Tired Eyes - Craft and Capability
Tired Eyes is an initiative looking at attitudes to work that cause prejudice towards people with mental health issues.
Today my post is about the concept of capability. I've met many intelligent people with mental health problems who, despite their potential, are either not in paid work or are in low-skilled work. This is not due to lack of skill but an inability to cope with work pressures.
I personally believe that we are banging our heads against a brick wall if we challenge this underemployment - a form of discrimination - without challenging conventional attitudes to work capability itself.
When in work, employers and colleagues worry about the "reliability" and "capability" of people with mental health problems. I see the heart of this problem being the modern link between time and skill. People are regarded as skilled when they not only have skilled attributes but are also able to work under "pressure", with tight deadlines. This concept of skill excludes many of us from our potential.
Another perception of skilled work is the idea of craft. When we think of a craftsperson, we think of someone who puts loving care into making a quality product that will be built to last. Time is of little value. The emphasis is on quality and durability.
Perhaps the modern link between time and skill is a product of the industrial revolution, summed up by Benjamin Franklin's phrase "time is money". Mass production has brought us many human advances but it has also brought many human and environmental problems too.
The Arts and Crafts movement of the late 19th century was a reaction against the dehumanising aspects of the industrial division of labour. Today, across the political spectrum there is talk of new economic structures with more cooperatives and charity run public services. Many of these ideas of a "social economy" are attributed to the movement championed by, amongst others, William Morris and John Ruskin.
Craft is something many of us yearn for. Instead of work being a hard slog, something to endure and be compensated for, many of us want our work to be labours of love, our time fulfilled and with the joy at completion of the highest quality product or service that will be used for many years. For this to happen, the modern link between skill and time needs to be broken.
I believe the promotion of craft is very important in helping all people improve their work-related mental health and subsequently helps people with mental health problems realise their potential too.
This is perhaps why, after almost six months, with little to actually show for my Open Up initiative, I am still feeling confident and optimistic. I have spent much time researching my ideas and am enjoying the craft of developing this intiative without placing deadline pressures that can so often paralyse. I am confident that sooner or later, perhaps later, the finished product of my craft will materialise and whenever that is, it will be a good piece of work, because the way I have approached this initiative is to value quality not time.
- Tired Eyes's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
work ethics
I have BPD so find it difficult in keeping jobs. I get over anxious and depression. I also get paranoid and suspicious so leads onto further stress.
I like the idea of arts and crafts. Many people I know like making things from wood to paintings. If linked with a farmers market or local centre on a sale or return basis I think it would work. Also If the local support groups that people 'have to attend' could liase .
I do graphic art and find it hard to think my work good enough but I have done art courses etc and people say how good they are . They give me honest opinion but I dont always see what I can achieve.
I am scared to deal with the legalities and what if i get ill again and what if I have to go to a medical. A million and one questions enter my mind to stop me doing things.
Creativity
Hi butterfly,
Thanks for posting.
Creativity is so important for all of us and it sounds like you are talented. I personally think the solution is to be able to dip our toes into the water, so we are not under pressure but get an idea of what we are capable of.
It sounds like if there are a few of you that like crafts, then perhaps see if someone could set up an exhibition? Then see what kind of response you get.
assumptions
I know that the government is pushing people into work which is causing a strain on the system .
I do not go out and do not take medication so wasting tax payers on drugs. I also have benefits but i also did work for the majority of my life.
I can do artwork which because of my compulsive disorder I have to finish, which is exhausting.
I am not prepared to dip my toe. If by saving money means not providing support then I am ashamed of the different charities supporting such schemes
Hi Butterfly, I am sorry
Hi Butterfly,
I am sorry I misunderstood before. What I mean is we should all have the right to be listened to and help to live in the way we need to be healthy. If that means not working then that should be respected. And there should be more effort to tackle discrimination in attitudes to disabled and sick people.
