American Family Values?
Sorry for the egoistic moment yesterday where I posted a picture of myself on my blog. Geez! Anyway...
Judith Warner had an interesting piece in Times Select yesterday (my apologies to those of you who aren't full-time students with a free subscription). It was about how the majority of mothers, working and stay-at-home, would prefer to have part time work (rather than full-time, or none). But, the costs are too high. Part time work doesn't pay enough and most part-time positions are in retail, service, and other non-professional industries, which exclude mothers with professional credentials. A large part of the problem is that most part-time jobs do not provide benefits, a major concern for parents (especially single ones who cannot piggy-back on their spouses benefits). What struck me as most interesting about this piece is the way evidence Warner gave about European family policies.
In Europe, significant steps have been made to make part-time work a livable reality for those who seek it. Denying fair pay and benefits to part-time workers is now illegal. Parents in Sweden have the right to work a six-hour day at prorated pay until their children turn 8 years old. Similar legislation helps working parents in France, Austria, and Belgium and any employee in Germany and the Netherlands who wants to cut back.
Even Britain has a (comparatively tame) pro-family law that guarantees parents and other caregivers the right to request a flexible schedule from their employers. European employers have the right to refuse workers’ requests, but research shows that very few actually do. And workers have the right to appeal the denial.
I find it very interesting that Europe - often held out by conservative Americans as vehemently anti-family with their low-birth rates and shirking of traditional marriage – actually comes out on top when it comes to family friendly policies. The US, on the other hand, fighting its endless battle for “traditional family values” has yet to put their money where their mouth is and actually enact policies that allow for the display and flourishing of family values. Any thoughts on why this is?
26 comments:
No thoughts on why this is. Well, maybe. U.S. has so much freedom that we have become free to do whatever we want. And greed and economics, unions, over paid CEO's, multi-millionaire sports icons, etc, makes our cost of living too high. In a nutshell, capitalism may be good for those who can "capitalize" on it, but not for the ones who are under the dominance of the system.
The New Castle News had a story about the Federal minimum wage going up 70 cents today. What I remember in it is this... "how can the richest country in the world make it impossible for a working person to succeed and then have to choose between food and clothing, or paying the rent.
Meanwhile, for those who are ambitious enough there is a way available to overcome the rat trap. They just have to seek it out... and it is not usually not easy.
It is available in my line of work and I would love to help someone get started.
I know, right? Why wouldn't anyone want to trade vibrant economic growth and low unemployment for 6-hour days? I think the easiest way to keep corporate pension and health-care plans here in the US solvent would be to make them add more, less-productive workers! It's too bad we can't turn the clock back 150 years when you could take your kids to work with you, hell, they could even start working when they're eight! How's that for family values!
But seriously, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to make family friendly legislation in countries without families? I mean, if no one is having kids, then not many people are taking advantage of the six-hour day, right?
Jack,
Even if I granted all of your points (which I don't), that has nothing to do with my post. What I was pointing out is the internal contradiction present in a culture that esteems family values but does not enact economic policies that are pro-family. In fact, some might say (and I might be one) that it goes beyond failure to enact and is actually often an open disdain for such policies (in the way for instance that you so perfectly displayed in your comment). It is precisely the population of Americans that would advocate "vibrant economic growth" through unbridled capitalism that also cry over abortions, single-motherhood, gay marriage, and that morally judge mothers who are forced to put their kids in low-quality day-care and anything else they see as a threat to family values.
Can you please stop the, "that has nothing to do with anything" line whenever someone disagrees with you? Maybe you feel like Jack's being rude, but that's no reason to get snobbish and act rude back.
I really don't want to get snippy here, but I think his point has a lot to do with your post. I think his point is that, despite what we might say, American Family Values are less important than American Economic Values in America. That's relevant, right?
His other point is that their legislation isn't family friendly - it's "me" friendly. I happen to think the legislation IS family friendly despite the fact that there are few "families" in Denmark, but it's a relevant comment either way.
