What is “work”?

Language changes as social context evolves and each of us interprets the words we use against the background of our own experience. Our experience stretches back in time, perhaps as far as our grandparents who told us stories of their childhoods, and forward to our expectations for our own grandchildren. Our sense of what is right and wrong, of what is possible, of who we are, is built on our words. Our word-experience creates a feedback loop with our social action, sometimes acting as a break to evolving contexts that would be beneficial if we let them happen. This blog explores our modern use of the word “work” and speculates on how we might be holding ourselves back by hanging on to an old definition that no longer resonates with our socio-technological context.

“Work” is unquestionably a complex concept. As the child of a literal-minded physics teacher I learned early that:

“Work is done when a force that is applied to an object moves that object. The work is calculated by multiplying the force by the amount of movement of an object (W = F * d). A force of 10 newtons, that moves an object 3 meters, does 30 n-m of work. A newton-meter is the same thing as a joule, so the units for work are the same as those for energy – joules”

(source: http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_work.html)

This is not what most people think of when I use the word today. They are more in line with Webster’s which begins by associating “work” with earning a living through employment and doesn’t get around to the physical concept of work until definition #9.

Screen Shot 2019-05-23 at 12.24.15 PM

 

work    noun

Definition of work (Entry 2 of 3)

1     activity in which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something:
a: activity that a person engages in regularly to earn a livelihood
// people looking for work
b: a specific task, duty, function, or assignment often being a part or phase of some larger activity
c:sustained physical or mental effort to overcome obstacles and achieve an objective or result
2     one’s place of employment // didn’t go to work today
3
a: something produced or accomplished by effort, exertion, or exercise of skill
// this book is the work of many hands
b:something produced by the exercise of creative talent or expenditure of creative effort : artistic production // an early work by a major writer
4
asomething that results from a particular manner or method of working, operating, or devising // careful police work // clever camera work
b:something that results from the use or fashioning of a particular material
// porcelain work
5
a: works plural : structures in engineering (such as docks, bridges, or embankments) or mining (such as shafts or tunnels)
b: a fortified structure (such as a fort, earthen barricade, or trench)
6     works plural in form but singular or plural in construction : a place where               industrial labor is carried on : PLANT, FACTORY
7     works plural : the working or moving parts of a mechanism // the works of a clock
8     works plural
a: everything possessed, available, or belonging // the whole works, rod, reel, tackle box, went overboard //ordered pizza with the works
b: subjection to drastic treatment : all possible abuse usually used with get or give //get the works // gave them the works
9
a: the transference of energy that is produced by the motion of the point of application of a force and is measured by multiplying the force and the displacement of its point of application in the line of action
b: energy expended by natural phenomena
c: the result of such energy // sand dunes are the work of sea and wind
10
a: effective operation : EFFECT, RESULT// wait for time to do its healing work
b: manner of working : WORKMANSHIP, EXECUTION
11   works plural : performance of moral or religious acts  // salvation by works
12: the material or piece of material that is operated upon at any stage in the process of manufacture
at work

1:  engaged in working : BUSYespecially : engaged in one’s regular occupation

2:  having effect : OPERATING, FUNCTIONING

in the works

: in process of preparation, development, or completion

in work

1: in process of being done
2  of a horse : in training

out of work

: without regular employment : JOBLESS
(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/work)

“Out of work” doesn’t mean there’s nothing to move, it means “without employment”. That’s the noun “work”. The verb “to work” is even more entangled with the notion of a market economy within which an individual sells his or her ability to move objects and extends the idea to include moving information.

Work  verb

 (Entry 1 of 3)

 

intransitive verb

1
a: to perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary // works in publishing
b: to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations // worked all day over a hot stove
c: to exert oneself physically or mentally especially in sustained effort for a purpose or under compulsion or necessity
2
to function or operate according to plan or design // hinges work better with oil
3
to produce a desired effect or result : SUCCEED /a plan that will work
4
to exert an influence or tendency
5
a: to make way slowly and with difficulty : move or progress laboriously
// worked up to the presidency
b: to sail to windward
6
a: to move slightly in relation to another part
b: to get into a specified condition by slow or imperceptible movements
// the knot worked loose
c: to be in agitation or restless motion
7
to permit of being worked : react in a specified way to being worked this wood works easily

transitive verb

1
to set or keep in motion, operation, or activity : cause to operate or produce
// a pump worked by hand // work farmland
2
to bring to pass : EFFECT // work miracles
3
to solve (a problem) by reasoning or calculation often used with out
4
a: to cause to toil or labor // worked their horses nearly to death
b: to make use of : EXPLOIT
c: to control or guide the operation of // switches are worked from a central tower
5
a: to carry on an operation or perform a job through, at, in, or along // the peddler worked the corner // a sportscaster hired to work the game
b: to greet and talk with in a friendly way in order to ingratiate oneself or achieve a purpose // politicians working the crowd // worked the room
6
to pay for or achieve with labor or service worked my way through college
// worked my way up in the company
7
a: to prepare for use by stirring or kneading
b: to bring into a desired form by a gradual process of cutting, hammering, scraping, pressing, or stretching // work cold steel
8
a: to fashion or create a useful or desired product by expending labor or exertion on : FORGE, SHAPE // work flint into tools
b: to make or decorate with needleworkespecially : EMBROIDER
9
a: to get (oneself or an object) into or out of a condition or position by gradual stages
b: CONTRIVE, ARRANGE // we can work it so that you can take your vacation
10
a: EXCITE, PROVOKE // worked myself into a rage
b: to practice trickery or cajolery on for some end // worked the management for a free ticket