I meant dipping toes to do with art rather than money.
wow - such a lot of
wow - such a lot of interesting discussion on this blog! Rob, you always seem to get a lot of comments, maybe because your ideas are clearly explained and very engaging. It seems like people have a lot to say on the subject of work, perhaps we should move it to a discussion group so we can explore some of these themes further. Rob, how would you feel about setting one up?
Discussion Group
Hi Helen,
That sounds like a good idea, I had been considering that myself, as multiple comments after a blog get a bit confusing.
I'll have a look at what I have to do to set one up and if I am not sure how to set it up, I'll get back to you.
loneliness a bigger cause of stress than hard work
a major part of work happiness/unhappiness is certainly down to the level of stress caused by overwork etc. (not that I think you can do away with all stress - or that that is a desirable objective even).
But another - perhaps equally important factor - is having a sense of common purpose and of working in a team - in short the quality of the human interactions that underpin work. I think a lot of people these days suffer from not having a sense they are working in teams due to isolated home working - I certainly feel this myself. I think that, if I had a stronger sense of working in a team, in which there were people who shared my goals, then I could probably be more productive and engage in even harder work and cope better with stress! (this is particularly the case for my other job - the Open Up work feels more supported). The stress actually comes mainly from the loneliness rather than the amount of work. Another example perhaps of the elastic nature of stress and of how we can manage it better! What do people think?
whilst the work ethic is a
whilst the work ethic is a kind of tyranny that has many negative effects (but also some good effects) I think there have, historically, also been societies where rest, relaxation and leisure have great value put on them. But generally, you have an underclass that has to toil and pay for this. Take Roman society - the great mass of the plebeians (workign class) had no jobs, because Rome was saturated with slaves whom one didn't have to pay wages (the expense of feeding them etc was far less than paying a freeborn pleb). The plebs were even given bread and state allowance called the 'dole', as well as gladiatorial games to keep the masses entertained. That's why Rome was referred to as the city of 'bread and circuses' - and a very sick and dysfunctional society it was too!
So there is more than one kidn of tyrrany we have to be aware of - the tyranny of the work ethic, but also, the indolence of groups that rely on the exploitation of others (compare also the sweat shops in developing countries which supply the west with products) to lead a precious life. Where can we strike a happy medium?
The Value of Things
Hi Raza,
The Roman society is a great example of an exploitative society, so thanks for giving that example. I totally agree with questioning our ethics over the exploitation of labour in developing nations.
I don't believe it is a question of striking a happy medium as you put it. It is possible for people to work less worldwide and for there to be less exploitation in emerging and developing nations too. In fact I would argue it is vital that we work less in developed nations, so that people in developing nations have the resources to develop.
If we differ in our views Raza, may I suggest to get to the nub of the debate we need to argue about the economics of how we increase the living standards of people worldwide. More paid-work/productivity/consumption or a greater sense of value for people and resource?
Conventionally there is an idea that if everybody works hard (or aspires to a work ethic) then the sum total of productivity increases and the world has more wealth. Then through some as yet inexplicable means (Adam Smith's "invisible hand" perhaps) more people are pulled out of poverty.
If that was true, then the rapid global growth over the last few decades would have raised everybody's living standards worldwide. This hasn't happened.
In 1996, a target was set to half malnutrition from 1992 levels. Instead it increased from 824 million to over 1 billion people.
Some peoples' lives have improved, the urban Chinese for example. But this is not free of other peoples suffering. Poverty and exploitation in rural areas of China has increased. Rural people need a permit to live in urban areas which they can't get and are effectively exploited in the same way we exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labour in the West, depriving them of any basic human rights.
A way of explaining my point is to look at the rise in food prices that caused the poorest to go hungry and riot in the last couple of years. This was caused principly by the rise in oil prices as demand for oil increased with greater production, especially increased production in China to make consumer goods for the West. Secondly, as we reach Peak Oil and farmers look to profits from virgin biofuels, land is turned over for biofuels from agriculture.
The result is, whereas productivity and consumption continues to increase, food prices still rise and the poorest go hungry.
