Why Work?

In my 'academic' work, I am interested in, well, work. I am not a vulgar Marxist. But Marx, to me, offers a compelling analysis of capitalism. He suggests that in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, people became 'free' to sell their labor on the market for a price. Of course, the 'price' of that labor is deeply tied to assumptions about what kinds of work is meaningful, skilled, and so on. And, the more that marginalized people occupy particular kinds of work, the less it is worth. Relatedly, marginalized folks often occupy 'less-skilled' positions in the marketplace.

Work is not the *only* arena in which social inequality reproduces itself, but the way in which work is set up is structures and is structured by other systems of inequality. Citizenship, gender, race, able-bodiedness, sexuality, 'professionalism', affective labor - all of these things structure how most of us are compensated for the work that we do, what jobs are available, and what people understand as worthy ways to spend the majority of their lives. Like, really, what the fuck to hedge fund managers do that contributes to the social world meaningfully? In my opinion, very little. In the opinion of the marketplace, that is if compensation were an adequate measure of social worth, they do a whole hell of a lot.

Furthermore, the need for global economic growth eclipses most other measures of economic well-being. As long as growth remains the yardstick for a healthy economy, people and the environment will suffer. PERIOD. Therefore, new economic systems MUST emerge that opt out of traditional measures of a healthy economy. This is important for several reasons:

1. Industrial capitalism is the primary lens through which social policy around work is structured - both in terms of the economic stimulus but also in terms of the traditional labor movement be they trade unions and even poor people's movements. This is a problem as it leaves unquestioned the fact that most of these jobs - selling and buying shit that nobody needs and that will wind up in a landfill - are soul deadening and planet killing. It's just the 'double movement' wherein the most egregious exploits of capitalism are somewhat alleviated but the system itself remains intact.

2. It's not that labor movements aren't important. They are. But I think work can very well be understood differently. In fact, work must be understood differently if this planet is to survive. That is, if economic growth is the primary driver of greenhouse gas emissions and both wealth and job creation in their contemporary forms create that growth (jobs so that people can shop so that industries remain profitable), then the way work itself is structured is profoundly flawed. Yet work (not necessarily jobs) is the means through which needs are met. And needs can be met in new ways - ways that allow people more time to creatively pursue their interests, have more "free time", and engage in a myriad of activities. What are those ways?

3. Not all, but a lot of work is soul-deadening. I don't think it has to be. And we do too much of it in its formalized incarnation.

4. Collective work structures can mean radically reshaping both the *point* of work as well as its processes. Forging new economic models can forge new definitions of work and radically alter the value structures upon which work rests - e.g., the work of caring, the work of reproducing everyday life - often the things we think of having to do *after* work (or hire someone else to do for us). It can give people the sense that they do have a say in the conditions of their lives. It can create ways of meeting needs that do not kill the planet.

These, to me, are profoundly political questions. From all of this, I need a focused research question for my grant writing. Anyone? Anyone?