Critical Thinkers Need Apply: A look at Orlov

If you go searching for works that answer interesting and urgent questions, you may be most rewarded by the writing of Dmitry Orlov. But I will warn you, don't expect a comforting narrative laced with platitudes or pablum. You are not in that territory.

In his book, Shrinking the Technosphere: Getting a grip on the technologies that limit our autonomy, self-sufficiency and freedom, Orlov taps into the zeitgeist like a needle biopsy and shows you the cultural molecular structure in new and disturbing ways. The aim of his book is to discuss the ways in which our civilization has become enslaved by the new, technologically advanced, more efficient methods in which we conduct our daily lives.

By page 70 you may be thinking: This is beginning to sound like one very elaborate, but well-argued conspiracy theory. Nonetheless, it is challenging to dismiss the author's reasoning behind the layers of control wrested from our direct influence. For example, these are the characteristics of our state of adherence to the demands of the technosphere:

• it overcomes its natural limits, (conquest of nature)
• wants to control absolutely everything
• technologize everything
• put a monetary value on everything
• demands homogeneity
• wants to dominate the biosphere
• controls you for its own purposes
• demands blind faith in progress

Any of this sound familiar? Its only alternative to infinite progress is the apocalypse. It always creates more problems than it solves. 

Reading this book sheds some very discomfiting light on the degree to which our society is structured around ever increasingly demanding technological involvement. Orlov develops his narrative from many varying layers of historical and cultural analysis. In chapter three he references Ted Kaczynski, a cultural critic of some very prescient acumen. Had he turned his fervor to something other than bombing people, alas, he might have made a convincing revolutionary.

Chapter four is the harm/benefit analysis. I admit I got lost in this section. But his most fascinating illustration of how people can inhabit their world using nature-like technologies is in chapter five. Here he brings his observations to a personal level. Having grown up in Russia in the 60s and 70s, he experienced wilderness and homesteading in a way few North Americans would relate. Especially interesting was his description of the Russian stove and what it would look like to survive in Siberia using essential skills with tools for hunting, fishing, building, gathering. You get the idea. 

Chapter six addresses the need for restructuring society so that we do not, in fact, further destroy the biosphere. It takes a look at the ways in which we live under the parasite load of what he calls bad political technologies. These are structures that enrich, empower and protect special interests and privileged elites at the expense of the rest of society. They set the stage for injustice, exploitation, poor social outcomes, economic stagnation, mass violence, civil war and eventual political disintegration. Their forms of control are found in: 

• the medical industry
• higher education
• prison-industrial complex
• automotive industry
• agribusiness
• financial
• organized religion
• the legal system

So how do we shift to using good political technologies? We need ones that work to improve everyone's welfare, and build on previous successes to increase social cohesion and solidarity. While Orlov's work may not have answers, it is still a mighty provocateur's playbook. It will give you more than enough for reflection when he specifically points to recent attempts at regime change across the globe. Also, he is not one to shy away from taking a position. (p. 182)

"Nonviolence is nothing more than a tactic. It can even be used to promote violence by rendering a population defenseless in the face of aggression, in order to provoke a massacre and then use it for political aims, as was done by Gandhi, who preached nonviolence to Hindus, profiting politically when they were then massacred by moslems."

If you get this far and are still fence sitting, chapter seven will elucidate the milieu even further. Here he talks about social machines described as: (p. 189)

"...a form of organization that subordinates the will of the participants to an explicit, written set of rules, that is controlled based on objective, measurable criteria, and that excludes, to the largest extent possible, individual judgment, intuition and independent spontaneous action."

Ouch. I think I've been in that room before! The author doesn't pretend that extracting ourselves from these strictures of society will be painless, but I do appreciate that he reminds the reader of the flimsy premise underlying so much of our social glue (for lack of a better term). (p. 201)

"As society degenerates, social machines degenerate with it, and in spite of all the efforts at surveillance and automation, people find ways to survive. And if this requires throwing some monkey wrenches into the works, then more and more people will start doing just that. At some point it will become evident to all that most of the social machines have become so degraded that they are mere relics--empty shells maintained for the sake of appearances--while all of the decisions are made outside of them by actual humans applying their individual judgment to situations to which no written rules need apply."