Incidently, increased demand in oil, triggered the financial meltdown too. Oil prices increased, prices of goods increased, people struggled to pay for goods and subsequently defaulted on debts.
And that is the problem as simply as I can put it. The work-ethic depends upon a conventional economic view that there is endless material resource. People want to be rewarded for hard work with consumer goods. To make those goods, many of which we don't actually need, we are increasing demand for precious resource and pushing up prices for necessary goods such as basic foods.
It is about supply and demand with finite resources.
In developed nations, the problems of the poorest people isn't due to lack of material resource (other than good quality social housing). Nowadays in developed nations, it tends to be the poorest people who suffer from ill-health related to over consumption, such as obesity and heart disease.
There is clear evidence that shows an increase of mental health problems in more unequal countries, including the wealthiest, due to the separation between aspiration and reality. People are made to feel inferior due to not having the latest goods and fashion. We are treated as failures unless we exhibit conspicuous wealth.
Then there is climate change to take into consideration.
So I hope I have given an indication (in this reply) that I am not arguing from a naive Western elitist viewpoint, but instead from an alternative view of economics.
Hi Rob, I think the
Hi Rob,
I think the relentless drive to maximise productivity has had some negative effects, as you have stated. But, would you say it has resulted in some positives too? For all their ills (and there are many), economic developments in India and China have resulted in hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty and being given the basics of plentiful food, clothing and clean drinking water. True living standards haven't risen equally across the board (the rich may have got exponentially richer), but absolute levels of poverty have certainly gone down. Would it be better if everyone was equally poor and living in squalor? Because that is the option I think. I don't know too much about Africa but from what I know productivity has not increased there anyway. Greater productivity is not necessarily always the driving engine of positive social change but without that how could you bring about the changes that are necessary?
By the way, time banks - as the name suggests - are very mcuh rooted in time - equality of labour hours to be sure, but still rooted to the idea of time.
I agree
Hi Raza,
Yes I do agree but I differentiate between developing and developed nations.
Developing nations still need to grow, so long as it is invested in infrastructure. There is no question that living standards across Asia has improved for many. But for many their lives have become unbearable.
However, take India for example, the region of Kerala has some of the best examples of improvements in living standards, such as live expectancy and literacy, while having far slower growth than Mumbai.
The US has one of the highest rates of GDP with huge amounts of wealth but there are pockets of poverty within it, in particular amongst urban African-American communities, that have living standards as bad as poor parts of Africa.
We don't need growth (and increased production) in developed nations because what we really need to improve wellbeing, is to improve society. That requires more people to spend time and effort in family and communal activities, rather than increasing GDP.
International statistics clearly show that growth (and thus increased productivity) is not the factor that improves wellbeing but equality. That is why The Spirit Level is such an important book, written by epidemiologists not politicians and yet respected and refered to by politicians across the spectrum, Conservatives, Liberals, Labour and Greens, the statistics are unequivocal.
So the solution appears to be bring measures to narrow inequality. Raise the minimum wage, create a maximum wage, or a maximum wage ratio (John Lewis is 75 times). Disencourage conspicuous consumption, which is principly about displays of cultural superiority.
agree we need more supportive
agree we need more supportive socal structures! and less economic inequality. more emphasis on wellbeing. And also developing our own resilience to survive and thrive in this world.
Kerala is a large state in India, whereas Mumbai is a city that has many of the problems associated with cities in developing countries - huge inward migration of very poor illiterate people for example looking for a better future (and often being disillusioned in the process), whereas Kerala has a more stable population. It also has had quite enlightened state government and traditionally high literacy rates. So for these reasons even with greater economic growth, Mumbai still lags behind on many indictors. But woudl it have been better if there had not been massive economci growth in India (caused largely byt he private sector, not the government - whcih made a hash of the economy under the socialist inspired policies of Nehru and Indira Gandhi)?
