Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Work and Labor - Coggle Diagram
Work and Labor
Work Ethic
"Work sucks! No one has any time for anything! [...] We don’t want our lives to revolve around work anymore" (Hendy). This is a sentiment echoes not only by the author of this article or the subjects of said article, but of many people around the country, maybe even the world. Factors that didn't affect older generations are affecting younger ones, shifting the sentiment from "careers should be valued" to "work-life balance should be valued."
Go Against The Grain
Bartleby: The Scrivener
People draw the conclusion that Bartleby represents an opposition to capitalism for a number of reasons
- From the 3rd day onward, he imposes his will over those around him, including his employer, that is, the Narrator and the jailer.
- He was so committed until the end (when he died)
Literally speakikng, its important to note that despite his conviction, it wasn't clear what exactly he stood for, as the Narrator was just as confused when he passed away as when he was first hired on.
The arguement is born from a more outside perspective, as in why the author might write a story such as this one. From this perspective, it makes more sense to say Bartleby stood against Bureaucracy, which can encapsulate capitalism, but doesn't necessarily mean that.
- The story is taking place from the Narrator's perspective, that is, Bartleby's employer. This is the simplest connection one might need to connect this story to anti-capitalism.
- Bartleby's influence extends past the Narrator, however, as he was arrested and taken to the local jail, where he would be allowed to roam freely while incarcerated.
- To extend this point further, he would refuse to talk to the Narrator, believing he was the reason that Bartleby was arrested, and refused food from the grub-man. Bartleby was simply a particular person. That is to say, if not his way, then there is no way.
-
Civil Disobedience
Henry David Thoreau felt wronged by how the government spent their budget, and felt obligated to oppose paying taxes if the government continued to utilize its resources in the manner they did.
Thoreau's active resistence from paying his taxes was born from a belief that his government was not one who acts in the best interest of the greater good, but rather for a select few who happen to be in power.
-
The trend employers follow when setting up work architectures has existed for many years, to the point where the archetype has the name "9-5" now due to the similarities that they share.
Sorry to Bother You
Cassius' resolve to do the right thing was not present at the beginning or the middle of the movie, but rather developed slowly, almost directly proportional with how much money he was making. He joined the union at the beginning, meaning he was just following along, eventually showed his true values, then had a change of heart to follow through with the strike.
-
Ironically, while RegalView has a clear structure, Sorry to Bother You doesn't seem to resemble bureaucracy as strongly, as the precense of the strike completely rebels against how the structure is of RegalView.
-
Bureaocracy
-
Those who are in a position in which there are people who rely on them to lead punish those who actively hinder that process, but what differentiates leaders is the balance between how the offender threatened the structural integrity of the system and by what their punishment was. This is what separates an authoritarian government from a government who recognizes the rights of the individual.
-
Orientation
The Narrator giving the orientation seems to be either unaware or unbothered by the absurditiy of the workplace that they find themself in, as Daniel Orozco (the author) never alludes to anything through, for example, body language. Our interpretation is entirely based on the word choice of the Narrator, thus making one thing certain: there is a zero tolerance policy for breaking the rules of the office, regardless of absurdity:
"Feel free to ask questions. Ask too many question, however, and you may be let go (Orozco 1)."
"But we're not supposed to know any of this. Do not let on. If you let on, you may be let go (Orozco 2)."
"She does not let any of this interfere with her work. If it intefered with her work, she might have to be let go (Orozco 4-5)"
There is a structure, albeit unrealistic, yet there is an element to it that makes it feel like it could be real in a funny way.
-
-