The last two chapters, Wresting Control, and The Great Transition, offer ways of examining one's own life for clues of escape. Orlov, himself, has decided that living on a boat has provided him an acceptable level of freedom.

So dear reader, 2019 has most definitely been the year of I'd-rather-not-think-about-it books, but think we must, and I am grateful for the folks who have written the books of my last three reviews. They are brave and clear-headed individuals, the kind that I would like to figure into my Dunbar number. (Don't know this reference? Read the book!) As always....looking for my tribe. Ciao.

Rethinking work in the 21st century

The danger of using superlatives for describing one book is when you read the next one, and find it gives you a verbal bear hug every bit as strong as the previous one. Nonetheless, the joy is all mine in reading the latest contribution from Ellen Ruppel Shell. The Job: Work and its future in a time of radical change  (2019) As I was reading it I couldn't help but think: I wish this was the book that I had been able to write five years ago when I was deep into my own story (see left side bar link). It acts as a perfect sequel to the musings from my slim volume.

Shell is a professor of journalism from Boston University. She has provided her thesis with an enviable depth of research that, at last, has given her subject the gravitas it deserves. Chapter 8 in particular made me feel vindicated in a way few other authors have articulated. Mind the (skills) gap elucidates the fantasy of widely available stable, living-wage jobs, and characterizes this wishful thinking as "toxic alchemy." This truth alone, makes it harshly obvious that if the poor have no choice but to take any job they can get, then they are participating in the precarious, low-wage jobs that keep them poor in the first place. Perfectly stated this way:

“Because it incentivizes more people, no matter their skills, to accept any job they can get, it reduces the need for employers to create better jobs, or to open up better jobs to people closed out of them, people who may lack credentials or a certain pedigree but who, like Susan and Leroy, are willing and able to work.”  “The idea that a lack of skills is preventing many people from working their way out of poverty is wrong,” Edin said. “‘Skills’ is a smokescreen for other things.”

Also:

"This "skills gap" finding was so widely quoted that it became a sort of cultural meme. But other than the say-so of employers, there was little if any evidence to support the vague and slippery claim."

We are often told that the future is an open field for those educational concentrations involving science, technology, engineering and math, but she reports that the supply of STEM graduates is 2 to 3 times larger than demand. Even Paul Krugman has coined the term "zombie idea" to indicate beliefs that have been "repeatedly refuted with evidence and analysis but refuse to die."

This ruse does not escape the notice of grads:

 “Smart students preferred not to invest their hopes, efforts, and intellectual capital in sectors that no matter the hype dumped workers at the least provocation, sometimes only to replace them with cheaper workers, whether they be domestic or from abroad.” 

Then in Chapter 11, The Finnish Line, when you are good and ready for some solutions, Shell delivers with a truckload. Finland certainly wasn't on my radar, but putting it there was a welcome education. We are introduced to Pekka Pohjakallio, whose firm is rethinking work for the 21st century. In contrast to how most Americans conceptualize the urgent call to innovate, here a more realistic version prevails.

 “The innovation bubbles up most often when the brain is relaxed and deep in thoughts beyond the particular problem at hand—that is when we seem to be least productive.”

“Reflection is what makes most of us more efficient, not less, Pohjakallio said, “But we are given no time for reflections because it’s impossible to measure, and impossible to bill against. We are constantly fixated on the ends, not the means, and that holds us back. If we really knew what was valuable, many of us might easily be able to accomplish what needs to get accomplished not in ten or twelve hours a day but in four.” 

If you are hungry, even starved, for hearing about methodologies that function at human scale this book doesn't disappoint. In fact, it elevates the reader's potential to believe that improvements are possible. Shell refers to our current system as our nation's work disorder, and rightly partners with those who predict it will not be solved by technology, but by a change in the rules.

And it gets better: 

Chapter 12, Abolish Human Rentals. In this chapter Shell makes clear that the very basis of our interactions binding us to forces of commerce create in us a violation of what would otherwise be an equalized sense of duty to each other, collectively.

