« Space Invaders Ice Tray | Home | Hunt-and-Peck Keyboard »

May 31, 2009

'The Case for Working With Your Hands' — by Matthew B. Crawford

Cvbcv

His above-titled essay in last Sunday's New York Times magazine is the best thing I've read this month.

What's the shortest known interval of time?

That elapsed between finishing his piece and ordering his new book, "Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work."

Excerpts from his Times essay follow.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Many of us do work that feels more surreal than real. Working in an office, you often find it difficult to see any tangible result from your efforts. What exactly have you accomplished at the end of any given day? Where the chain of cause and effect is opaque and responsibility diffuse, the experience of individual agency can be elusive.


The Princeton economist Alan Blinder argues that the crucial distinction in the emerging labor market is not between those with more or less education, but between those whose services can be delivered over a wire and those who must do their work in person or on site. The latter will find their livelihoods more secure against outsourcing to distant countries. As Blinder puts it, “You can’t hammer a nail over the Internet.” Nor can the Indians fix your car. Because they are in India.


The trades suffer
from low prestige, and I believe this is based on a simple mistake. Because the work is dirty, many people assume it is also stupid. This is not my experience.


There probably aren’t many jobs that can be reduced to rule-following and still be done well. But in many jobs there is an attempt to do just this, and the perversity of it may go unnoticed by those who design the work process.


Like the mechanic, the manager faces the possibility of disaster at any time. But in his case these disasters feel arbitrary; they are typically a result of corporate restructurings, not of physics. A manager has to make many decisions for which he is accountable. Unlike an entrepreneur with his own business, however, his decisions can be reversed at any time by someone higher up the food chain (and there is always someone higher up the food chain). It’s important for your career that these reversals not look like defeats, and more generally you have to spend a lot of time managing what others think of you.


My job was structured on the supposition that in writing an abstract of an article there is a method that merely needs to be applied, and that this can be done without understanding the text. I was actually told this by the trainer, Monica, as she stood before a whiteboard, diagramming an abstract. Monica seemed a perfectly sensible person and gave no outward signs of suffering delusions. She didn’t insist too much on what she was telling us, and it became clear she was in a position similar to that of a veteran Soviet bureaucrat who must work on two levels at once: reality and official ideology.


On paper, my abstracting job, multiplied a millionfold, is precisely what puts the futurologist in a rapture: we are getting to be so smart! Yet my M.A. obscures a more real stupidification of the work I secured with that credential, and a wage to match. When I first got the degree, I felt as if I had been inducted to a certain order of society. But despite the beautiful ties I wore, it turned out to be a more proletarian existence than I had known as an electrician. In that job I had made quite a bit more money. I also felt free and active, rather than confined and stultified.


A good job
requires a field of action where you can put your best capacities to work and see an effect in the world. Academic credentials do not guarantee this.


The visceral experience of failure seems to have been edited out of the career trajectories of gifted students. It stands to reason, then, that those who end up making big decisions that affect all of us don’t seem to have much sense of their own fallibility, and of how badly things can go wrong even with the best of intentions....


The good life comes in a variety of forms. This variety has become difficult to see; our field of aspiration has narrowed into certain channels. But the current perplexity in the economy seems to be softening our gaze. Our peripheral vision is perhaps recovering, allowing us to consider the full range of lives worth choosing. For anyone who feels ill suited by disposition to spend his days sitting in an office, the question of what a good job looks like is now wide open.

May 31, 2009 at 10:01 AM | Permalink


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5dea53ef011570a3b7ca970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'The Case for Working With Your Hands' — by Matthew B. Crawford:

Comments

What Fritz said, yes.

On YouTube there is a series of interviews -- very chopped-up, unfortunately -- with various comedians, conducted by Dawn French ("Girls Who Do Comedy" and "Boys Who Do Comedy"), where at some point the question is put to the interviewees, "Do you think this is a proper job?" The answers are most interesting; I recommend watching.

The wonderful, complete 4-part interview with Russell Brand is there, and Part 3 is especially good -- the last half being especially, especially good, and the last minute or so being pure gold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWnMPbBkhIY

Posted by: Flautist | May 31, 2009 5:02:23 PM

there are a lot of soul destroying cubical existences out there and legions of out of work peeps that would like just that to pay the rent and eat

Posted by: Fritz | May 31, 2009 12:57:15 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.