These definitions of work make sense in a context where human survival and wellbeing has depended on the manipulation of physical objects and the sharing of know-how — for all of human existence — up to the present.

And how has the present social context changed? We have learned to build machines, robots and AIs (artificially intelligent computers) that can do most of the old-style work for us. What we don’t know how to do is live meaningfully in this new reality. Our word-experience makes it nearly impossible for even our most highly intelligent leaders to imagine the changes in our identities and emotional attachments that will redefine human “work” beyond the employment market.

Instead of creating new social niches for humans whose old-style labor is no longer essential we confound the concept of work-as-being-active with the concept of work-as-being-employed. Examine, for example, the following excerpt from the World Bank’s World Development Report:

 

Screen Shot 2019-05-23 at 12.55.24 PMPeople living in advanced economies are anxious about the sweeping impact of technology on employment. They hold a view that rising inequality, compounded by the advent of the gig economy (in which organizations contract with inde- pendent workers for short-term engagements), is encouraging a race to the bottom in working conditions.

This troubling scenario, however, is on balance unfounded. It is true that in some advanced economies and middle-income countries manufacturing jobs are being lost to automation. Workers undertaking routine tasks that are “codable” are the most vulnerable to replacement. And yet technology provides opportunities to create new jobs, increase productivity, and deliver effective public services. Through innovation, technology generates new sectors and new tasks.

(source: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/816281518818814423/pdf/2019-WDR-Report.pdf#page=27)

Yes, advancing technologies will cause “sweeping impact” on employment and that will change the life of employees. Keep in mind that we are speaking about “developing” societies here, about populations that were considered “unemployable” 100 years ago because they did not grow up in a market economy where their labor could be bought and sold. It may be these traditional communities have some social conventions that would enhance the equitable exchange of goods and services we are now worried about.

Another conceptual misstep is the notion that technology is directly linked to jobs and employment. Our techniques/technology determine how we do and build things, how we produce goods and services. Much of what humans “produce” is distributed informally, is not measured as “productivity” and never enters our economic systems. Between the person doing the “work” and the valued output is a set of social conventions that includes “jobs”. If we can break the hold our use of the term “work” has on us we can tinker with those conventions and perhaps generate new ones that will better serve our new context.

Visual artists, poets, musicians, home gardeners, open software developers and parents, to name just a few, are workers in every sense of the word except that their efforts are not necessarily connected to employment. Although fully and constructively “occupied”, in spite of their use of emerging technologies, they may still be considered “unemployed” and the value of what they contribute to their communities may be unappreciated. Certainly it is uncounted and is uncompensated unless they live in a family or have a patron of some kind.

The World Development Report notes (on page 4 of the Overview section):

“What are some new ways of protecting people? A societal minimum that provides support independent of employment is one option. This model, which would include mandated and voluntary social insurance, could reach many more people.

Social protection can be strengthened by expanding overall coverage that prioritizes the neediest people in society. Placing community health workers on the government’s payroll is a step in the right direction. A universal basic income is another possibility, but it is untested and fiscally prohibitive for emerging economies.”

This is an encouraging indication that the discourse on how to survive economically in the new order is progressing, however slowly. Moving from Webster’s definition #1, work as employment, to definition #3, work as

a: something produced or accomplished by effort, exertion, or exercise of skill
// this book is the work of many hands
bsomething produced by the exercise of creative talent or expenditure of creative effort : artistic production // an early work by a major writer

could provide a new conceptual foundation for innovative social infrastructures that facilitate broader distribution of the abundance our modern technologies make possible. We could stop focusing so heavily on creating jobs and instead devise effective ways of supporting those who choose sharing rather than competing. Every contribution is the result of work.

 

 

Going beyond the business view of social responsibility

Check out Milton Friedman was wrong by Alan Murray

Here’s how it starts:

“Business needs to pay attention to social problems, or else…

In an interview this summer, Microsoft MSFT 0.21% CEO Satya Nadella was asked whether he thought companies creating technology had a responsibility to consider the effects of that technology on social equity.

The late Milton Friedman had a ready answer. “The social responsibility of business,” the economist often said, “is to increase its profits.” Period.

But Nadella took a different approach: “I think we don’t have a long-term business if we don’t address the inequities.”