“Regarding ourselves as “human rentals” makes it more difficult for us to make meaning of our work, for the very reason that we are human and therefore subject to certain assumptions, including what social scientists call the “reciprocal obligation.” In employment context, the reciprocal obligation involves a psychological contract between employers and employees--the implication that each party will work together for mutual benefit. Employment at will essentially breaches this implicit contract: since it allows employees to be fired for almost any reason, or no reason at all,…”

In every subsequent passage and chapter the author never backs down from revealing every layer of sham contrivance made for the advantage of the employer. And then, in Chapter 14, Homo Faber, I came across an explanation I've wanted to hear for a seriously long time.

“For nearly a century, corporate social responsibility was subjugated to--and some argued legally trumped by--a fiduciary duty to make shareholders as much money as possible. This duty--later articulated by Milton Friedman--was first made law through the case of Dodge v. Ford Motor Company in 1919, in which Henry Ford was overturned in his effort to employ as many men as possible so as to spread prosperity (and presumably demand for his cars). Oddly the ruling also thwarted Ford’s efforts to lower the price of his cars, and to raise wages. The Michigan Supreme Court declared that Ford shareholders must take precedence over the needs of employees and even customers. Over time, through both law and custom, the concept of “shareholder primacy” became the default position for all publicly held companies.”

And in this last chapter as much as I could agree with the author, I still had questions I would have loved to invite her to answer. But to prevent this review from going on indefinitely, I'll leave you not only with a hearty recommendation to read it for yourself, but also one last necessary quote:

“Growing efficiencies was a fixation of the industrial age. It’s a fixation we can no longer afford. We must quell the GDP fetish, a metric that overvalues work of the sort that brings outsized profit to the few and underrates and even fails to measure what matters most--work of intrinsic value to those who do it and to those who need it done. …”

 Amen!

The Quest 2016

Today's response prompt asks:

What I most need to tell myself about 2016 is....

Relax.

You already know that you're connected with the people who can help you piece the puzzle together. You are not alone. Your work will become as visible and embraced as you want it to be. I'm willing to support you. Are you willing to support me?

No question will go unasked. No question will go unanswered.

May there be laughter along the way.

Cave woman in the information age

This morning someone encouraged me to blog about why I self-published my book. I'll tell you why.

After making a few attempts at writing a marketing piece, a proposal, and an author's bio, I had to step back and reflect.

Do I know what I'm doing? Am I any good at this? No. It makes me feel like an impostor, and that has nothing to do with self-esteem. I esteem myself just fine, I just don't think I do this marketing thing very well.

I think the reason for that is because I associate marketing with spin, and with lies, or at least half-truths. So what can I do? I can talk about my book, and why I wrote it, and what I was trying to accomplish from having written it. I know, you may be saying, but Marcella, that IS marketing.

OK. Granted. But the truth is I fear there will be rules to follow that I don't know about, and if I try this thing called marketing then it is clear to me that I will break ALL OF THEM.

Then I will be found out as the newbie, and that silly person who has that special blend of confidence and naivete that we call gumption--the kind where they pat you on the head and say, Aaww, how cute, you published a book all by yourself, aren't you a clever girl.

Good grief. See where this is going? It is already laughable, and I want to be a serious author, dag nab it!

So I'm going to step back again and see this from a distance. I live in a time in history that allows me access to certain miracles of mass communication. That's how I think of self-publishing. It is all very new to me. I am a completely self-taught participant. It has been a lot of work, but also a lot of fun. I have absolutely no background in traditional publishing and no contacts in that world. I wouldn't know where to begin the process of presenting myself to a publisher. I have no particular authority or expertise; I have no readership, no author platform. Approaching any publishing house, I would come armed only with a manuscript of unknown quality just like thousands and thousands before and after me.

It's not difficult to see how easily intimidation like that works within a single mind, let alone so many others who want to publish their work. The only difference is that I gave myself permission to do so. Yep. That's it. I just did it because I really, really wanted to. I have the same needs for self-expression as most people do. For me, self-publishing the book is just like that cave woman dipping her hand in red pigment and pressing her palm against the wall. Living in the information age just means not having to wait to be discovered by some wandering shepherd.

I'm willing to wait for all the souls wandering the internet.

