In our class discussion of Piercy's "To Be of Use" this morning, we began to wonder what exactly is meant by WORK. I just want to add a couple of my thoughts here.
A number of you mentioned that there is always an ultimate goal or purpose involved in "working". I agree with this idea wholeheartedly. However, I am not sure if there is a single goal/purpose that can encompass all manner of work. I am not convinced that we can state such a "universal" goal/purpose of work, because "work" is merely what one defines it to be, and while one person may consider a certain activity as "work," another person may disagree. In essence, there is always the issue of conflicting definitions due to variances in peoples' extensional and/or intentional worlds.
Yet at the same time, I feel as if there should be some way to describe a universal goal/purpose of work. If I think about why people generally "work," I can note certain commonalities between these motives or reasons (wealth, satisfaction, prestige, etc.). This then makes me realize that we should in fact be able to state a universal goal/purpose of work. Moreover, I think that this universal goal/purpose of work (whether or not it actually exists) would be related to "The American Dream." But indeed, the two terms "work" and "The American Dream" are at the top of the abstraction ladder, so perhaps I am not really drawing much of a conclusion.
What are your thoughts about a "universal" goal/purpose of work, and if it exists, its possible relation to "The American Dream"?
(Janet Lee)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Hello it's Jenn
I think one goal that can be universally accepted is to make the world a better place to live in. Obviously a universal goal must be worded so it is at the top of the abstraction ladder(even than the word work)to be accepted worldwide. I believe every work has a purpose even it's just to waste time or to be productive, and this universal goal can somehow be the reason for doing that particular work.
Everyone can interpret 'American Dream' differently. The most common definition of American Dream is becoming rich and famous. Working hard to make one's American Dream come true may eventually lead to his contributing to making the world a better place to live in (at least for him).
(Jennifer Park)
Yes, it is possible, yet very unlikely that we're working to "make the world a better place". That sure does sound nice but, I hate to break it to you: we're not philanthropists. In fact, I find us to be a very selfish group of people. It sounds harsh, but think about it. We work to better ourselves. We study and do homework to benefit ourselves and our grades. Is it natural to be selfish?
Have emotions such as these, then, inspired the pursuit of the American Dream? It symbolizes a life of relaxation, yet Marge Piercy has the gall to categorize us as useless if we do not commit to her definition/metaphors of "work".
I feel that work is anything that consumes energy. Walking, thinking, running, jumping: they're all some sort of work. There are different sorts of work, and this may be why our definitions conflict. There is mental work, intellectual work, social work, emotional work, you name it!
We have established that Marge Piercy utilized metaphors of physical activity to represent other work (not necessarily on the farm). I can't help but notice that she used a lot of reference to team effort, and I wonder if this could further help us to define the word "work".
Has work these days become so shallow that we commit to a task only if our efforts will be put under spotlight or in a showcase? I feel that Marge Piercy's answer to this questions would be a big ol' YES.
(Sam Maliha)
'I feel that work is anything that consumes energy.'
But what about things like smiling and laughing? It takes energy to do such things, even though such energy is small in comparison to exercise, but aren't really considered as work.
I agree with Janet's definition of work. However, I don't think that it is possible to have a universal goal/purpose of work, mainly because this definition of work is too broad. Therefore, I don't think that we can make a conclusion about whether work is done selfishly or not, especially when there are many exceptions in both cases.
Also, I don't think that Marge Piercy is 'categorizing us as useless if we do not commit to her definition/metaphors of "work"'. Once the poem is published, isn't it no longer just her poem? Therefore, aren't those definitions/metaphors of work OUR definitions/metaphors that we created after reading, analyzing, and interpreting the poem? Maybe Piercy did not mean it that way at all. Perhaps, it was just our connotations of the words that made us believe that she meant. I don't think that we can make such a bold conclusions about what she meant by her words and how she views others by how they 'work'.
Well, since I defined work as "anything that consumes energy", then yes indeed, I do think that smiling and laughing can be considered to be work. The brain sends signals to the nerves, causing you to do these things. You have defined work differently, and that may be why you don't classify these two actions as "work". Yet they abide by my definition.
The poem may be ours now, but it was once Marge Piercy's. She must have had some type of opinion when writing in the poem, right? Afterall, she is the author. I was merely making an effort to interpret her chain of thought, not mine. Regardless of what we may say, that does not alter her own train of thought.