America has some very un-sustainable economic practices, but the part of Europe you're referencing is quite worse. France has some of the most "family-friendly" practices of any modern nation - working more than 8 hours a day is illegal, and the government will help keep your salary going if you become unemployed. Unfortunately, this has lead to ridiculously high rates of unemployment (it's around 14% right now I believe) and a terrible economy in need of serious reform. To generalize, these countries all require corporations to pay lots of money into a system that doesn't require much of it's workers. As the rest of the world catches up, there's no reason to buy expensive widgets from France when you can buy the same widget from India. India sells it cheaper because they don't pay their people not to work.
That being said, I completely believe we could have our cake and eat it too in this situation. I really think America can make the 6 hour work day possible for people who want part-time work and keep a strong economy.
Part of the solution has to be fixing health care. As long as our employers have to pay for our benefits, and as lon as the cost of health care is so far, it's economically impractical to have employers pay that much overhead. Making health care cheaper and even removing the responsibility (and necessity) of employer-provided health care would go a long way towards fixing our problem.
We also need businesses to start accepting new models of employment. They need to be more open to part time workers and people who work remotely.
We also need to start focusing on the quality of work rather than the time spent working. Time for work is an unfortunate down-side of a democratized work force. Paying people by the task rather than the hour creates an incentive to work harder and faster, either to make more money or have more time off. It really works.
In general, I think our culture needs to require our businesses to respect the work-life balance more than they do. Europe's answer has been big government programs and legislation. I honestly think that we don't need that, and that people really WANT this kind of working environment. All it takes is a few successful companies to show how well this works and others will start to fall in line.
I think the company I work for right now is doing a really good job with this. Our schedules are incredibly flexible, our pay is good, our benefits are adequate. We can work from home, and throughout the company there's a strong emphasis on making sure the employees are taken care of. They've also just hired my wife into a part-time position that's both good for her career (she'll be learning project management skills for as long as she's interested in it, and can move to a different department if she decides she isn't) and something she can do remotely and continue when we have kids. It's really awesome and I'm very excited about it.
I think our company is proof that corporations can make work-life balances work without cutting the quality of their compensation or requiring a huge, economically terrible government system. We'll see where we are five years from now, but right now it's looking great.
This article is a good example of what Jacks means about the unsustainability of the "family friendly" economies in Europe. It's not exactly on the mark, but it's very relevant to your post.
France's unemployment was really 8.7%, according to wikipedia, in 2006.
Economy_of_France
The USA's was 4.4%.
yikes. I think our first order of business in Portland should be hugs all around.
"No, YOU'RE Michael Moore!!!"
I guess I don't have much going on here today.
*withdrawn*
Am I being a bit too sarcastic? Probably, but here's my frustration:
I think you're being selectively myopic about a lot of these things. I'm glad you're posting, and I'm glad you'll defend your points, but I think you've got to be a bit more honest about the implications of what you're advocating. Are there real benefits of growing your own vegetables? Sure, but it's really time consuming. If someone is working 70+ hours (or maybe 40-50 with another 10+ of commute time) a week like I was at my last job, am I really going to value it highly enough to make it worth it? Absolutely not. Are there some policies in Europe that could work in America? Absolutely, but advocating the European system in totality has a lot of implications that none of us want to deal with.
Excluding academia, which operates on a set of principles completely unsustainable in the business world, is it unrealistic for a company wanting to hire someone with an advanced degree to expect a forty-hour week? Not really. Hiring someone to work substantially less hours isn't a great allocation of resources- besides the fact that the cost of benefits is disproportionately high on American business, the employee will be even less productive than the hours would imply for the reason that they're going to have spend some time getting back up to speed every time they come in after missing normal work hours, not counting the waste of having someone else catch them up. Plus, training advanced workers is really expensive, and spreading that time out over a longer period of days has real costs to the company in terms of productivity, and in terms of paying for benefits. These are decisions that don't have negligible impacts on business, and anything suggested NEEDS to deal with these issues. There is a reason why Americans aren't leaving in droves to go work in Europe, and why the rest of the world is to come work in America. You can't just ignore this because it's inconvenient.
If the main point of many of your arguments is that humans need to be more honest about what they do and don't advocate, shouldn't that apply to you as well when you jump on the corporate-bashing train?