Kerala
Yes the comparison between a region and city wasn't equal I must confess. I don't know enough about Nehru and Indira Gandhi's type of socialism to know enough how India would have developed. But Cuba scores amazingly well on life expectancy and health indicators despite the US embago. I'm not saying all Cubans are happy though!
Here are quotes from Development is Freedom by the economist Amartyr Sen:
"It is, however, interesting that despite the rather moderate record in economic growth, Kerala seems to have had a faster rate of reduction in income poverty than any other state in India. While some states have reduced income poverty through high economic growth (Punjab is the most notable example), Kerala has relied a great deal on expansion of basic education, health care and equitable land distribution for its success in reducing penury."
He also looks at life expectancy:
"But in terms of country averages, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa do indeed stand out as the regions where short and precarious lives are concentrated in the contemporary world. Indeed, India alone accounts for more than half of the combined population of these fifty-two deprived countries."
"Some regions of India (with populations as large as most countries) do as badly as any country in the world."
Sen wrote this in 1999, so things may have changed since but India's economic boom was already advanced.
The problem is although some people are pulled out of poverty to create a new middle class, others are left in severe poverty permanently, with no hope of escape and even more isolated in society as a whole.
Am reading Fareed Zakaria's
Am reading Fareed Zakaria's The Rise of the rest - about the economic challenge of developing countries like China and India to the hegemony of the USA. It concentrates primarily on economic indicators and how that has impacted on poverty alleviation (rather than specific indices of happiness). Next will have Sen's book on my reading list in consequence of your recommendation. Happy rading!
Whilst it is absolutely true that there are huge ongoing problems with poverty affecting masses of the population in India, it is also true that the creation of a huge new middle class is a new phenomenon llifting hundreds of millions out of grinding poverty, and that is surely a good thing? The issue now is how to bring the rest of the country to a similiar level. The problem in Zakaria's view is that whereas China (for all its human rights and other abuses, lack of democracy etc) does nto subsidise masses of farmers who remain on economically unprofitable agriculture, but encourages them into cities (a painful process to be sure), in India, by contrast, the government spends huge amounts on compensation schemes to keep farmers where they are - thus delaying the pain of full modernisation and the move from an agrarian to a fully industrial age. But isn;t that the way to an economically more productive India? You cite Punjab as an example of where higher economic productivity has worked. I am nto saying that is the only factor in poverty alleviation - as you show in the Kerala example, but it is a factor of some magnitude.
Hi Raza, I do live in comfort
Hi Raza,
I do live in comfort in an industrial society and I certainly do not aspire to become a peasant farmer, so I recognise that my perspective is somewhat hypocritical. Although my ecological footprint is down to a globally sustainable level, so I am not entirely hypocritical.
I recognise the mainstream view is that if a middle class is created, that is a good thing as at least some people are better off and perhaps the rest in poverty can be brought out of poverty in the same way.
Alternative economists question this concept. They argue, when the middle class are created, those who remain inpoverished become even worse off than before.
Now the alternative view may be wrong and the mainstream view could be correct but this is why I think we are coming from different perspectives.
To give an example, one given by a green economists Richard Douthwaite, is the water table and an electronic pump. Say all the peasant farmers in an area use a donkey to raise water from a well. This has worked for centuries. The fields are low yeilding but they sustain families. Then one farmer, to increase productivity, buys an electronic pump. He can then grow a cash crop for healthy profit, requiring more water.
On the surface it looks like an act that will raise his wealth, bring more wealth into the area and has no effect on anyone else. But the electronic pump, by taking more water, lowers the water table. Now the other farmers have to take longer and work harder to get the same water. Alternatively they too can get an electronic pump but this will lower the water table further. They all have to borrow cash to get a pump and eventually the cost effectiveness of the pump declines because it has to use more energy to get the same amount of water.
A similar example would be car ownership, especially in rural areas. Before mass car ownership, everything was closer, shops, post offices, even hospitals. Nowadays, people without a car have huge difficulties as everything is further away and there isn't even public transport. So this is another example of one groups increased wealth having unforseen consequences on other less well off people.