I often question how extensively we should be able to stretch our interpretations of the author's thought process. But since it is "our" poem now, I think that we each have the right to stretch and fold and complicate our reasoning just because that's what we specialize in as AP Language students.
(Sam Maliha)
What I wanted to suggest in my first comment was a possible universal goal that can be accepted by everyone who does some sort of work.
Sam, I know that we are not all philanthropists. I was just suggesting a possible motivation to explain why everyone works. Yes, we are selfish and we compete each other to look better. However, I believe, regardless of our nature, that our society(especially a capitalistic society) encourages competition for our wealth can be limitless.
When I read Mary's comments, suddenly a thought came into my mind. Since Marge Piercy is just expressing her own opinion, no one can say she's right or wrong, but we can certainly disagree with her.
Most of writings are written to persuade the audience. Was Piercy's intention while writing this poem to persuade the future readers so that they can have the same thoughts and beliefs? I feel like if her true intention was to persuade the audience, she should have been clearer in what she meant by the specific words in her poem.
(Jennifer Park)
Ok, so when reading through everyone's comments I realized that we seem to be fighting over the definition of work. And that's great, but I don't think that is what the argument should be about; it should be about "real work."
From a scientific perspective I believe Sam is right, work can be defined as anything that requires energy. However, what is real work? Real work is what Marge Piercy was talking about in that poem, not just any pointless insignificant work, but work that mattered.
On Friday I tried to define this real work as doing something with a particular goal in mind. However, that could apply to anything couldn't it? "I walked down the stairs." That's real work right? I had the purpose of getting to the bottom. That counts doesn't it? Truth is, I don't think that's what Marge Piercy would call "real work", or frankly any of us would call real work.
So what is real work? I think a better way to define real work is; "doing something in order to significantly impact one's life for the better." I think this definition works better because if you think about it, that's why most people work. My parents, like many of yours, work in order to bring home a paycheck. This paycheck helps to support our family, and ensures that we can get along reasonably well. So doesn’t that fit the definition? I’m sure you may be able to come up with one counter example or another, but I feel that this definition is as good as any. Furthermore, you may challenge my definition by asking, what is significant? The truth is I think that needs to be left up to one’s own discretion because that definition could vary. However, I definitely think we all have a similar unspoken understanding of what that word means. What do you think?
(Kevin Trainer)
I definitely think that the concepts of "work" and "The American Dream" are related. Even if work isn't technically a part of the American Dream (work is not luxury, for most people), a person must usually work in order to achieve the American Dream.
Regarding Marge Piercy's poem, I believe that Piercy is defining "the thing worth doing well" as something that helps a person fulfill his/her purpose in life. After all, she says in the first stanza:
"The people I love the best jump into work head first... They seem to become natives of that element..."
"The work of the world is common as mud" I think referst to all the things that people do that does nothing to help them fulfill their purpose. Piercy uses the example of the vase to make her point. The vase can sit there and look pretty, but that's not what it was made to do.
In relation to the American Dream, many people spend their lives working jobs that they don't necessarily like, in order to earn enough money to make their lives luxurious. But why do many of these people feel like they are missing something? Maybe they are not working to fulfull their purpose in life.
This leads to a question that I have-- is the American Dream by the "standard" definition (aquistion of happiness by way of money and luxury) actually acheivable?
I'm kind of scatter-brained right now, so I hope this makes sense...
Emily Thompson
As I was reading Kevin's post, something occurred to me. His parents "work" to earn a paycheck which serves to adequately provide for the family. Kevin's parents have a priority: caring for their children. Then isn't "real work" defined by one's values?
Then this leads me to think: What did Marge Piercy value? She was an activist for women's rights, according to the introduction in "Literature for Composition".
The pitcher cries for water to carry
and a person for work that is real.
(Piercy)
Upon re-reading this poem, it does seem to me that Piercy's metapors about work could be applied to the feminist movement. Maybe, just maybe, women are crying for work that is real. Maybe they are battling against the glass cieling.
It is also possible that "To Be of Use" and "What's That Smell in the Kitchen?" are related. The wife's work is no longer appreciated, and she has thus sought to sabotage it instead. What was once considered "real work" for the woman is evolving, and such a movement constitutes war. This may be too much of a stretch.
(Sam Maliha)
Hey, this is an attempt to answer Emily's question.