I just wrote a screenplay called “How Our Blog Conversations Go” (working title obviously, because I'm also thinking about "Les Cousins Dangereux" but I don't know what that means so who knows really what it will end up being). Anyway, the whole thing is pretty sweet. Here is how it begins:
Mair (in a calm, metered voiced): I think it is interesting how the commitments of conservative Americans regarding the family haven’t led them to support – or even to regards as worthy of consideration – legislative actions to regulate business practices that would strengthen the American family. Why is that?
Jackscolon (in a dismissive, condescending tone): Because you’re a stupid liberal who hates Capitalism…
Mair: I didn’t say I hated Capitalism, I was just pointing out a cultural contradiction in the commitments of the American right. As it turns out, they seem to be pretty stridently committed to two mutually-exclusive set of goods concerning the organization of American society and don’t seem to acknowledge that. I think it is worth pointing that out.
Redhurt (rolling his eyes and obviously fed-up): Look Mair, when Jackscolon says that you’re a stupid liberal who hates Capitalism in a dismissive, condescending tone, I wish you would take him seriously. Sure, he probably didn’t read what you wrote and, if he did, didn’t take the time to think about it, but he does make a good, on-topic point. Aren’t you a stupid liberal who hates Capitalism after all?
Jackscolon (red-faced): You’re a stupid liberal who hates Capitalism! Just like the other stupid Capitalist-hating liberals! Or, that’s what I would say if I were man enough to stick by my comments.
(awkward pause)
Redhurt: hugs anyone?
Jackscolon (stuttering and stammering): Look, here’s my point (he mouths "you stupid bitch") our moral code in America is Capitalism. And according to accountants, the high priests of Capitalism, the best way to do things is to be better Capitalists. And I just wish you would get that. We know making more money is the goal of any good society and I wish you would just stop missing that obvious point and trying to confuse our values and lives. What you’re saying would get in the way of us making more money and being better Capitalism… ist… er… izers.
(blank stares)
JMC (with a look of befuddlement): Jackscolon, I think you are trying to say that you don’t appreciate Mair’s assessment of American culture and corporate capitalism because the system of evaluation that she is employing is not a capitalist evaluation. So let me get this straight: you want to defend capitalism to us with the rhetoric, logic, values, and assumptions OF capitalism? Wow. And, also, just to clarify: Mair asked us to think about why American conservatives haven’t pushed for legislation for business restrictions that would strengthen the family even though they have pushed for other legislation to that same end and you somehow thought that you would use this occasion to defend corporate capitalism? (tumble weed or something rolls through).
THE END.
So I lied earlier: This isn’t how it begins, it’s sort of all I have so far, but I still think it’s pretty sweet. I really think I have a shot if I take it Hollywood or something, a real shot. And I know this guy, he was the key grip for “Days of Thunder,” so I practically have an open door to Mr. Tom Cruise himself. And, from what I hear, that means I’m at most only six degrees of separation for Kevin Bacon. “Shoot for the moon”, that’s what my dad always told me and, so, you know, here I am, shooting for it! I just think I’m really onto something; I mean, I think I really captured something here, I really, really do!
Hugs anyone?
I don't know if taking out one tangential sentence qualifies me as not sticking by my comments.
JMC interpreting: "Mair: I didn’t say I hated Capitalism, I was just pointing out a cultural contradiction in the commitments of the American right. As it turns out, they seem to be pretty stridently committed to two mutually-exclusive set of goods concerning the organization of American society and don’t seem to acknowledge that. I think it is worth pointing that out."
I don't buy this. I think there is very little in Mair's initial post to qualify it as a specific critique of the American right. To me, it's obviously a much more blatant contrast of the US vs. European system, hence my "dismissive, condescending tone" and my attempted defense of the American system.
In the comparison of two different styles of capitalism, I think that using capitalist tools to try to demonstrate the unsuitability of importing European communal policies piecemeal into an American individualistic system is fine and consistent. Weighting the systems on capitalist criteria (economic growth, rate of unemployment, etc...) clearly demonstrates the advantages of the US system, No?
Since we were obviously arguing apples vs. oranges, than I'll admit that Mair's "this has nothing to do with anything" comment is warranted, and I'll also say Redhurt's is too since I'm assuming he interpreted the argument in much the same way I did.
Fair?
If you want me, I'll be washing my Scrooge McDuck sheets.
