...and a wardrobe.
So I was listening to Andrew Marr's Start the Week, this morning. Despite myself, I invariably enjoy / find interesting listening to Marr's shows.
Today's seemed poignant and apposite to the beginning of 2012 - main topic being austerity. He talked to various people on his panel, today, one of them being Anna Coote, who - again - despite myself, I found arguing an intriguing proposition - that we work too much.
Some of this was in general, in comparison to other European countries, some general rhetoric, some of it with teeth - her argument being that we are effectively slaves to the current economic landscape - which if not failed, is at least listing hard to starboard - that we basically demand a certain standard of living, a certain degree of income, merely based on spending it. She went on to talk about spending and consumerism now being significant leisure activities - people seem to just want (perhaps even believe need) for quite specious reasons: keeping up with others, adverts, being marketed to, what we're told we need - and the rest of our working and income demands had become perverted in order to support this.
She proposed a radical rethink of not what we want to earn and spend, but what we need to earn and spend - and as a consequence, then what sort of hours and impact our working life needs to consume. The point was made that during the 3 day week in the 70s, output only dropped by 6%, and that shorter worked hours, tend to mean more productivity during the remaining hours worked. That this wouldn't just impact certain demographics in society earning less, but as a consequence, there's be more employment potential, and some groups earning more than present.
And all that is before you start to think about what consumerism, or perhaps redress of it, may mean for the environment.
The rationale behind her proposition, being that the current economic model if not failed, was at least showing serious intent, and that a long-term view on society and work, needed radical change, going forward, for it to not completely fail future generations. Some of this was making general comments on work / life balance, some on the current, rampant, all-consuming consumerism being unsustainable, long-term, and that current austerity initiatives merely seemed aimed at righting the ship, rather than really addressing the true problem.
Yes, I know, it all seems very commie - but all the same, hearing the discussion, listening to the other guests commenting / questioning / arguing with - did leave me thinking there was some validity, even if a bit objectionable to the defensive.
Despite having flashbacks to Fight Club, and wondering whether she had her own, rather unique, soap making company - despite all that, lots of what she was saying, had me metaphorically nodding my head. The idea that simply trying to fix things and return them back to "normal", examined like this, did seem fundamentally flawed.
She went on to say what society needed was to have a change in perspective - to encourage a shift in thought for society - it was at this point she lost me (I don't mean in terms of comprehending her point, I more mean, I was no longer, metaphorically nodding my head). The idea that people should try to change the thinking, the belief, the goals, seemed idealistic - but the suggestion, in some kind of vague way, that it could be effective convinced me that although the idea(s) seemed to make lots of sense - to "reboot" the way society aspires and enjoys leisure as not simply opportunity to spend and be consumers - but to actually have leisure time. I then became convinced that such ideas, such proposition, such ideas about how to do this, weren't being purported by people living / thinking in the real world - by that I mean, not that the aim was so detached, but the ideas on how to go about such change.
I just sat there thinking, you had me up to there - then you lost me - and that's what I saw as the huge flaw - something I saw as having quite a persuasive ethos, if truly examined and understood, yet the thinking on how to go about it all, so vague, detached, and frankly implausible.
All the same, I was left thinking, there's validity, there's hope and I think true long-view perspective to the whole idea. I just thought there's got to be a better approach at selling / implementing it for society, in a timescale before the status quo proliferates too far (I know, some people will say Rossi and Parfiitt have already gone too far, been here too long...). But maybe that goes to the whole pragmatism of this - if there's no likely persuasive way of selling this, and getting buy-in, then is the concept so good? There has to be some degree of practicality, otherwise it's just useless idealism.
I couldn't help thinking, though, thinking about where economies currently are, the state of them, and their future prospects, surely there was an epiphany, there, just waiting to get out - what had suddenly done for western societies, to make them slavish animals at the trough of consumerism, in order to feel validated. Thinking back to growing up in the 70s, when times certainly seemed a lot harder and tougher, than today, or even recent times - when despite having an awful lot less, nostalgia and the passing of time has made it seem as if it wasn't a totally unpleasant period.
One aspect of the 80s that I think has caused the whole stone-falling-in-the-pond-and-ripples thing, being the whole drive for growth, the "I'm alright Jack!" mindset encouraged by Gordon Gecko's braces. That ethos has seemingly gone beyond it's time, and I think society has never fully recovered from such times where "society" was denounced in such an evocative way.
To further the (quite flawed, but exposed for fiction) "Fight Club" analogy, "Tyler"'s attempted "reboot" of certain economic systems in Fight Club was certainly one, radical approach - but the postulated outcome, was only likely to give many a sudden unshackling of their current debt oppression, and a reset to simply go and acquire more. And looking at that tale in perspective, and all he really offered his "Space Monkey" followers was the trading of one form of societal oppression for another - his, and his agenda, oppression, and demographically aligned, appealing, rhetoric for them to sheep-ish-ly follow, rather than the existing, presented, societal oppression.
So what is the answer? Don't listen to Radio 4 political debate after eating cheese? Austerity measures until the financial landscape isn't as dire, then a likely slide or return to form? An increasing division between the "haves" and "have nots"? I think I do agree that rampant and wanton consumerism haven't been good traits for society to stealthily be intoxicated by and aspire to - I accept it's the cornerstone of modern capitalism, but all the same, doesn't seem a sustainable future.
So what does society need to learn - and perhaps more importantly, how the hell could society be realistically persuaded to be drawn to it?
