On the "C"-Word

The author/blogger reserves the right to modify this post...

Notes on the “C”-word;

let us begin with a quote from the poet, Ferlinghetti:

Which leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that the poet must perforce be an "enemy of the state." I hasten to add, lest the FBI knock on my door in the morning, that I mean an enemy of the state of our civilization today. Our omnivorous industrial civilization has proved to be bad for earth and man, ecologically and medically speaking. --Lawrence Ferlinghetti in "The Exquisite Corpse"

http://www.corpse.org/archives/issue_4/critical_urgencies/ferling.htm

North American folk ethics—a collection of principles and norms half conscious in the mind of the ordinary person, but governing behavior despite their below the surface status—is a combination the self-denying worship of the mythical activity called “work” and an irrational faith that reward comes to individual effort, together with a blindness to the degree to which any successful action by an individual requires a broad social network.

That’s a recipe for cultural disaster and needless suffering.

The mythical quality of this secular ideology (phrase borrowed from Epstein--note and explanation to be added) is apparent when so august a publication as “The Chronicle of Higher Education” dares to have a sub-section of “Careers” titled the Adjunct track—as if part-time and temporary work were normal.

((See, e.g., ths article http://chronicle.com/article/Love-of-Teaching-Draws/48845

But also read the comments on it.))

Of course, this is a feature of neo-liberalism which has been sharply delineated by the sociologist Loīc Wacquant. (in Punishing the Poor and elsewhere) We are supposed to accept this diminishing of possibilities as a fact and by talking about “careers” as a part-time or temporary College Professor The Chronicle of Higher Education is conforming to the overall strategy.

So, the use of the word “career” has become a weapon of class struggle. Those who own and control use it to confuse those who must work.

That’s roughly the background to my recent complaint about the “c”-word.

(Comment on “Creative Writing and Psychology, by Elaine Hatfield; (Monday August 16, 2010) posted by “formerly a wage slave”; both at the wonderful blog/magazine of psychology and writing run by Keith Oatley. )

(Link below)

Indeed, now that I’ve re-read the original essay—by Elaine Hatfield—I have some doubt in my mind whether Ms. Hatfield herself is not implicitly (even if unintentionally) reinforcing the mythology which I set out in the beginning of this comment. But, allow me to make my own point and then return to that worry.

Writing is not a career like banking. Writing is not a career like other careers. Neither is being a mathematician a matter of choosing a career the way most occupations are. An occupation provides a living. Most jobs mean a loss of independence and inevitable diminution of one’s mental powers. (See here, e.g., James R. Flynn’s What Is Intelligence? )[[further explanation and clarification/qualification to be added) Flynn defends the abstract point that a job can make you really stupider, but I do not recall that he said what I am now saying: that most jobs do so. Comment: this point needs to be made more carefully. Flynn discusses "IQ". Certain jobs may lead to declines in IQ. IQ is not obviously the same as "being smart"; decline in IQ is not exactly the same as becoming "stupid". The basic point will go through, but it needs to be made more carefully. Hence, the blogger/author will need to revise this entry)

Not for nothing did the phrase come into being: professional deformation of character.

That’s why I object to speaking of a career as a writer.... it suggests resonances that are misleading.

Ironically, the author whose words brought out this reaction was in the process of recommending that one choose a career of “intrinsic” value. Indeed, writing has intrinsic value and most careers do not.

But, there is as well a deeper point. Insofar as our societies discourage thought--most jobs certainly do—and insofar as writing requires creative thought, to normalize writing as just another career, another way of earning one’s living is a distortion. And it is also something of a mis-representation to suggest that a valiant lone writer must pursue their career in the face of rejection, and simultaneously ignore the question: how many real geniuses just gave up? How many great works would we have that have been lost if our societies and economies actually encouraged creativity?

Now the original essay which provoked my comment wanted to divorce writing from money-earning/survival issues. It’s not about popularity or getting rich. Indeed, but the richnesses which come from literature are very much under-appreciated and not encouraged by our current systems of social and economic organization. To speak of writing as a “career” is, by implication (even if it was not intended) to ignore that fact.

And let’s be clear: I have the highest respect for the bus drivers of Sun Metro in El Paso Texas. But their supervisors and managers do not gain my respect. The bus drivers make a genuine contribution the well-being of other citizens of this city. Whoever runs the bus system (those person or persons) have made many serious mistakes which contribute to a culture of suspicion and disrespect, and press down upon those with the least power. Both the managers and the bus drivers have careers—but neither have the access to cultural treasures available to someone who writes.

Might not a bus-driver write in his or her spare time? It could happen, but I suspect it is unusual—not because they lack material, but there’s a problem with time. One needs “a room of one’s own”, a space of one’s own, some freedom from the demands that others make upon us. How Jane Austen managed to write at the kitchen table—if the story is true—is a mystery to me!