rowyn

I'm reading this article -- more of a rant, really -- about a couple of corporate philosophy buzzword books.

Two lines from it particularly stood out for me:

I work because I need the money to pay my bills, period.

...

I choose not to enable those who are screwing me.

The rant targets two different books, and as it happens, I've read both* of them at the request of my current workplace.

The message of WMMC? is "change happens, adapt and change with it." The message of the Fish! books is "Sometimes you can't change your situation, but you can always do your best to be happy in it."

The author of this rant hates both these books. His alternative recommendation appears to be "Change is bad. Be angry when things change! Certainly you wouldn't want to change anything yourself. And don't be happy about the way things are, either! Instead, spend your life being angry about it. But keep working to pay your bills, 'cause of course you have to, but it's best if you be misearble about it. Yeah, that'll teach those bastards!"

...

Somehow, I'm having a hard time finding his message inspirational. "Quitting the Paint Factory" and other paeans to the joys of giving up on the corporate world and doing your own thing, those I can relate to. I may not do it myself, but I can understand and admire those who do. I can even understand (if not agree with) those who advocate socialism or communism as an alternative to capitalism.

But this attitude of "Corporate America sucks and I hate being a part of it -- but I'm going to anyway, and my only act of protest is going to be in being as miserable as possible about my own life" -- that I can't understand. If you're not going to change the situation, why not make the best of it? If you're unwilling to make the best of it, why not change it?

Oh, I understand that it's not as simple as "choosing a good attitude" or "change when necessary". Both of the books are simplistic at best, and it's hard not to be cynical about them. Still, to reject both concepts as utterly devoid of merit ... buh.

* Although I don't think I read the same "Fish!" book he did -- there are a bunch of them and I don't recall the title of the specific one I read. Still, I doubt the philosophy changes much from one to the next.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

prester-scott.livejournal.com

I think a more useful point to draw from the screed might be "Don't let them add insult to injury, by cooperating with mind control techniques and then abusing you anyway." I can see honor in that sentiment.

But I certainly agree with you that a more productive response is to find other employment.

From:

rowyn

"Don't let them add insult to injury, by cooperating with mind control techniques and then abusing you anyway."

Fair enough. But it's not the fault of a self-help book if the company that gave it to you is a crappy one. And it just seems to me that the advice of ONE of the books (either "learn to do something different" or "be happy where you are") ought to apply. Even if the "doing something different" is starting your own revolution or something similarly non-corporate. =)

From:

telnar.livejournal.com

I see the natural questions to focus on as being:

-- How easily changed is structure of one's current situation, and how desireable would big changes be?
-- How much can the details of one's current situation be changed without structural change?
-- Is the risk and effort required for structural change (e.g. quitting a bad job, or even leading an insurrection against a POW camp) justified by the likelihood and value of success?
-- If not, are there incremental changes which would make things better in the short run with much smaller effort and risk?

I guess that I see the real problem with this rant as being that the author implies that change is rarely an option, when I think that the real situation is that it usually is (if not always in the very short run). Over the course of our lives, almost all of us change jobs and circumstances several times. That process is at least partly under our control.

From:

rowyn

-- Is the risk and effort required for structural change (e.g. quitting a bad job, or even leading an insurrection against a POW camp) justified by the likelihood and value of success?

I think the comparison to a POW camp is an interesting one, because I think some people don't see the applicability of having a good attitude in a bad situation. Having a good attitude is construed as "collaborating with the captors": putting up and shutting up and being happy with what your lot. Yet it's possible to be engaged in a mortal struggle and yet not be ruled by anger, hatred, or fear. I don't know if I could write a meaningful essay on this subject, but I think it's a worthwhile topic. Exploring how one can make the best of an appalling situation without assisting the people who have placed you in that situation.

From:

kelloggs2066.livejournal.com

I think some people naturally enjoy spreading misery and discouraging others to make up for their own inability to enjoy their own lives.

From:

ex-strangess744.livejournal.com

...and I'll grant, there's a certain amount of pure misery spreading sentiment in what you're taking issue with.

However, the underlying feeling they have, which I don't think they're admitting even to themselves is: "I hate being powerless. I can quit my job, but the next company is almost certainly as bad as the last one. If their advice is to change the situation, that's impossible. If their advice is to be peacefully resigned, that means agreeing with and endorsing being raped emotionally by my employer week in week out."