I think we each have our own idea of what the American Dream may be. My personal definition of the phrase is total satisfaction with oneself. You don't need a Mercedes or a mansion to have fulfilled the American Dream. This actually brings me to another question: If America is considered to be the "melting pot", why are we set on defining the American Dream absolutely? Interesting.
But if you do want to use your definition(aquistion of happiness by way of money and luxury), I think that the American Dream is attainable to a certain extent. But what about those who have wealth yet still lack happiness? Or what about those who are quite content, yet lack wealth?
We live in a capitalistic society, and thus we believe in "unlimited wealth". (I think Dr. Bjornstad said this once. Correct me if I'm mistaken.) The Dutch discovered earlier on that capitalism leads to a lifestyle with built-in social mobility. So using your definition, I do believe that it is possible to live the American Dream, to a certain degree. I include this qualifier because there will always be someone who is wealthier or happier than you..that is my belief, at least.
Hope this made sense!
(Sam Maliha)
The concept of "work" certainly is open to many interpretations. However, I would prefer not to use the "scientific" definition: anything that consumes energy. As Kevin said, Piercy seems to be referring to "real work": work that can be as common as mud but is needed for the world to function.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. To me, that's what Piercy's poem seems to be referring to. She praises the people who approach life head-on and throw themselves willingly into their work, people who are willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done.
Now, we can argue all day over what our interpretation of work is. But Piercy seems to be referring both to the daily tasks that keeps the world running ("the daily grind") and the larger, more idealistic long-term goals many of us work toward. She tells us that a person cries out for "work that is real." The type of "work" that Piercy doesn't want is that of "parlor generals": people who stand around, pretending to "manage" everyone else without actually doing anything.
However, I do not believe that there is a universal goal for all types of work. Piercy might prefer that work be for the benefit of mankind, and she praises that type of work in her poem, but of course we in the real world work for varying motives and goals.
On another note, Mark Twain came up with something that interested me: "Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do. Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do." But doesn't Piercy tell of us people who willingly "jump into work head first", perhaps because they genuinely enjoy that work?
(Eric Wei)
Having read your comments, I have a better understanding of what Piercy might have been trying to convey in her poem. I can see now that a "universal" goal/purpose of work would be hard to define, since many of us have different views of what exactly "work" constitutes.
To answer Sam's question, I think that what each of us considers to be "real work" is in fact dependent upon our personal values. If we define "real work" according to Kevin's definition ("doing something in order to significantly impact one's life for the better"), then certainly each of us may think differently about what such "significant impact" would constitute. Because people place importance on different values, their motivations for "real work" can surely differ as well.
In response to Eric's comment, I think that Mark Twain would indeed have disagreed with Marge Piercy. While Piercy believes that people are inclined to "jump into work headfirst," according to the quote Eric provided, Twain seems to believe that people are inclined to feel "obliged" to work.
Eric's comment reminds me of a question that I have regarding the "American Dream." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that one day in class, Mr. Lazarow suggested the following: while people wish to work hard in order to achieve success (and thus fulfill the "American Dream"), one of the reasons they do so is that they want to have unlimited leisure time (and not have to "work"). If I am not completely mistaken about this idea, then I ask, isn't the "American Dream" then a paradox? Is "work" perhaps distinct from the "American Dream"?
(Janet Lee)
I think that Janet raises an excellent question. However, I personally do not believe that most humans aspire to have unlimited leisure time. I think it is a matter of personal preference, but I am sure that a large number would continue to work even if money were no longer an issue for them. A family friend of mine who used to be the athletic administrator at Shawnee High School is technically "retired", but has become a part-time chef because cooking is one of his passions. Just because he does not have unlimited leisure time does not mean that he has not accomplished the American Dream.
Another example of a similar situation is in the movie Forrest Gump (I know that I shouldn't make references to works of fiction, but I couldn't resist). Forrest Gump eventually accumulates so much money that it is not necesssary to work for the sake of maintaining an income. However, he continues to perform his job (mowing grass) for free because he enjoys it so much. Is the work that he is doing diminished because he does not have a clearly defined goal or because it is not necessary for him to work?
(Paige Schlesinger)
Where is the line drawn between work and leisure? I think that is where there are different interpretations of the American Dream. Mr. Laz mentioned that one of the reasons to work is to have unlimited leisure time. But what if the work is leisure? Then is it work? On the other hand, I agree with Janet. In some cases, people don't like their jobs but work in order to gain leisure. In that case, though, wouldn't the American Dream be a paradox? Unless work is distinct from the American Dream, as Janet suggests, and the American Dream only occurs when one doesn't have to work any longer.