Evolution of the world of work

Last week the New York Times published an article by Ross Douthat entitled "The world of work". It is an interesting thesis, but what I found more compeling was a comment following the article that was brilliant in its simplicity. Posted by Douglas from Minneapolis it reads:

We have reached the point at which what most people do for a living is not truly necessary anymore. We've managed to continue by means of heavily marketing all of those unecessary goods and services to convince people to spend their excess purchasing power on them. When times are good that keeps purchasing power circulating. When times are bad though, the only things people truly need to buy are made and distributed by a tiny fraction of the workforce. The circulation becomes limited to those sectors of the economy.

A society that doesn't need workers requires an entirely new economic system - one for which there is no model in existence.
 

In six simple sentences this comment sums up a self-evident force of our economy that few often speak about, but it will remain an unavoidable truth until such time as we create new models on which to base our economy.

Biosphere consciousness, social capital, and taming the market tiger

Why do I get out of bed in the morning?—to avoid becoming someone I don’t want to be, someone conscious, but not awake, someone who moves about, but isn’t strong, someone who grows distant from other people, but who wants more than anything to remain vitally engaged. So to increase my awake, strong, vitally engaged self I’m jumping back into the blog glögg and going for a swim. As I had hoped my summer hiatus, which turned into summer, fall, and most of winter, proved to be fruitful thanks to relentless cross-pollination of excellent, non-fiction reading.  I can hardly be an expert on everything that interests me. So I am encouraged when there are so many authors who dare to describe and prescribe conditions for our society’s improvement and healing. What follows is a compilation of the key points from these writers.

How will humans evolve when our choices within a market economy are driven by the very forces that serve to destroy us? While we ride the tide of ever escalating and sophisticated technology, how can we manage social changes brought in its wake?

The answer is essentially a recognition that we can no longer maintain the growth of capital at the expense of social capital. Any enterprise in the 21^st century that wants to capture the social conscience will have to do so while grounded in “biosphere consciousness.” As described by Jeremy Rifkin this organizing principle follows the natural rhythms of life, and the laws of energy. It powers every living thing in existence; photosynthesis, solar power, geo-thermal power, etc. Equally as important is the goal of social capital—empathic engagement with one’s fellow human beings. It represents accumulated trust between people and helps create the narratives that bind us together. Slowly we are learning how to treat each other and share what we have so that our culture reflects who we want to be.

Much of what has spurred the development of these ideas is the massive dysfunction of the organizations and systems in which we currently live.

Anticipated re-orgs:

·         A long string of stalemates has eroded trust in our government. People will withdraw their support or force a reorganization.

·         Intelligent technology will substitute for various forms of human labor in the commercial arena, while social capital in the collaborative community will increase.

·         Education reform: In many ways we are teaching ourselves how to live in what Rifkin calls a distributed, collaborative, open-source economy.

Our culture and its leadership have no choice but to drive the changes we seek. Transformation initiated by government can happen, but only under pressure from its citizens.

                How can the system self-correct unless we intervene?

                There is an undeniable need to impose limits on human behavior. Capitalism as we know it will re-align favorably with environmental conservation initiatives when it is proven that they deliver measurable financial reward. The market and its regulatory context must reward businesses for their performance. Rather than making business the demon, it must be reformed from within so that values of its well-being are not at odds with maintaining the health of our physical world. From decades of having witnessed the carnage of oil spills, we have learned that pleas for intelligent environmental protection have fallen on disbelieving ears, and it is insulting to imagine that the cost of repair can ever equal the loss of our one and only world. As Paul Gilding puts it, we must cage the market tiger.  

Please stay tuned for next week’s installment where we find how personal economy gets involved.

Summer Hiatus

It started out so well, the book reviews, the stories, the tie-ins, and now I am mired in sarcasm again. It is a default mentality I seem to slide into when all my thoughts turn snarky. No matter how well-deserved my observations may be about their subjects, this was not originally the intent of my blog.

Lobbing a snarky attack at some job advertisement is just too easy. I go after the verbal low hanging fruit, and make obvious comments. I really wanted something more. The plastics recycling bit is much closer to what I really want, and those are the thoughts that are really HARD. To talk about problems that don't appear to be in process of solution, that is so much more challenging.

As much as I love to write, I still feel a tug to keep my topics close to a well-defined base. Anyone can be the sneering, finger-pointing critic. The blogosphere doesn't need another one of those. So with that in mind, I'm declaring a summer hiatus.

I've got a lot of work to do to maintain the mental state that doesn't slip back to default mode. That said, I will let Robert Frost end this post for me:

...But I have promises to keep
And miles to go before I sleep
And miles to go before I sleep.

Throwing baby boomers out with the bath water

(Be forewarned: Major bellyaching to follow, but continue to the end I think it's worth it.)

The search for the structure of meaning in a lengthy career won’t unearth what you’re looking for. Your years of experience are of little value when you’ve been cut adrift multiple times within a career. It’s tough trying to keep the narrative of your story together so you’ll make sense to the next interviewer. Many of my former colleagues now live with the unrelenting stress of looking for work in a world that values none of their skills, wisdom, acumen, hard skills, soft skills, ancient skills, acquired skills, transferable skills,—all are lost in the game of personality management. People want to be surrounded only by others they view as similar to themselves.

So, I have developed little empathy for the twenty-somethings with huge college loan debt, and few job prospects. It’s worse at this end of the spectrum. Cynicism is sinking all our boats.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much inspiration in the current state of conventional wisdom. Case in point: An article in the NYTimes published 7/12/11 by Thomas Friedman entitled The Start-up of you. The article made points we’ve heard before, but what I found particularly encouraging was the wisdom of some of the comments that followed the post. Utterly brilliant! (emphasis, mine.)

This, from someone in New York:

Technology has simply fulfilled its promise of relieving the human being from so many dirty, dehumanizing, mindless, physically debilitating tasks. What is outmoded is our system of distributing resources/wealth. We must rethink the concept that in order to live a comfortable life every adult must work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, every year, until age 70. If we have reached a point where it only requires 20 hours a week to produce all that society needs,then that has to become the standard for a weekly wage that pays the rent, food, and utility bills. If making room in the workforce for the next generation requires this generation to retire at 60, then beginning at 60 people have to have the resources to retire. There are more than enough resources to sustain the world's population in comfort and dignity; we just need a better system than the 40 hour a week, work ‘til you die system of distribution. ~from NY, NY

This, from someone in Bloomington, Indiana

It seems to me that what we're seeing is a change in how we determine value, and not in a good way. People enjoy using Facebook, but if it ceased to exist tomorrow, so what? It isn't as if people would starve, or we'd suddenly lack water or fuel or clothes to wear or clean air to breathe. People wouldn't stop sharing their experiences with each other; they'd just find another way to do it. And relatively few people would even be out of work. The economic value of Facebook is pure illusion. Ditto Twitter; the people who use it would miss it, but its existence doesn't solve the real problems confronting us, nor would its disappearance create new problems.

The supposed value of social networking companies, or internet companies that serve as mere conduits for what others create, is precisely what's wrong with the economy. They're valued in absurd disproportion to what they actually contribute to society. It's all perception and no substance. I'd feel much better if you told me that the fastest growing companies were developing new energy sources. We need to think strategically for the long term, and not simply react like infatuated teenagers to the sensation of the moment.

Electronic time-wasting has replaced what was once the world's greatest manufacturing economy in the world. Did we really have to ship the production of everything overseas, even clothing and furniture? Both political parties have failed to look out for what used to be a middle class, and America may never be the same again. I'd rather go back to stiff tariffs than see us descend into nothing but a computer-based entertainment nation.

What everybody seems to keep forgetting, is that a business transaction is at least two-sided. It's wonderful to have a new perspective on entrepreneurialship, but without a 'purchasing public', there's no market for it; it's all one-sided. And the 'purchasing public' has been dwindling for years. Why not repair roads, bridges, and other crumbling infrastructure, through making a startup to do something selfless and practical and actually needed, instead of creating new markets where there previously were none, and adding to the junk factor? Does anyone ever step back a few feet and look at the big picture? Also it's never a good idea to put all the eggs in one basket...which seems to be encouraged here. What we need is a break from bad advice, on all fronts, and just the rolling up of our sleeves and getting to work. ~from Bloomington, IN

Thank you my fellow Americans!! After reading these comments I see at least a few of you ARE GETTING IT!!  Thanks for writing this so I didn't have to. Again, the bolded italics are my emphasis.