The problem with the intensive model of agriculture is it is oil based. This has worked because we have been abundant in oil. Even though yeilds increased, the energy input is higher. How will it work when oil declines?
Also with intensive agriculture is we are globally eroding the top soil that took thousands of years to form. We haven't as yet found a solution for this catastrophic problem.
Another issue here that I would pick up on, is unprofitable agriculture a problem? Is profit the most important issue regarding food?
I personally think that the most important issue with agriculture is that we grow enough food for the world's population sustainably so that future generations continue to have the environment that we have.
the problem with quoting the
the problem with quoting the Art and Craft movement is that they were a bunch of upper class and very privileged people, who didn't have to worry about putting bread on their table, and could devote their whole lives to making the perfect (in their view) thing to their heart's content. But is this elitist vision really something of relevance for anyone outside a narrow circle?
I used to make papier mache models and lived in a shed for a year after my breakdown, it was my time away from the world and a necessary part of my recovery. They were perfect in their way, but did not have any utility beyond their value to me. I was lucky in being supported by friends in addition to the small amount of benefit I got for that period.
However, for the most part, the vast majority of people will always be constrained by time in their labour. Producing, say, one perfect basket in a lifetime may be very satisfying for the basketmaker (and that satisfaction should be its own reward), but that one basket does not have the utility of, say, 100 fairly well made baskets. Most people would pay more for 100 baskets (and this translates to profit for the basket maker) than for one perfect basket. Although you might strike it lucky and have your basket acclaimed as an art work and make millions!
I think terms like 'hard work' are all relative - not just differing between people, but people changing their definition of what constitutes hard work and stress. People can learn to deal with stress and hard work, through encouragement, good support structures and developing qualities like resilience which will help them to deal with pressure - which is after all an unavoidable aspect of life. Anyway that is my experience of coping with work. I think resilience is a very important concept that helps us to survive and thrive in life. 'Hard work' and 'stress' are not monolithic entities. How can we creatively deal with them and make them manageable, rather than attempting the impossible and avoiding them?
Can we all learn to cope with stress?
Hi Raza,
Another challenging post!
Whether they were all upper-class I don't know. That in itself isn't an argument against the principle.
I agree that terms like hard work are relative and differ. That is exactly why there should not be a taboo about questioning what "hard work" means.
My experience of stress differs. I know that whereas I can cope with short periods of stress, long periods of stress trigger a personality change. I am angry, suffer black and white thinking and even suffer mild delusions. Long term stress (even over weeks) has triggered psychotic episodes.
So the question here are all people capable of learning to cope with stress? I am skeptical. If we promote the idea that all people are capable, then it puts additional pressure and a sense of failure on people who continue to suffer stress.
The most important thing is that people judge for themselves what they are capable of. And that requires a radical rethink of attitudes to work.
Hi Rob, Great to engage in
Hi Rob,
Great to engage in debate and you pose some interesting questions.
I think that if we promote the idea that people cannot deal with stress, then there is a danger that they will be put off from developing resilience because of their lazy attitude (I know you will be keen to explore this term!). Developing resilience is like using a muscle - the more you use it the stronger it becomes. Resilience is surely the best defence against stress there is and by not developing it, people are doing themselves a great disservice (as well as lessening their ability to help others - you first have to put your own house in order). They will be restricting themselves unnecessarily in lots of ways - from getting jobs, from using trains, from going shopping - all of which involve a certain amount of stress. So whilst not going to the extreme of saying all people can deal with a 'lot of' stress, I think as a general rule, we owe it to ourselves to develop our resilience and train ourselves in how to cope with stress. And that certainly can be done, to some degree, by almost everyone.
Resilience
Hi Raza,
Well the difficulty here is that we have had different experiences. I as yet, have not fully developed resilience, although I have improved my mental health management by restricting stress.