Sincerely,
Jackscolon
XOXOXOXO!!!!
WOW! 3 comments:
1. Good God, can we try not to destroy group chemistry before going to Portland? Please?
2. Mair, I think this is an excellent post and is very "conservative" (e.g. not liberal), even though implicit in it is probably a denunciation of libertarian free market capitalism (which all "conservatives" should denounce). I am no expert in this field but I do feel that the comment about Europe's pro-family policies is correct (from what I experienced) and our lack of them is also correct. I have some thoughts on why this is:
1. Europe is much more family-policy positive because their birth rates are lower than any other country (GB at 1.5 and Fr at 1.2, others similar). To me this means that if the government doesn't give incentives the countries are going to disappear in a few generations (Mark Steyn, a war-mongering neocon wrote a good book around this issue, with of course a 'kill them all' mentality which I in my worst moments support). So the governments are trying hard to promote families because they are running out! (evidence which would refute this claim would be government policies for families being put in place before birth-rate drops; I don't have the data though).
2. America's "anti-family" legislation is I think due to the fact that America doesn't NEED to regulate YET. Our birthrates are hovering right around 2.0, right below replacement (2.1) from numbers I have seen. America being a pragmatic nation probably isn't making 'pro-family' polices because people are still technically pro-family, by the numbers at least. I think this is starting to change (we are following Europe soon, and it is not pretty!) but I don't think politicians are willing to make the necessary statements to secure legislation (which would obviously change certain companies and business structures). I think we SHOULD start making more legislation to keep 'the traditional family' (no matter whether it was the exception to the rule or the norm - exception seems proven) together and developing but this is not an easy platform to run on as it sounds 'old fashioned' and chauvinistic (women working at home; you conservative bastard!). But unless we want to go the route of Europe (where the pro-family policies are either too late (my argument) or ineffective (if my first argument is refuted). Either way America needs to do some soul searching and that might mean ending our capitalistic dream for a more nuanced social structure. That said, no one can accuse me of being a liberal (Charles, back me on this, you liberal?).
Okay, forgot the original third point, but can I stress that blogs are not for riping each other apart (maybe someone needs to post on the 'drive-by' blogging incidents which I think we have all been victim to at one point or another).
All in all, thanks for the post Mair and I look forward to discussing this issue more in Portland!
Remember, I am not a liberal!
Yowza, I missed the bangwagon here. Fortunately I made the bandwagon for weird and outdated exclamations, so that's something.
I have nothing of value to submit, but I do find it an interesting contradiction. Jackscolon's probably right this is a case of money and comfort holding slight priority over professed values, but I agree with Mair that this is strange and noteworthy. I would furthermore add that our inability to even acknowledge these ideas in our societal marketplace makes Christian credibility strained, as far as I'm concerned.
But I don't appear in the screenplay, so my comments are exempt from scrutiny. Booyah!
Mair,
Sorry I'm a little late to this debate, but just a point for consideration:
There is nothing "natural" or "right" about the 40 hour (50/60/80 hour) work week.
The forty hour week/single income family began under Henry Ford, a system which came to be known as "Fordism" internationally, and which included not just an economic system, but a social system to support this iteration of the market system. Prohibition was tied to the factories wanting sober workers in the morning. The "own your own home" phenomenon is a result of industry promoting far-flung suburbs and the many automobiles you would then need to drive everywhere. The structure of the family was of central concern to Ford. The family became the locus of consumption of goods. (And I'm not a communist, just a realist. This is how the system has been set-up to replenish profits. Why do four year-olds need cell phones? Ever ask yourself that?)
As all of this was created, all of it can be recreated (as it often is, whether by individual businesses--though there has not since been any titanic figure like Ford--or by governments--such as France, which I think makes very unwise decisions for PROFITS although they are trying to help the family; this adversely affects the lowest echelons of their society. The middle to upper-middle classes enjoy the 35 hr. work week and 6 weeks of vacation, while the poorest cannot even find menial work (unemployment for Muslim youth in the suburbs of France hovers near 22%).
rj made some very cogent points, the best being:
"We also need businesses to start accepting new models of employment. They need to be more open to part time workers and people who work remotely."
