Work and play
Aug. 23rd, 2005 01:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerThoughts arising from comments to one of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
telynor’s posts, about the attitude of people whose lives revolve around their day jobs to those who pursue their creative dreams:
Everyone’s heard (or used) the phrase, of anyone who for whatever reason doesn’t have a regular job: “They think the world owes them a living.” This phrase (yes, I know it’s a sentence, and quite a severe one as well, with no time off for good behaviour) bothers the hell out of me. Partly this is because I am by nature idle and hate being made to feel guilty for not loving to work, partly because I have a knee-jerk adverse reaction to the hardline-Heinlein life-is-real-life-is-Algernon work-or-starve gung-ho worldview. Neither of these reactions is significant, both being flaws in my character that I probably won’t succeed in shifting at this late stage.
Partly, though, it bothers me because I dislike the idea of seeing life as a matter of debts and obligations. Clearly, to people who say this, it is a fact that, if the world doesn’t owe me a living, then obviously I must owe it one. I must pay back my life, in daily increments, to strangers who already get the benefit of the lives of many others. There is no element of choice. It’s what you do. Taking time out to be creative, especially unpaid, or even worse simply to play, is wasting something that doesn’t actually belong to me, that was mortgaged when I was born. And there’s no upper limit to the repayments. Even when I get too old to work for a living (however that will be defined by the time it happens) there will be this sense of indebtedness. I should be grateful for whatever microscopic amount of pension I get, because it’s really charity and I should be doing something in return.
This is a rich planet, as John Brunner said many years ago, and I live in one of the richest societies on it, and we are all bowed down by this culture of debt. But life is a gift. It’s not owed; it’s given. Talents are gifts. Strength and wit and even beauty are gifts, with no price tag. And I wonder how it would be if ours were a culture of giving, rather than owing: if we were brought up to believe that we are all immensely rich in ourselves, and that the way to make the best of our riches is to give them to the world, as the world gives to us. Give our time and our energy to help others, as we are given the means to live. Give of our talent to make the world even more beautiful, as others make it more beautiful for us. Give our lives, not because we owe them, but because we have them.
Stupidly idealistic, yes, probably. But do we begrudge our efforts and our time because we feel them being demanded of us, as of right, and that less than the equitable value is being tendered in return? Have we learned to look at the world as a marketplace, where everything has to be haggled over, bought cheap and sold dear, as if there were some scarcity? Can this view be changed, and would the world grind to a shuddering halt if it were?
telynor’s posts, about the attitude of people whose lives revolve around their day jobs to those who pursue their creative dreams:Everyone’s heard (or used) the phrase, of anyone who for whatever reason doesn’t have a regular job: “They think the world owes them a living.” This phrase (yes, I know it’s a sentence, and quite a severe one as well, with no time off for good behaviour) bothers the hell out of me. Partly this is because I am by nature idle and hate being made to feel guilty for not loving to work, partly because I have a knee-jerk adverse reaction to the hardline-Heinlein life-is-real-life-is-Algernon work-or-starve gung-ho worldview. Neither of these reactions is significant, both being flaws in my character that I probably won’t succeed in shifting at this late stage.
Partly, though, it bothers me because I dislike the idea of seeing life as a matter of debts and obligations. Clearly, to people who say this, it is a fact that, if the world doesn’t owe me a living, then obviously I must owe it one. I must pay back my life, in daily increments, to strangers who already get the benefit of the lives of many others. There is no element of choice. It’s what you do. Taking time out to be creative, especially unpaid, or even worse simply to play, is wasting something that doesn’t actually belong to me, that was mortgaged when I was born. And there’s no upper limit to the repayments. Even when I get too old to work for a living (however that will be defined by the time it happens) there will be this sense of indebtedness. I should be grateful for whatever microscopic amount of pension I get, because it’s really charity and I should be doing something in return.
This is a rich planet, as John Brunner said many years ago, and I live in one of the richest societies on it, and we are all bowed down by this culture of debt. But life is a gift. It’s not owed; it’s given. Talents are gifts. Strength and wit and even beauty are gifts, with no price tag. And I wonder how it would be if ours were a culture of giving, rather than owing: if we were brought up to believe that we are all immensely rich in ourselves, and that the way to make the best of our riches is to give them to the world, as the world gives to us. Give our time and our energy to help others, as we are given the means to live. Give of our talent to make the world even more beautiful, as others make it more beautiful for us. Give our lives, not because we owe them, but because we have them.