So I was listening to Andrew Marr's Start the Week, this morning. Despite myself, I invariably enjoy / find interesting listening to Marr's shows.
Today's seemed poignant and apposite to the beginning of 2012 - main topic being austerity. He talked to various people on his panel, today, one of them being Anna Coote, who - again - despite myself, I found arguing an intriguing proposition - that we work too much.
Some of this was in general, in comparison to other European countries, some general rhetoric, some of it with teeth - her argument being that we are effectively slaves to the current economic landscape - which if not failed, is at least listing hard to starboard - that we basically demand a certain standard of living, a certain degree of income, merely based on spending it. She went on to talk about spending and consumerism now being significant leisure activities - people seem to just want (perhaps even believe need) for quite specious reasons: keeping up with others, adverts, being marketed to, what we're told we need - and the rest of our working and income demands had become perverted in order to support this.
She proposed a radical rethink of not what we want to earn and spend, but what we need to earn and spend - and as a consequence, then what sort of hours and impact our working life needs to consume. The point was made that during the 3 day week in the 70s, output only dropped by 6%, and that shorter worked hours, tend to mean more productivity during the remaining hours worked. That this wouldn't just impact certain demographics in society earning less, but as a consequence, there's be more employment potential, and some groups earning more than present.
And all that is before you start to think about what consumerism, or perhaps redress of it, may mean for the environment.
The rationale behind her proposition, being that the current economic model if not failed, was at least showing serious intent, and that a long-term view on society and work, needed radical change, going forward, for it to not completely fail future generations. Some of this was making general comments on work / life balance, some on the current, rampant, all-consuming consumerism being unsustainable, long-term, and that current austerity initiatives merely seemed aimed at righting the ship, rather than really addressing the true problem.
Yes, I know, it all seems very commie - but all the same, hearing the discussion, listening to the other guests commenting / questioning / arguing with - did leave me thinking there was some validity, even if a bit objectionable to the defensive.
Despite having flashbacks to Fight Club, and wondering whether she had her own, rather unique, soap making company - despite all that, lots of what she was saying, had me metaphorically nodding my head. The idea that simply trying to fix things and return them back to "normal", examined like this, did seem fundamentally flawed.
She went on to say what society needed was to have a change in perspective - to encourage a shift in thought for society - it was at this point she lost me (I don't mean in terms of comprehending her point, I more mean, I was no longer, metaphorically nodding my head). The idea that people should try to change the thinking, the belief, the goals, seemed idealistic - but the suggestion, in some kind of vague way, that it could be effective convinced me that although the idea(s) seemed to make lots of sense - to "reboot" the way society aspires and enjoys leisure as not simply opportunity to spend and be consumers - but to actually have leisure time. I then became convinced that such ideas, such proposition, such ideas about how to do this, weren't being purported by people living / thinking in the real world - by that I mean, not that the aim was so detached, but the ideas on how to go about such change.
I just sat there thinking, you had me up to there - then you lost me - and that's what I saw as the huge flaw - something I saw as having quite a persuasive ethos, if truly examined and understood, yet the thinking on how to go about it all, so vague, detached, and frankly implausible.
All the same, I was left thinking, there's validity, there's hope and I think true long-view perspective to the whole idea. I just thought there's got to be a better approach at selling / implementing it for society, in a timescale before the status quo proliferates too far (I know, some people will say Rossi and Parfiitt have already gone too far, been here too long...). But maybe that goes to the whole pragmatism of this - if there's no likely persuasive way of selling this, and getting buy-in, then is the concept so good? There has to be some degree of practicality, otherwise it's just useless idealism.
I couldn't help thinking, though, thinking about where economies currently are, the state of them, and their future prospects, surely there was an epiphany, there, just waiting to get out - what had suddenly done for western societies, to make them slavish animals at the trough of consumerism, in order to feel validated. Thinking back to growing up in the 70s, when times certainly seemed a lot harder and tougher, than today, or even recent times - when despite having an awful lot less, nostalgia and the passing of time has made it seem as if it wasn't a totally unpleasant period.
One aspect of the 80s that I think has caused the whole stone-falling-in-the-pond-and-ripples thing, being the whole drive for growth, the "I'm alright Jack!" mindset encouraged by Gordon Gecko's braces. That ethos has seemingly gone beyond it's time, and I think society has never fully recovered from such times where "society" was denounced in such an evocative way.
To further the (quite flawed, but exposed for fiction) "Fight Club" analogy, "Tyler"'s attempted "reboot" of certain economic systems in Fight Club was certainly one, radical approach - but the postulated outcome, was only likely to give many a sudden unshackling of their current debt oppression, and a reset to simply go and acquire more. And looking at that tale in perspective, and all he really offered his "Space Monkey" followers was the trading of one form of societal oppression for another - his, and his agenda, oppression, and demographically aligned, appealing, rhetoric for them to sheep-ish-ly follow, rather than the existing, presented, societal oppression.
So what is the answer? Don't listen to Radio 4 political debate after eating cheese? Austerity measures until the financial landscape isn't as dire, then a likely slide or return to form? An increasing division between the "haves" and "have nots"? I think I do agree that rampant and wanton consumerism haven't been good traits for society to stealthily be intoxicated by and aspire to - I accept it's the cornerstone of modern capitalism, but all the same, doesn't seem a sustainable future.
So what does society need to learn - and perhaps more importantly, how the hell could society be realistically persuaded to be drawn to it?