The old model (dad drives to work at the factory, comes home to dinner at 6) simply does not fit the new reality of American industry. The information age may have arrived too quickly for industry's transformative capacity, but we can't turn the clock back. Workers, especially those interested in having a family-life, see this and are beginning to grumble for change.
Admitting that fact in no way makes one a "liberal commie pinko cheese-eating surrender monkey."
Refusing to see the inadequacies of the present system does, however, make one look a little naive. Capitalism is a system just as feudalism was a system. Those at the helm of feudalism's wealth may have also touted its wonders, efficiency, and natural rightness.
I, for one, would like to see a return of the landed gentry!
Wow. It seems like all I have to do to get some action around here is post anything slightly controversial. Nice. I'll try to do more of that.
Thanks everyone for your comments. Perhaps I should have been more explicit that this post was about what I see as a serious cultural contradiction and not about the merits of capitalism or socialism (though I agree with Hans that conservatives should be a little bit more skeptical of "libertarian free market capitalism"). I also want to show my cards here and say that, as a Christian, I tend to feel compelled to side with economic liberals who push for social justice and equality, feeling it my Christian duty to endorse "true religion" (see James 1:27).
I especially appreciate the comments of those (Hans and Marianne) who have a bit of experience with the European system and who are just elitist enough to want the landed gentry to return. I think even though Hans didn't say so, he's be on board. J. Morgan will help you all with a bourgeois revolution if you get bored with your graduate studies.
Mair -
1. supporter of landed gentry - you got me! How could a politically philosophical disciple of Russell Kirk, Clyde Wilson, Thomas Fleming, and the staff on "Chronicles" be anything but an "Old Right" paleocon! Now the real question (for a different day/post/portland visit) seems to be how 'landed gentry' works in a 'modern' society? I am trying to think through some of this especially since I think Marianne is substantially right about 'Fordism', although I would argue that something like 'Fordism' was always present in feudal systems and everyone except the aristocracy (which are also great - Edmund Burke forever!). If you or your equally brilliant husband make any progress on what agrarian/gentry society SHOULD look like in the midst of our cursed cult of the machine god, please let me know!
2. What I find interesting is this statement of yours:
"also want to show my cards here and say that, as a Christian, I tend to feel compelled to side with economic liberals who push for social justice and equality, feeling it my Christian duty to endorse "true religion""
Now, I also like to think of myself as a Christian and I personally think that 'economic liberals' are basically God-hating atheists. This to me is not a personal charge against Keynes, Kennedy, etc. but a philosophical statement against the enduring Gnosticism which has been the Hegelian ideology of liberalism for the last two hundred years (liberal is a dense word, as you know, so I am assuming you are using it in its normal parlance today as 'leftist' and not its more original meaning of 'educated in the great tradition' as Burke would have recognized it. If you are using it in a different way my comment is a bit off, so feel free to disregard).
You see, the classical tradition of ethics as founded by Aristotle in N. Ethics and Thomas Aquinas in S.T. stresses the local policies in economic issues as well as a stress on the person and family as central to all ethical thinking. If 'equality' was at all considered in ethics it was equality before the rule of law (Jefferson's Declaration beginning is anathema because it is blatantly untrue: people are not created equal - rather they deserve equal treatment in the law).
I think Eric Voegelin (New Science of Politics) has won the argument of liberalism stemming from Joachim of Fiora's millenerian speculation of perfect order working immanentally in history. Voegelin, to my mind, correctly saw this as nothing else but the abstract ideological trumping of classical truths about reality and predicted the future of egalitarian ideology which we find ourselves inslaved to by a technocratic society, even if not fully Marxist (although our big governments in both parties have been socialist leaning since FDR). Leo Strauss and the Chicago school has largely agreed with this claim, as well as theologians and philosophers in Catholicism as Balthasar and de Lubac, especially.
My point? I think that as a Christian we have been lied to about 'true religion' and 'equality', especially since the Christian concept of God is all about difference as Trinity. The current 'liberal economics', not to mention social policies, seems to me to be based in a Unitarian/Gnostic concept of God which ultimately leads to atheism and the triumph of the State of Man over the City of God. As Voegelin always said "Don't immanantize the eschaton!"