Stupidly idealistic, yes, probably. But do we begrudge our efforts and our time because we feel them being demanded of us, as of right, and that less than the equitable value is being tendered in return? Have we learned to look at the world as a marketplace, where everything has to be haggled over, bought cheap and sold dear, as if there were some scarcity? Can this view be changed, and would the world grind to a shuddering halt if it were?
no subject
Date: 2005-08-23 09:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-23 10:24 pm (UTC)I'll be over here, sorting and folding.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-23 11:48 pm (UTC)Well, hell with it. I've got the thing off my chest. Let's bury it and move on.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-24 12:26 am (UTC)I read this as being your feeling that no one should feel obligated to participate in some sort of exchange relationship, that they should give of their talents as gifts as opposed to choosing to declare it some sort of cost for value received transaction (with the attendant feelings of being cheated or deprived thereof).
My original response was to try to explain that by being a part of society I believe one actually does incur an obligation to society, which obligation means sharing the work to which talent may not necessarily apply. I tried to make the point that this obligation would take place in any economic system, not just the evil capitalist ones.
At no point was I saying anything about you personally - in fact, I thought I made it very clear that only certain attitudes rather than some artificial status would engender such an opinion from me.
Having in my life been in a situation where there have been people (and this can't be you as I've never lived with you) who were perfectly happy to give and give and give - only what they gave wasn't what the community needed, so someone else had to provide that - has perhaps colored my opinion somewhat. It remains just that, an opinion, and I'm very sorry that you choose to take it as some personal attack.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-24 07:14 am (UTC)But there, I expect the cases are quite different.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-24 07:27 am (UTC)I may be wrong but I am reading both sides here as starting out what bedlamhouse referred to as 'tongue slightly in cheek'. I had to read this part of the thread a couple of times in order hopefully have an idea of what the heck I am talking about.
I don't think either of you want or are in favor of a hedonistic society that supports idleness. I perceive the points that are trying to be made here are:
smallship1: that we should all think less in terms of begrudging and more in terms of giving of our time and talents and wouldn't it be nice if the whole world thought that way -
bedlamhouse: even in such a society there will be those who will contribute more and those who contribute less and that measure will never go away as long as society exists.
First, I think there may be a misunderstanding in the concept of talent. Such a phrase immediately brings up the image of actors and artists posturing to the crowd to announce and advertise the latest contributions to their craft. In any other area, we tend to use the term competent instead of talented to describe those who show a high aptitude in the task that they are asked to perform, (whether it's design a building, balance the books, or scrub the bathroom) because they have a genuine affinity for that particular task and take a certain pleasure out of it, not just harbor a can-do attitude. bedlamhouse, if your talent is digging ditches, weeding gardens, or washing dishes, then no one has the right to look down on you for that. I have the feeling, however, that what you intended was a one-liner and that your talents lie elsewhere. And yes, I thought it was funny - but I am also stupid and thick and think sarcasm is a hoot.
That said, I don't believe that is what smallship1 is intending to convey. A truly ideal society involves everyone doing what they love, and in doing so contributes in their own way to society as a whole. I think wires got crossed here when the implication was "doing what you love" got misinterpreted as strumming a guitar or reciting poetry and did not encompass the concept of guitar strumming as exercising a visual and tonal acuity, or reciting of poetry as a means of creating structure and pattern out of chaos, that can be applied to other things that are more mundane but still contributory, Each would have a feeling of accomplishment each day even when these talents are applied in a different venue. The poet would make a lousy ditch-digger or bank teller but might make one first-rate detective. The guitarist I don't think would be either happy or fulfilled in an office or political arena (same thing most of the time) but may make an excellent mediator - and if it's one thing this world needs, it's someone to hear them. :)
I don't think bedlamhouse read that and I don't think smallship1 wrote that, so any tomatoes for that concept can be thrown in my direction. I just think the point you are both trying to achieve in your own way from opposite ends is to establish that survival of the society does not need to depend on doing what you have to but doing what makes you happy and if it contributes to that society, all the better.
Of course, I could be wrong. I usually am.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-27 11:03 pm (UTC)Can I just say: I am!
Michael Cule
Idle Hedonist
no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 12:21 am (UTC)