Enforced helplessness really messes people up. And the world of work puts a significant minority through the ringer. Remember, something like a third of your fellow citizens go through at least a year of clinical depression in their lives. Most of them don't handle it as well as you do. Sometimes, it's because they're lazy or stupid. Often, though, it's because once you get into the mode of being the victim, it's very hard to change your behaviour. Look at abused spouses.

And frankly, from what I've seen, while large companies generally suck to work for, small companies are far from exempt. Most are unprofitable and on the five to ten year arc to bankruptcy. The owners typically have a couple of very strong skillsets...but surprisingly often, not people skills They didn't appreciate the complexity of running your own business. And the details they are unprepared for typically ruin them. Their lives are harried and stressful, and this stress rolls downhill to their workers.

And let's put this another way...you have skills that could be earning you twice what you're making. It would take probably 2-5 years to make the transition, but you could. However, you don't have that much faith in the tolerability of the job market either, and are willing to forgo considerable retirement income to avoid the risk of ending up in a bad work situation.

I submit that having a job you can happily live with (for the most part) is at best uncommon. Given this, getting as comfortable with being abused (when you're not in the lucky/hard working minority) is _wisest_, certainly.

But reaching the stage of this wisdom does not come easily for most people after they've been beaten on emotionally for long enough. Look how CompUSA exacerbated your own depression. You did something about it. Most people lack the strength and the perception to do anything.

So I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying these people aren't the deliberate fools you see them as. They have become lost in their pain. They deal with it by just seething with anger unproductively. That's dumb. But it's the only choice _they_ can see.

From:

rowyn

They deal with it by just seething with anger unproductively. That's dumb. But it's the only choice _they_ can see.

Thank you for the comment, dear. You know, I do know how difficult it is to get out of a bad spot, and how useless most advice seems when I'm in one. And yet I still find it frustrating to watch miserable, unhappy people reject every overture and suggestion with mockery and scorn. "How dare you think your advice could possibly be of value to me or, indeed, ANYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD?" Which is rather the point this fellow takes; anyone who defends the books as "Well, I found it useful" is condemned as a tool or an idiot.

So, I dunno, maybe I am a tool or an idiot, serving my abusive corporate masters with slavish, undeserved loyalty. Maybe someday the next revolution will roll past, and all the workers of the world will be freed, and they'll look back on me with the scorn and derision of a traitor to her own class, a house slave who was duped into thinking slavery was OK just because her master didn't beat her like everyone eles's.

From:

ex-strangess744.livejournal.com

(looks wry at the implicit "not" at the end of the second paragraph)

Ah, I'd missed the connotation of abusive lashing out at anyone who _is_ getting along well in the system.

That, too, makes sense....but is regretable. It occured to me the other day that the crux of this is the anger (like in high school) at all the other people who aren't stopping the bad things happening to you. And the hope that berating them might goad _somebody_ into doing _something_, at least in part.

Also, I think the part of the advice that offends them is the implicit message "you should be able to be happy with anything your employer does to you. if you can't be happy, you're just not trying hard enough." Being told that you have no right to feel hurt by abusive behaviour is quite provocative.

Now, arguably, that message _isn't_ intended. But when you feel like you're in a fight, it's hard not to see any message that isn't about "how to resist your tormentor better", there's a hard time seeing that message as trustworthy.

This doesn't excuse the bile being spit here. But it is a good sign of (a) how stupid people get under prolonged stress and (b) how much prolonged stress there is in your system. If you take anything positive away from this, just pay attention to worker's issues insofar as they are election issues; if you feel really motivated, attend municipal government meetings where public input is allowed.

But the horror of modern society is that if it's doing something wrong, getting consensus that wrong is being done is very difficult. Doing something _productive_ about it is even harder; measuring results and adjusting is very rare. Things run on autopilot, and while lots of people have influence, no one , even the president, has _control_.

There is no one to rescue us from ourselves, as a society, and that is a very distressing idea to those in bad places.

But it is regretable that someone spent a whole book on a futile venting of their pain and frustration. There's a reason I stopped angsting in my journal, after all. It doesn't help.