From these thoughts (I hope they're not too confusing) I am beginning to wonder if work is something that a person wouldn't necessarily be inclined to do of his/her own free will, but must do in order to acheive a greater goal. In the case of the American Dream, work doesn't have to be liked, but if it ultimately leads to unlimited leisure, it's worth it. (Paradox? Spending time to acheive time-- is anything actually gained?)
I see the American Dream as a quest not only for leisure, but also for material goods and wealth. Yes, maybe this is my definition, but I think that many others in this country share my definition, whether they think they do or not. Why do we work hard in school? We want to go to a good college, so we can get a good job, right? What constitutes a "good" job? One that allows us to aqcuire wealth, or one that we are passionate about?
I guess my point in asking the question "is the American Dream actually acheivable?", from one side, most likely not, because very few people can gain unlimited leisure. The definition of the American Dream that I gave does not seem fulfilling, though. I think some people have fallen into the trap of having all the material goods that they could ever want, but still feel empty and unfulfilled. The "American Dream" is deceiving-- it does not automatically equal happiness. I believe that wealth can never make anyone truly happy. Fulfilling or attempting to fulfill one's purpose in life is the only thing that can make a person happy. Having a job that you love doesn't have to be work, it can be leisure, in the sense that we enjoy what we're doing. We don't necessarily have to "work" to acheive our goal of fulfillment. In this sense, I think the American Dream is faulty because it seems to imply that "work" is necessary for fulfillment.
I hope this all makes sense...
Emily T.
Emily, I do follow your reasoning. From the way I interpret what you stated, in a way you have explained that "work" and the "American Dream" are in fact distinct by stating that "we don't necessarily have to 'work' to achieve our goal of fulfillment." What are everyone's thoughts on this?
Emily also raised the question, "is the 'American Dream' actually achievable?" This is an intriguing question, and I think that it is difficult to answer because of everyone's differing definitions of the Dream itself. Also, how do we determine when one has "achieved" this Dream? Wouldn't such standards of "fulfillment" would be set down by the individual?
Thoughts? Now I have confused myself...
(Janet Lee)
I think I tried to answer that question once before.
The "American Dream" has been achieved when you feel that it has been achieved. If you feel that your life is still missing some component, then you have not yet found your level of complete self-satisfaction. Party A could claim to have found its American Dream but be living in desolate conditions, while Party B could possibly still be searching for its American Dream despite its possession of great wealth.
I understand the paradox which some of you have defined. Yet if you're spending time to gain it, when happens later in life? Is the American Dream something that you achieve once and set aside because you know it will be persistent in its presence? Or is it something that must be maintained and cared for? I think that this is all dependent upon the type of American Dream which one has set out to find and retrieve.
So yes, Janet, I agree with you. Standards would indeed be set down by the individual. Just think of it this way.
A: Sally just purchased the nicest house with a bayside view!
B: Dear me, why would she do such a think!? I'd prefer a quaint little cottage in the mountains.
They have different dreams, different goals, and different paths that will lead to the ultimate prize. I hate to repeat this basic information, but the American Dream is based on one's intensional/extensional worlds, one's values. Our parents have taught us to reach for the stars, and we do so, by defining our American Dreams individually. Yet then again, our parents may not have taught us to reach for the stars -- that may be just our own personal prerogatives..hmm. Now I have dug myself into a hole!
(Sam Maliha)
I know it's kind of late to be adding to this... sorry :(
I think one of the things that I associate with the American Dream is the idea that it is individualized, but it's also not individualized. I hope this makes sense. Each individual has in his/her mind what s/he thinks the American Dream is, in general, for everyone, not necessarily what it should be for him/her. As in, to the individual, it is a dream that many people share, but the individual fails to realize that people interpret things differently, therefore it is impossible for everyone to share the same dream.
For example, an individual might think that the American Dream entails the aquisition of wealth. This person thinks that gaining wealth is the goal of every American. But, really, is that the goal of every American?
If that makes no sense, then I hope a question will be easier to understand: If a dream is labelled as the "American" dream, doesn't that imply that it is the common goal of Americans? If so, then wouldn't there be a universal goal that everyone shares? But we know that this is not possible, so wouldn't that make the idea of an American Dream quite deveiving? I think that is what I was trying to get at with the first two paragraphs.
Emily T.
Post a Comment