEOs and such the benefit of the doubt (but does the same apply to governors and senators?) because we wish to identify more with the mine owner than the mine worker. Not just we law students but any self-identified middle-class, upper-middle class person. Also, growing up we were taught to emulate successful people, and even how we ask for examples of graduates who have successfully pursued some career path we're interested in. Those articles are sort of like unrealistic "how-to guides": if you think this way, and have this work ethic, then you might be successful too!
making fun Disney CEO |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |