Thomas Benjamin wrote:
> Being
> in a different culture, I cannot make a useful contribution in the form of
> advice/lecture. Work ethic in the US has always been different from ours
> in India. Yet from my understanding of Western Culture and its current
> affluence, I wonder if its teens of today have the same need for work as
> they had a generation or two ago?
Helly everyone, I hope this isn't too much of a ramble but I also have a
teenager in the NYCity jungle. This is a daily ramble through the jungle
of friends and situations that would have not only freaked out my parents
but my whole community.
For me the more interesting question is what has this present society done
to stop a voracious learning creature from working at it. Work is the
first impulse of the human animal. Learning is the underlying intent of
the work. Work is how they get what they want.
My reaction to the INTENT of Jesse's post,e.g. is not negative but I
believe that the IDEA of consumerism connected to the hyper-moralistic
denial of the identity of the child(as a working learning creature) has
been the problem in the first place. To propose it as an answer seems
perverse even if it is Kant. If Kant had given away his children as
Rousseau did, for his work, his grief might have made him a little less
manipulative about it and it might have been a German that changed the
child-rearing brutalities of Europe instead of a Frenchman studying
American Indians.
Of course if one moves the idea of "work ethic" from the "accomplishment
of worthy tasks" to the "making of money," and cash as the ultimate moral
value then that is another argument. It is often argued that the cash is
supposed to merely create the opportunity to do significant things and
thus is a precursor to a meaningful life. But does it mean that you will
have the depth to accomplish such a thing, once you have made the work
ethic the ethic of cash value?
e.g., No one would deny the ability of the Spielburg organization to make
a technically more effective movie about genocide or slavery than the
local individual producer simply because they have the cash. However, if
this mornings NYTimes review of "Amisdad" is true, then the problem of
the technical manipulation of a profound idea remains just that(an act of
virtuosity without profundity) in the mind of a sophisticated critic of
the process. A lack of cash can produce great work albeit with difficulty
and within a limiting factor, but the reverse is not true. An abundance
of cash and technique cannot cover an incoherency lying at the core of a
work if the hard learning has not taken place.
IMHO the work ethic is a result rather than an end. But a result of what?
A result of experience with the process of learning from birth. It gets
stymied when the proper learning events are cut from the life of the child
in the act of socialization. For example if the child does not develop
good visual habits by a certain age the brain will never register them.
At a later date, to worry about how to develop an ethic of visual judgment
is to punish the person for what you withheld at an earlier time.
To me the answer lies in the development first of the child's perceptions
and then the development of critical judgment. A tough sell in a world
situation that is involved in "haves" and "have nots" with the "have nots"
working because they are in need and the "haves" not working because they
are fulfilled. This would indicate that the reason for work is physical
needs and once those are gone then significant work will cease. This is a
central flaw in the "cash value" argument.
I would propose that you work because, not to work is like not loving or
not playing or not pursuing your concern with the Ultimate Meaning of
life. Four legs of the same table, all necessary for the table to
function as a table.
The most bizarre version of the consumerism argument came a few weeks ago
when I spoke to the chief bonds officer of a prominent WS firm. He said
that he knew of nobody in the firm who was doing what they really wanted
to do or what fulfilled their emotional work needs. Is this the work
ethic that we propose for our children? Not to mention does it call forth
the best and most profound work from the people who made the statement.
What kind of "work ethic" is that and how do you "sell" the idea of
unhappiness to a group of idealistic teens?
So what to do? Teach the right things in the right order at the right
time and re-evaluate all of this cultural morality baggage that just
creates violent confrontation of the blind leading the blinded. But what
to say to the children? Nothing. What do you say to the child within
yourself. Do that first and then maybe.....
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Chamber Opera of New York, Inc.
mcore@idt.net
--Ray Evans Harrell <mcore@IDT.NET>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>