An Evocative Ethos: Making a Living in the New Economy, Part I
Apr 18 2011
by John Bloom
In the ideal of the new economy, there would be no distinction between work and vocation. For example, because writing now requires so little physical effort, so little friction, I can more easily voice my thoughts through the invocation of language and text. So, I am practicing my vocation—not only what I am called to do, but also what I call out publicly as matters for community consideration.
In our current economy, vocation, what one is called to do, is one thing, making a living is often another. There is instructive history behind this dis-integration. We know that the Industrial Revolution made the specialization and productive efficiency of the division of labor a permanent fixture of the economic landscape. Skip back further to the 17th century, and consider the implications of French philosopher René Descartes’s mind-body dichotomy. In economic terms, this dichotomy became a basis for a different “division of labor”; that is, a division between a person’s physical labor and their capacity to think—a dehumanizing process that served capitalism well and culture poorly. To a degree the mind-body problem still informs the present. With this as background, I am proposing that in the new economy, the ethic of work means a remerging of labor and thinking, of making one’s living and living one’s vocation. For a vocation to constitute a living entails a job with income, compels a degree of self-development to keep the job meaningful, and requires engagement in a work community that encourages new ideas and practices.
I also know how far we are from this ideal as I describe it, given the current state of economic affairs. The number of people who would be relieved just to have a job for which they are paid, even better a living wage, is unconscionable. Job creation, meaningful work, is a priority, not just for the economy, but also for the value it contributes to each person’s overall well being. Speaking of such an ideal of work while so many suffer is a risk and smacks of privilege. However, my purpose is certainly not to belittle or insult anyone, or to appear arrogant. Instead I want to posit an imagination of work that challenges the current [old] paradigm and system that: casts labor as a commodity; people as replaceable, to be used up for the sake of profit generation; and, sees the funding of culture, which supports the enrichment and renewal of people, as an annoying and unnecessary expense. My purpose is also to put forward an imagination of work that serves what is deeply human, prioritizes people over things, and recognizes sufficiency and interdependence as determinants in balancing individual and global needs. From the perspective at ground level, the evidence indicates that not much connected to the old, but still dominant, paradigm is working very well right now—except for those at the top of the financial heap.
John Bloom is the Director of Organizational Culture at RSF Social Finance. If you enjoyed this post, look for John’s book, The Genius of Money, on steinerbooks.org.
