"precariat"

[glen ropella]

Given our recent conversation about societal asymmetries and the older,
recurrent, discussion of postmodernism, I thought this article might be
interesting to a few of us.  I think it speaks well to the problem in
complexity we had been talking about, in particular, the inadequacy of
our notions of "merit" and "compensation".  To me, it speaks against the
perspective that these issues can be handled by idealistic or overly
simplistic models (like Steve's (1) and (2)).  And that's true
regardless of whether you agree with the content or not, I think.


A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens – review
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/09/precariat-charter-denizens-citizens-review

> Over time, these people will find a voice – and, as Standing sees it, the "labourist" political left will then have to radically alter its views not just of political economy, but of what it is to live. "Twentieth century spheres of labour protection … were constructed around the image of the firm, fixed workplaces, and fixed working days and work-weeks that apply only to a minority in today's tertiary online society," he points out. "While proletarian consciousness is linked to long-term security in a firm, mine, factory or office, the precariat's consciousness is linked to a search for security outside the workplace." This is fundamental: it shreds such sepia-tinted ideas as the "dignity of labour", and the notion – shared by both the old left and its reformist successors – that to toil is to express one's essential humanity. As Standing puts it: "The precariat can accept jobs and labour as instrumental … not as what defines or gives meaning to life. That is so hard for
labourists to understand." It certainly is.


> It is members of the precariat who pinball in and out of the benefits system thanks to short-term working arrangements, and who now form a large part of the demand for food banks. In response, the Westminster consensus insists that they should be subject to regimes that are not just cruel, but dysfunctional. In other words, it doesn't actually matter if so-called welfare-to-work programmes actually help people, or just screw them up: the point is that they visibly punish them in pursuit of a political dividend. In that sense, the precariat is not only at the cutting edge of the economy, but at the receiving end of a postmodern politics that values the manipulation of appearances much more highly than reality.


--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

>
> Given our recent conversation about societal asymmetries and the
> older, recurrent, discussion of postmodernism, I thought this article
> might be interesting to a few of us.  I think it speaks well to the
> problem in complexity we had been talking about, in particular, the
> inadequacy of our notions of "merit" and "compensation".  To me, it
> speaks against the perspective that these issues can be handled by
> idealistic or overly simplistic models (like Steve's (1) and (2)).  
> And that's true regardless of whether you agree with the content or
> not, I think.
>
>
> A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens – review
> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/09/precariat-charter-denizens-citizens-review 
>

Thanks for the link to the article... I *do* very much like the concept
of the "precariat" as well as to the author attempting to recast a
tired, old model of "what matters" into a new light.   I'm not sure I
agree with a lot of the implications of the article, but I definitely
like the authors' attempt to reframe an old toic (honestly?) rather than
just say the same old things with new language.   I'm sure one could
argue against my last point (and maybe will) but I *do* think it is a
significantly enough different to matter.

I am not sure that the issue is complexity(1) or complexity(2) but
perhaps there is a component of it.   I am not even sure if it is
idealism or simplicity(1) that is at work against us, but rather the
same old tired models...  by introducing a different one, even with a
similar level of simplicity and idealism, something qualitatively new
happens.   If the newly introduced mental model is juxtaposed with the
old one(s) in just the right way, I contend that entirely new
perspectives are offered... not *by* the new model alone but some higher
dimensional *implied* model that at least admits the old one(s) and the
new one...

</ramble>

- Steve


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

On 04/21/2014 06:01 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the implications of the article,

Heh, I don't agree with _any_ of it.  But that's OK.  I'm so
disagreeable I enjoy disagreement!

> I am not sure that the issue is complexity(1) or complexity(2) but
> perhaps there is a component of it.   I am not even sure if it is
> idealism or simplicity(1) that is at work against us, but rather the
> same old tired models...  by introducing a different one, even with a
> similar level of simplicity and idealism, something qualitatively new
> happens.   If the newly introduced mental model is juxtaposed with the
> old one(s) in just the right way, I contend that entirely new
> perspectives are offered... not *by* the new model alone but some higher
> dimensional *implied* model that at least admits the old one(s) and the
> new one...

You're channeling Robert Rosen, I think (except he always seems so
arrogantly sure of himself in his writings -- so if you're a medium for
his spirit, you're an Impure One[*]).  The only thing I find seriously
appealing about Rosen's works was his marker for complexity, which is
(basically) that if something requires an infinite number of
(inadequate) models in order for it to be well-modeled, then that thing
is complex.

I use that marker as the basis for my argument in favor of parallax
modeling.  But whether a referent is _actually_ complex or only
practically complex is irrelevant because parallax works in either case
... at least for agnostics like me who don't really care that much about
the Truth, as long as our objectives are achieved.

[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_an_Impure_Thinker

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com