So I don't think there is any contradiction in developing 'conservative economic policies' and Christian defense of true religion. What seems to be a contradiction in terms is Christian belief and 'liberal economics' because one is about transcendent difference and the other is about immanent sameness and hence negation. Now, as mentioned before, I am not a libertarian or uber-capitialist of any kind (in fact I think our critiques of those systems would be largely the same), but I don't think the answer is 'liberal economics' because that is based on a false ideology and view of reality. Rather I think we need something more ancient and true, a return to virtue ethics and familial responsibility in the personal sphere echoing out to the polis through local channels. Thomas Fleming recently wrote a book along the lines of MacIntyre on this.
How we get this 'virtue ethic' going in a liberal and atheistic system of government enslaved to inhumane values is a serious question and one I am not sure about. But a start needs to be made.
What do you think? Have I misread your use of 'liberal' or am I a raving ideologue (God forbid says Russell Kirk!) of a transcendent kind who is shouting in the wind?
Mair - two more things:
1. I hope my last remark didn't seem a personal attack along the lines of 'you stupid liberal'. You know I am in awe of your sociological knowledge and understanding and my only fear is that we ever disagree in such areas because you are most certainly bound to be right! In any event, I think you cultural analysis is dead on and this conversation needs to be happening in Christian circles because I think even there the myth of Gnosticism (that's my idol to sound out for now) is all-encompassing (what else is non-sacramental Christianity but Gnostic?). I think we are on the same side in this battle and look forward to hearing more from you on it!
2. To give an example of the Gnostic myth, I just ran across a wonderfully summary of it in a new (and excellent!) biography of Pope Benedict XVI (Redness, I know, but I think he is sharp!). From pg. 78:
"The Pope accepts the need to work for just conditions in society. But he rejects the illusion that man can create a perfect world in the here and now. This, too, is a black-and-white, Gnostic temptation that arises from revulsion against the real world (corruption, injustice, oppression), highly idealistic people are tempted to tear down the existing society to create a new and better one – a paradise that usually turns out to be nothing on earth (as we know from Marxist societies)."
It is not surprising that he and Voegelin exchanged letters form time to time, but he is more profoundly influenced by his friend, Henri de Lubac. Good Pope!
Hans -
Holy run-on sentences filled intellectually dense comments, Batman!!
Reply forthcoming. I am turning the cranks of my intellectual wheel to see what spins out. I don't want to half-ass this one.
Hans, thanks for joining the discussion. I have some questions and comments for you based on your second to last comment.
Your second point, as I understand it, was that classically conservative economic principles are not incompatible with a Christian worldview. I completely agree with that. “Economic principles” are flexible things, and I’d hesitate to say that any economic philosophy was pro forma incompatible with Christianity. Is Christianity directly relevant to our economic views? Absolutely. So could you be a Christian Marxist or a Christian anarchist? Maybe--I’d want to have a full discussion about it before saying “No way.” But that’s what you do right here:
“What seems to be a contradiction in terms is Christian belief and 'liberal economics' because one is about transcendent difference and the other is about immanent sameness and hence negation.”
First of all, I’m not clear in what sense you’re using transcendent difference, immanent sameness and negation. Those are complex philosophical terms. Also, if you asked us all to define liberal economics, each person would have a different view. Do you have specific policies in mind, or a specific “current” of ideas and programs, or specific politicians? Apparently someone
“…predicted the future of egalitarian ideology which we find ourselves enslaved by a technocratic society.”
Is this we yuppie bloggers, we Americans, or we Earth dwellers? Who enslaved us?
“I don't think the answer is 'liberal economics' because that is based on a false ideology and view of reality.”
That might definitely be so--I would just need you to make the case before I agreed with you, and I’m uncomfortable saying that liberal economics is necessarily Gnostic, godless, and Hegelian until you do. (Remember, today’s liberalism could be Gnostic, godless and Hegelian without being necessarily so.)
Most of us who blog here have unique combinations of views. You and I both worry about many of the same things, yet we vote differently. I think that’s an incredibly complicated issue and I’m interested in exploring it. You referenced a number of thinkers who I’m not familiar with to support your case--I apologize for not being able to take the discussion directly to them.
I’d appreciate you elaborating on the interesting issues you brought up.