Doing the real work

Matthew Crawford's essay, The case for working with your hands, provides an excellent definition for determining what makes work worth doing:

"A good job requires a field of action where you can put your best capacities to work and see an effect in the world."

In this essay, an except from his book, Shop class as soulcraft, Crawford contrasts the work environments typical of the corporate world with those of manual labor. His observations about these cultural differences are extraordinarily accurate. I found myself in every passage.

Eighteen years ago I ran a business as a custom tailor in the back of a high-end vintage clothing store. I created original designs and provided restoration on the garments sold in the store. As much as my customers appreciated the work, they also disliked having to pay for it and often didn't hesitate to tell me. I sensed their vulnerability from not knowing if they could trust me or if what they wanted was possible. My job involved the execution of my craft and being a consultant and hand-holder, too.

During the years I spent tailoring clothes I experienced the full spectrum of attitudes that people maintain about practical, manual labor. On the one hand, some were genuinely gracious and understood the work as having value and requiring skill. On the other, there was always someone available at a drycleaner who would do it for less, but communication was an issue so they came to me. I understood very well the context of this prejudice toward sewing as work, but didn't believe it should be my problem to solve. From my point of view, I was offering a service just like any tradesman, and no less deserving of the same esteem as an electrician or mechanic. However, there seemed to be a strong distaste for this particular form of labor deep within the collective psyche, one I didn't share.

At one point, a well meaning person even said: "...I wouldn't be ashamed of doing that..." It never occurred to me that I should.

Fast forward several years, and I'm in a cubicle farm of a sportswear product group conversing with overseas factories about the fit and proportions of next spring's fashions. I have been sufficiently retrained as Crawford would say, "according to a certain cognitive style". 

Now rather than having the immediacy of directing my own actions, I am obligated to manage the work of others. I will never know or see them, but I'm utterly dependent on them creating garments according to specifications and instructions I provide. So while my previous skill development serves me well for orchestrating this, it bears no resemblance to what I call the "real" work.

Patterning, cutting, sewing, and finishing all require a knowledge and precision no less important than the clarity of emails I write to the reps and managers in Hong Kong. However, this labor went from being locally devalued to being globally devalued all so that we can purchase jeans and tee shirts at prices that have no connection to the true cost of production.

What I love about Crawford's essay is how well he grasps this transformation, and the resulting realization that work on either side of the ocean is not what it seems.

"When I first got the degree, I felt as if I had been inducted to a certain order of society. But despite the beautiful ties I wore, it turned out to be a more proletarian existence than I had known as an electrician."

And so, we are left to question the process by which any kind of work is esteemed.

The first annual 21st Century Citizen Award!!

When you are lucky enough to find the inspiration you're looking for from a kindred spirit, you've got to pass it on. In fact, the work of Thomas J. Elpel is just such a phenomenon that I've decided to name him my 21st Century Citizen of 2010. Here is a guy who has used most of his life figuring out how to be not only a responsible user of his own energy and resources, but also to help people understand how they can do the same in our economic ecosystem. I really admire the approach he took to writing his book: Direct pointing to real wealth. It is sort of an odd title, but the founding message of his thesis is unmistakably sound and appealing. Here is the basic premise:

"The first key to effective resource use is to creatively mimic nature in it's efficiency and synergism to close the loop on all kinds of waste at home and in business, from wasted materials and energy to wasted time, money and labor."

Early on his goal was to build his own energy efficient home and avoid having a mortgage so that he could achieve the greater goal of not having to work for someone else to have the life he wanted.

"...money is representative of calories, and the fewer we expended the fewer we would need to earn."

and:

"... we made our house energy efficient so that we would not have to work all our lives to pay high energy bills."

He repeatedly uses the analogy of calorie intake and consumption as the model for deciding where best to place your own resources for maximum return. This is but a taste of all the wisdom one can glean from this book, and no doubt his others. His writing alone might have earned him my citizen award, but that he also wants to teach others sustainable home building practices is the real winning element.
So what you might ask is the prize for this award? Uh, good question. I'll have to expend a few calories to create a suitable token of appreciation. As always, stay tuned for the next installment......