I am not questioning your experience. By developing resilience you know that some/all people are also capable. It definitely is a skill that is worth trying to learn if we can.
Can you point me to any studies that show all people are capable of developing this resilience?
I certainly wouldn't discourage people to learn these skills. But there is a huge danger if the expectation is that all people are capable of learning and people are pushed to achieve something they simply can't achieve.
We all develop different capabilities at a very young age. That is why children from poorer backgrounds are a year behind children from middle class families in reading skills, when they start school.
Perhaps with an infinite amount of time and resource all people are capable of all things but what generally happens is that time and resources are restricted, and considered too expensive. So people are not given what they need to learn and when they don't achieve the desired results are derided for being lazy.
Secondly, there is social stress. All people suffer stress in their lives but it varies radically from family to family. And I would argue the most stressful lives are that of the poorest people. How about this as an example:
A professional man, for example, may well have a stressful job, but he may come home to a cooked meal, a nanny may look after his kids and his parents have funded their own retirement care home and are in good health. He doesn't have time to spend with his kids but he buys them expensive presents. He will probably live in a low crime area.
A working mother in a low-skilled low-paid part-time job, with tax credits, may be permenantly anxious about her employment, may have crippling debts, have children to look after, sick elderly parents who are struggling in a council home, with inadequate social care. Every time she leaves the house she is in fear of being assulted. And despite all this she still has time to listen.
Conventional culture will often value the man as a wealth creator and highly successful. He is working hard, long hours, contributing to the economy and employing others. The woman and her family will be treated as a liability, claiming working-benefits, her parents sapping money form the council, raising council tax.
Yet the woman is working flat out and still putting others first. Whereas the man spends some of his time relaxing, having everything done for him.
However much resilience we can develop, expecting the woman to cope equally as the man is obviously unfair as she has a far higher (but hidden from social view) level of stress to contend with.
So it comes back to my point that each person needs to determine what they are capable of. It is unfair for others to judge.
Hi Rob, You raise some very
Hi Rob,
You raise some very important points. I certainly didn't mean to say that others should judge what people are capable of if they are reliant on their own resources. But surely, where public resources are concerned, then there is a legitimate public role in judging who is to get what resource (since public resource are limited there has to be some rationing). The fact that this process is often unfair and skewed (for example, against mental health service users who do not have an obvious physical ailment when applying for benefits) does not invalidate judging and evaluating per se. It's the process we need to modify in line with enlightened principles, not throw out the baby with the bathwater I think.
I agree there are different kinds of work that are not in my view, adequately rewarded such as house work - which has a huge and demonstrable benefit to the wider economy. This is a matter of re evaluating what is valuable and how valuable - so judging and evaluating is still involved.
I will try and locate links to studies to developing resilience. In the meantime, I believe resilience is an elastic thing - it is not something you either have or don't have. Doubtless some people can develop it more than others due to environmental and genetic factors, and some may not need to develop resilience because they can easily get away from stress (they are most likely in a privileged position), but it is always there in some measure. And of course, there are limits to resilience - some things can cause it to break - and we need to be aware of where the line is. I think many modern societies are not good at knowing where the limit is and push people over the edge. But equally, I think this is in part due to the fact that we are not educated in how to become resilient - or to ask for help - and also lack of supportive social structures which can foster group solidarity and support in the face of common stresses. I believe what society as a whole needs to do, is to have better access to resources that help us develop resilience. I for one would welcome a meeting group for home workers for example. Come to think of it I will put up a poster in my local community centre!
By the way, I think often people west think that poverty in developing countries causes untold misery to the people there. Whilst agreeing that there are basics which everyone needs to live a fulfilled life, many rich people in teh west are extremely unhappy, whilst a poor peasant in India might actually be happier. This is because they have far better and more supportive social structures. This is nto meant in any way to glamorise poverty. As you put it, it is the level fo inequality that can be debilitating for a society rather than the absolute level of poverty
The Spirit Level....
Thanks for this tip, tired eyes, I shall look out for it..
