Trades as Sources of Enduring Social Value
When we think about an economy, that is, a system of exchange of goods and services and the corresponding banking and monetary system upon which it is based, we are lead in this day and age inevitably to ask "what work, what goods really have value?"In the emergence of modern industrial economies there has occurred a tremendous differentiation and proliferation of types of work and types of goods. Some of this work, some of these goods are, no doubt, without real value. What is a man? Is he a thing that thinks or is he a thing that desires, that owns and possesses? What real goods does he need? What is of enduring real value to him?
Some of today's work is obviously of dubious social value. Much of today's work is blatantly immoral, much is questionable and certainly some of it is detestable. Where lies the criterion which separates the good from the bad? An obvious question one must ask about oneself and one's work is What do I do for the group, what do I contribute? If the answer is that one does not so much contribute as taketh away, then the answer seems clear: one oughtn't to do such work. But that doesn't even begin to do justice to the complexity of this issue
But man finds himself incaged in time and place, not in cloud cuckoo worlds. There is the need of the basics in life and some extras to be sure. A man needs a trade. And here, again, the question of what kind of work comes to the fore. We are workers by nature and by design and given that fact, it seems fair to say that most good people want to work at something that is of real value that does not take away or deprive others of their own wellbeing. We want dirty hands without "dirty hands". We want to be engaged in work that is real and that matters but we don't want to be affiliated with injustice, corruption, or destruction.
One answer may be found within history. There are common needs that all societies have. There are specific, regional differences in regards to some needs. But these needs show up as perennial industries, things which have a historical presence, things which people worked at again and again over time, evolving and growing but ever-remaining a part of the economy. I am thinking here of the trades, of course, and their ever-present place in civilized (civilizing) polity.
If we think of the social complexity of the twenty-first century and the corresponding emphasis given to students nowadays to become technocrats (not that all technocracy is bad!), we must feel that another option should be presented to them, that is, to become a part of a trade. Those trades which can trace their lineage back to the medieval guilds and further, however sketchily, should stand out as viable work sources for the future on the grounds that they have always been with us and (knock on wood) always will.
Why, you may ask, is this inquiry necessary? Are you suggesting that I become a plumber or an electrician? Let me take these questions in order. First, this inquiry has become necessary because the future seems to be filled with some pretty bleak conditions and it is the fear of this writer that a generation of people are being prepared for jobs and work that may never materialize. This does not mean that our transition to the future cannot bring about a better world order, but I'd like to offer an argument for the value of trades as vehicles of economic activity against a world of increasing social disappointments. We do ourselves a favor by contemplating the values in essential work. The walrus-tusk harpoon shaft carefully carved by the Inuit hunter bears the imprint of social invention, creativity, necessity, and social value as much as any of the finely crafted hedge funds. Our focus should be on perfecting the simple goods of being. So, should you become a plumber or electrician? Well, yes, of course.
posted by feng @ 4:59 PM