As I’ve argued before in this space, capitalism is under attack. Having won the great ideological struggle of the 20th century, it faces a new and more diffuse challenge in the 21st. The quarter-century since the collapse of Communism has seen the greatest alleviation of poverty in human history. But it has also created deep pockets of disaffection in developed countries, where workers have been displaced by overseas labor. And it has fed rising inequality within countries. This year’s pro-Brexit vote and the Trump and ­Sanders insurgencies provide powerful punctuation to the trend.

My friend Dan Yergin, whose book The Commanding Heights documented the triumph of free-market faith at the end of the last century, cites four reasons for the current rebellion. The first is the aftershock of the 2008 financial collapse, which undercut confidence in markets. The second is rising inequality within countries. The third is the realities of global trade, which creates losers as well as winners. And the fourth is fading memories of the old order. Socialism sounds better to a generation that has no memory of its legacy of poverty, thwarted opportunity, and oppression.

And there is a fifth reason: the failure of governments. The 20th century assumed it was the job of government to address most social problems. The 21st century has witnessed too much ­corruption, incompetence, and political gridlock to ­assume the same.

For all these reasons, an ever-growing group of business leaders have come to believe that they must take up the mantle. The best businesses, of course, have always put purpose at the center of their strategies. But members of this new group realize that restoring public trust is essential to their long-term ­success. Increasingly, they are building intentional efforts to address social problems into the core of their business plans…”

.. (read more)

While you’re at it you might want to visit

The Lesson Behind Fortune’s ‘Change the World’ List by Michael E. Porter , Mark R. Kramer

My problem with both of the approaches offered is that they do not go deep enough.They fail to address basic questions of ownership and reciprocity.  Ownership is a matter of who controls and, therefore, has the right to benefit from a natural resource, institution, product or service. Reciprocity describes that social obligations that tell us who should do, exchange or give what to whom. The ‘what’ may be goods, services, loyalty, and emotional support, among other human productions. Both ownership and reciprocity are culturally defined and it is easiest for us to interpret right and wrong through the lens of our home culture.

One historical example of the ownership issue can be seen in what we might call the European land grab. Europeans who immigrated to Africa and the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries encountered peoples whose cultures didn’t include private ownership of land. “Well, if no one owns it, I can take it,” they thought. This belief was used to justify forcible expulsion of millions of people from their ancestral homelands.

Today, at least two critical cases of ownership need to be addressed: ownership of non-renewable natural resources and ownership of an individual’s labor in the face of growing robotic an artificial intelligence capacity (which I’ll address in a later blog).

The topic of ownership leads directly to reciprocity. If the chief of your tribe “sells” your ancestral land, the means by which your forefathers survived for five thousand years, to a corporation that now plants coffee to be marketed around the world, who should benefit from the profits of that business? The stockholders? The employees, a few of whom may be of your tribe? The distant consumers? Is it enough that the corporation subsequently provides your extended, but now impoverished, family with a new school building, some medical supplies, or the raised expectations that you will be able to buy previously-unheard-of commodities? Does monetary payment for the land combined with these acts of ‘social responsibility’ fulfill the corporation’s obligation to reciprocate? In small-scale, usually isolated, societies reciprocity is dictated by tradition. Tradition tells community members who can use how much of the common resources, who cares for the young, sick and disabled and who can be either killed by or expelled from the group for what offenses. Our large-scale, global society is a mash-up of conflicting traditions that offers us few overarching guidelines for reciprocity.

We do have some vaguely religious or secular moral notions of ‘brother’s keeper’, familial obligation and noblesse oblige. But these are often obliterated by a constant chanting about the importance of financial success, consumerism, competition, economic growth and actualizing our individual potential. No wonder so many of us are confused, depressed to the point of suicide, cynical and suffering from unmet expectations. Of course we are choosing to escape into that bottomless time and energy sink, entertainment. It’s not surprising that we are politically divided to the point of governmental paralysis.

It’s time, way past time, to pull our eyes, ears and minds away from our flickering screens and address two questions:

1) Where will we been in 50 years if we continue on the economic path we are now following?

2) What are the elements of a positive alternative vision for humanity?

Current economic thinking will not get us to a positive future because it begins with a set of assumptions that preclude understanding the forces driving contemporary human behavior. Yes, Milton Friedman was wrong. And Fortune’s Change the World List Companies won’t do it either because their notion of reciprocity is still based in buying and selling. Economics, as we know it, is rooted in the concepts of scarcity and demand. It cannot cope with conditions of abundance and free exchange — conditions that we can create if we can free our thinking from its economic box.

There is a growing chorus of thought-leaders like Alan Murray who are challenging us to examine our ideals and bring our economic behavior beyond the standard of one who “maximizes the net present value of their preferences” in monetary terms. But leaders who venture too far beyond the conventional wisdom are likely to find themselves without followers. Let’s be courageous thinkers and forge ahead with new (and perhaps ancient) conceptions of ownership and exchange. Having crafted such a vision we can take action to create more viable and sustainable communities, locally and globally.