I fully agree that the alienation of labour through the simplification of value to labour x time = some flat rate of value where skill = time x n to arrive at differentials for pay. It has a lot to do with mental health problems, and we have to recognise that those who don't have labels or other means of escape from these chains that bind us are also suffering as a result of labour relationship structures.
This is a massive battle but to identify it as a cause of mental health problems as well as a major block for those with severe mental health problems to re-enter the labour market for a range of reasons is great - because mental health is probably the biggest factor involved in lost days of work and of incapacity for work.
And this issue - work - is one that govenments are bound to listen to and count as important.
Concentration
Hi MM, I totally agree.
We judge work as if everyone performs equally at the level of one person hours. But we all have different rates and work well or badly in different ways. Two people could work for exactly the same amount of hours but one can be doing a lot more work than the other as they are better able to concentrate at that time.
This is why, as discussed in the NEF report 21 hours, peoples' productivity tails off after long hours and long weeks.
Hi there, yes I totally
Hi there, yes I totally agree. I feel my productivity does indeed fall away after a certain number of hours, and you have stimulated me to read the NEF report. I guess it partly depends on the kidn of work you do - I would imagine that creative and thinking orientated work productivity would drop even more than repetitive manual labour work after a certain number of hours, although both would probably suffer.
I think the other key to productivity is not just how many hours you work, but how supported you feel, what the quality of the human interaction is like, whether there is a strong sense of commonn purpose with other human beings youa re engaged in as part of a team. In my work, I often feel quite isolated as I am a home worker, I think the key factor affecting my quality of work is the lack of human interaction. I really enjoy the meetings I do have with my fellow workers and this is the best and most stimulating part of my time.
Another great post, thank
Another great post, thank you! When so many people with varied, amazing and unique skills are told that they are worthless because they can't fit into this specific model of being productive under pressure, you know there's got to be something wrong with the model, not the people! I think this also links in to disability justice activist discussions challenging the idea that only particular types of productive bodies are fully human (This maybe sounds a bit vague - I'll try to find some links...)
I like the way you take a historical approach to analysing different concepts - I am a big fan of historical context, I think it's a really important for understanding the way certain ways of thinking come t dominate and seem 'natural'.
Also, I was a bit surprised not to see the c-word anywhere in this post (i.e. capitalism!) - is this not effectively what you are talking about here? Or do you think it's wider than that?
Words
Thanks Terese, I really appreciate your compliment and comment.
I wouldn't use the word Capitalism in this context as it raises so many other issues. No less, because most people have their own meaning(s) for the word and they are all different. So if I used the word, then the reader would interpret my blog from their own perspective of what Capitalism means to them.
Secondly the word Capitalism still has huge power to divide us into two - Pro and Anti. This is perhaps because culturally we are still deeply influenced by Duality, perpetuated for centuries by Christianity.
To be clear and open about my own political outlook, I see things from a green-left perspective. I believe in sustainable economics (non-growth in developed nations) and far greater equality. If there is one book I would recommend to everybody, it is The Spirit Level. It is written by epidemioligists and has a whole chapter on mental health.
Good point - I see how using
Good point - I see how using that word is in a way reductive and will potentially mean people having very different reactions to what you're trying to get across. Personally from my own political outlook I do think that what may loosely be termed a capitalist framework is itself a big part of the problem in terms of unhealthy models of work, stress and capability. But at the same time there are of course a lot of changes that could be made even within this model so as to exclude less people from work and to make working conditions less stressful and more meaningful. Maybe it's about that combination of campaigning for smaller changes (achieveble in the short term) while at the same time also developing an analysis of the bigger picture.
Thanks for the book recommendation, will have to look it up.
I pretty much agree Terese.
I pretty much agree Terese.
I think we need the important small changes while keeping the belief that "another world is possible". I am interested in the open source movement which is enormously successful, so much so that even for-profit companies (like IBM) have become involved, even though it means sharing product for free. Timebanks are another interesting idea.