Mair - sorry about the run on sentences, I have a penchant for them and they resemble the inner monologue going on in my mind! When reading over them I find it easy to mis-interpret what I am saying because there is no syntax really. Like my point about Voegelin winning the argument: it could read Voegelin winning the argument of liberalism or the correct point that Voegelin won the argument THAT liberalism... Apologies for all reading, maybe best to ignore my comments and let me rant in a corner!
Charles - I am going to keep this comment brief because 1. this is well outside the scope of the original post, 2. we are all going to be in Portland together and seems like it would be beneficial to discuss in person, 3. blogger is awful at serious discussion because of the misinterpreting issue and the inability to clarify or understand the aim of a question for clarification. Overall there are too many assumptions involved in protracted blogger discussions which easily lead to frustration and are very unhelpful. So I will answer the points to some extent but think we should postpone any serious discussion until we are together. Make sense?
So, to your questions briefly:
1. I think you got it right that I think economics is not 'value-neutral'; in fact I would say nothing is value-neutral. Everything which is involved in human culture is necessarily a product A human culture and therefore based in a specific set of philosophical underpinnings or frameworks; whether this is implicit or explicit. I think the idea of a 'neutral' issue that is at all serious (picking socks MIGHT be neutral, but even there I am suspicious) is false and should be shouted out as such. Remember, everyone has a metaphysics and a philosophical lens through which they order the world; those who say they don't have a really crappy one.
I think you get this point so i am just affirming your recognition since I don't think it needs to be argued due to the vast amount of scholarship in the last 60 years on the subject (see Michael Polanyi for one example among many).
2. Transcendent difference (TD), immanent sameness (IS), and negation are serious philosophical terms, but I feel comfortable using them in this group because I know you are all well read or can use the internet. In short, TD is the basic thesis that life is essentially about unbreakable difference (a postmodern theme) because God in Christian terms is irreducibly three in one. Because he is a dynamic and personally communal reality all creation is ultimately based in difference over against similarity. This is set up against the Hegelian dialectic which assumes that after thesis and antithesis comes synthesis and a common ground. Christianity should reject this as false because there can be no 'single ground' in a deep sense in creation. How this works out practically in one example, is the sexual difference in human beings. We are not androgynous beings but rather male and female; there is no such thing as a 'human being' but rather male and female humans. This was picked up in second wave feminism in the works of Luce Irigaray but is obviously quite old and the misunderstanding of sexual difference has led to all sorts of societal evils in my mind (and others, see John Paul II in "Love and Responsibility" and "Theology of the Body", for example). In any event TD is about the ultimate separation but interaction of different beings in a world based on difference as individual images of the Triune God.
Immanent sameness is the reverse of this, obviously, and stresses that we are more or less 'alike' when you get rid of nasty things like cultural differences, sexual differences, educational differences, etc. Boiling off all that makes us who we are IS says that deep down there is a commonality which NEEDS to be striven towards; hence all Utopian thinking in broad strokes. Politically this turns into some falsely conceived 'egalitarianism' where everyone gets the same money, resources, education, family, chances, graces, you name it. It is about "leveling" in this framework.
Negation is in my terms what results in this IS since it removes all that makes us different (but human; difference is good, right? Who would marry themselves?) and therefore ends up with nothing but a denial of humanity (and also God, if you have followed the argument from the beginning). Hence it is the ultimate negation painted over with a false Idea of reality.
3. Liberal economics - of course different people would say different things! I tried to define the term 'liberal' in shorthand for egalitarian and current democratic policies, but obviously everyone's exact idea of 'liberal economics' is different. But I think you know what I mean, right? Liberal economics seems roughly to be a leveling of the playing field in terms of taxation to re-distribute wealth and centralization of different agencies (like health care) under the State. Basically I mean State-ism as shorthand for liberal economics and I think we all know the differences between blue and red tax policies in broad terms. But as we get narrower in the discussion this requires clarification, which is fine. I hope that helps with the clarification.
I should note that 'liberal economics' is not limited to 'liberals' or democrats; much of Bush's neocon policies have been under the liberal economics label since they involve much more State control than any good conservative would dream of! This is why National Review can be as trenchant a critique of Bush as the New Yorker.
4. technocratic society - well, obviously not all earth dwellers yet; but let's go with Americans and most Western nations; anywhere where iPods are more popular than reading books. Broad brush did you say? Of course! But I think you know what I mean since this ties into the 'landed gentry' and the perennial 'no laundry at work' conversation.
5. Necessarily Gnostic - this would require much more sophisticated argument, although I think the broad outlines are in my comments (and I am sure J. Morg and Mair could give the reasons as well). The rough genealogy of modernity as starting with nominalism (new Gnosticism) in the 14th century has been aptly sketched out by thinkers such as Richard Weaver (Ideas Have Consequences), Henri de Lubac (The Drama of Atheist Humanism), Hans Urs von Balthasar (Glory of the Lord, vol. VI and V), and especially Eric Voegelin (New Science of Politics; Order and History vol. 3 and 4; and Science, Politics and Gnosticism). If you want to see the move to necessarily I would recommend one of those, Eric Voegelin being the shortest and best introduction from a non-theological standpoint (although Weaver is more political as well).
6. Complicated. I totally agree! I think we have roughly the same aims and objectives in political life (solid family values - back to the original post!, promotion of Christian morality, sex pipes, etc.) and I find it really interesting that you vote for Democrats while I always vote Republican (although I imagine both of us do so half-heartedly). What interests me most is why you think Democrats like John Kerry will advance the Christian morality and culture which Western Civilization is built on (and I don't mean prayer in school). I think the discussion of why we all vote the way we do would be great although that is also very personal and needs to be carefully discussed. Maybe Portland can start some of this?
Okay, I know I meant not to write too much, but there it is with some clarifications. I don't imagine that will be perfect (as per my intro comments) but at least it might help define some of my terms and my orientation toward political reality. Do read Eric Voegelin though, I highly recommend it!
I'd marry myself.
Hey Everyone...
If you look at the length of these comments you can see why we need a 50-60 hour work week.
Is anyone working out there?
Write your congressman with the same emotion as your posts and maybe something can be done to correct the problems we post on.
hans: so much for being brief, eh?
gregry: If anything the posts are an example of why we DON'T need a 40 hour work week. People can post this much at work and still get everything done.
The problem with the work week is that most people who can will slack off. I don't know what the proportions are, but I'm going to risk a huge generalization and say that in most upper-middle class jobs in the world, for every X hours a person works, they spend Y hours doing something that doesn't translate directly into a benefit for their company, isn't in their job description, and probably detracts from the time they spend earning money for their company.
So while we certainly could get more done in the time we've been allotted, and accomplish the same in 30 hours that we're doing in 40 now, if you simply require us to work 30 we won't. That's France's problem - they decreased the work and decreased the slacking, but only in proportion to the work, so they're getting less done.
A solution in businesses where it's possible is to pay by the task and not by the hour. Pay me X dollars to build your website and I guarantee I'll do it faster than if you pay me by the hour. give me a deadline it has to be done by to keep the schedule. Most people will push themselves harder and get more done when they realize that working smarter and harder directly results in more income.
Mair: To stick with the original post, again, I just think Americans show family values in different ways. I think you've got a point, and it is interesting that our values don't translate as directly into work schedules right now, but they do translate in other areas that Europe doesn't measure up in. We value a family's autonomy/freedom and flexibility over their time. De Toqueville called American's restless because we build and buy and sell and aren't content with what we own - our family values translates into the right for the worker to constantly improve his family's situation rather than his right to spend time with his family.
I think there's something to be said for our values, and that other related issues cause them to be what they are, but from this limited perspective I have to agree that there's probably greater value in striving for a life well lived than a life full of good material investments or a life of provision. Well lived can mean many things, but part of it has to be spending time with the people you love.
that's my 11th hour 2 cents. :)
RJ, good point on the amount of slacking by slackers at work.
I just received a magazine that has results of a survey of 559 full- or part-time workers regarding the amount of personal tasks they do at work. All results are per day.
Average for all employees: 36 minutes
Men: 44 mins.
Women: 29 mins.
Age 18-34: 45 mins.
Age 35-64: 32 mins.
Age 65 and over: 17 mins.
Small sampling though. Full results are available at www.officeteam.com/pressroom.
Post a Comment