Message 04185 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04129 Message: 16/23 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Copyfarleft: Response to Stefan Meretz

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:19:25 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] Stefan Meretz wrote:

Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:55:26 +0100 Dmytri Kleiner wrote:

and also the basic distinction of
labour from labour-power ("work" and "work-force"),

Here, you are right. I translated the german aquivalents wrongly. Graham
already points me to this fault.

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:21:01 +0000 graham wrote:

Anyhow, a comment on language rather than contents:

Arbeit/arbeitskraft are normally translated as labour/labour-power.
The phrase 'work force' or 'labour force' means "all the individuals
employed by a particular enterprise", it never means arbeitskraft.
If you really prefer not to use 'labour power' because it is too
technical (ie. only used by marxists) then 'ability to work'
(arbeitsvermogen) would be a possibility.

'Arbeit' can be translated as 'work' rather than 'labour' if you wish,
but there is a traditional distinction based on the footnote by Engels
to Capital Ch. 1 (English translation,

"The English language has the advantage of possessing different words
for the two aspects of labour here considered. The labour which creates
use value, and counts qualitatively, is Work, as distinguished from
Labour; that which creates Value and counts quantitatively, is Labour as
distinguished from Work"

i read some work by Mary Dietz *On Arendt* that introduces a different take on the above categories ...

Arendt begins *The Human Condition* by distinguishing among three
"general human capacities which grow out of the human condition and are
permanent, that is, which cannot be irretrievably lost so long as the
human condition itself is not changed." [6]

The three categories and their "corresponding conditions" are

  * labor and live
  * work and worldliness, and
  * action and plurality;

    together they constitute the *vita activa*. [7]

Arendt envisions labor, work, and action not as empirical or
sociological generalizations about what people actually do, but rather
as existential categories intended to distinguish the *vita activa*
and reveal what it means to be human and "in presence of other human
beings" in the world. [8]

These "existentials", however, do more than disclose that human beings
cultivate, fabricate, and organize the world. In an expressly normative
way, Arendt wants to judge the human condition, and to get us, in turn,
"to think what we are doing" when we articulate and live out the
condition of our existence in particular ways. [9]

Underlying *The Human Condition* is the notion that human history has
been a story of continuously shifting "reversals" within the
*vita activa* itself. In different historical moments from classical to
the contemporary age, labor, work, and action have been accorded higher
or lower status within the hierarchy.

Arendt argues that some moments of human experience -- namely those in
which "action" has been understood as the most meaningful human
activity -- are more glorious and free than those in which either "the
labor of our body or the work of our hands" is elevated within the
*vita activa*. [10]

Hence her reverence for the age of Socrates and the public realm of the
Greek *polis*, and her dismay over the ensuing events within Western
culture and political thought (including liberalism and Marxism), as
citizen-politics is increasingly lost and the world of action is
displaced by the primacy of labor and work.

The critique of the modern world that *The Human Condition* advances
rests on the claim that we are now witnessing an unprecedented era in
which the process-driven activity of labor dominates our understanding
of human achievement. As a result, we live in and celebrate a world of
automatically functioning jobholders, having lost all sense of what
constitutes true freedom and collective public life.

  When Arendt calls

  * "life" the condition of labor,
  * "worldliness" the condition of work, and
  * "plurality" the condition of action,

  she means to associate a corresponding set of characteristics with

  * Labor (*animal laborans*) corresponds to the biological process of
    the human body and hence to the process of growth and decay in
    nature itself. Necessity defines labor, insofar as laboring is
    concentrated exclusively on life and the demands of its

    Labor takes place primarily in the private realm, the realm of the
    household, family, and intimate relations. The objects of labor
    -- the most natural and ephemeral of tangible things -- are the
    most consumed and, therefore, the least worldly. They are products
    of the cyclical, biological, life process itself, "where no
    beginning and no end exists and where all natural things swing in
    changeless, deathless, repetition". [11]

    *Animal laborans* is also distinguished by a particular mentality
    or mode of thinking-in-the-world. It cannot conceive of the
    possibility of breaking free or beginning anew;
    "sheer inevitability" and privatization dominate it. Hence, Arendt
    refers to the "essential worldly futility" of the life process and
    the activity of *animal laborans*. [12]

  * Work (*homo faber*), in contrast to labor, is the activity that
    corresponds to the "unnaturalness" of human existence. If "life"
    and the private realm locate the activity of the *animal laborans*,
    then "the world" locates *homo faber*.

    Work is, literally, the working up of the world, the production of
    things-in-the-world. If *animal laborans* is caught up in nature
    and in the cyclical movement of the body's life processes, then
    *homo faber* is, as Arendt puts it, "free to produce and destroy".

    The fabrication process, with its definite beginning and
    predictable end, governs *homo faber* activity. Repetition, the
    hallmark of labor, may or may not characterize work; at least it is
    not inherent in the activity itself. The objects of this activity,
    unlike those of labor, are relatively durable, permanent
    endproducts. They are not consumed, but rather used or enjoyed.
    The "fabrications" of *homo faber* have the function of
    "stabalizing" human life and they bear testimony to human
    productivity. [14]

    Insofar as they are all *homo faber*, human beings think in terms
    of gaining mastery over nature, and approach the world itself as a
    controllable object, the "measure of the man." This tendency to
    objectify things and persons in the world is a foreboding of, in
    Arendt's words, "a growing meaningless, where every end is
    transformed in to a means," and even those things not constructed
    by human hands lose their value and are treated as instruments at
    the behest of the "lord and master of all things." [15]

    The corresponding mentality of *homo faber*, then, is a rational-
    instrumental attitude concerned with the usefulness of things and
    the "sheer worldly existence" made possible through human artifice.
    Understood as an existential "type", *homo faber* is that aspect of
    human beingness that places confidence in the belief that "every
    issue can be solved and every human motivation reduced to the
    principle of utility." [16]

  * What Arendt calls "action" stands in sharp contrast with, but is
    not unrelated to the activities of labor and work. In order to act,
    human beings must first have satisfied the demands of life, have a
    private realm for solitude, and also have a stable world within
    which they can achieve "solidity" and "retrieve their sameness ...
    their identity." [17]

    At the same time, human beings possess an extraordinary capability
    that neither labor nor work encompass. They can disclose themselves
    in speech and deed, and undertake new beginnings, thereby denying
    the bonds of nature and moving beyond the means-end confines of
    *homo faber*. [18]

    Without action to bring new beginnings (natality) into the play of
    the world, Arendt writes, there is nothing new under the sun;
    without speech, there is no memorialization, no remembrance. [19]

    Unlike either labor or work, action bears no corresponding singular
    Latin synonym, perhaps because Arendt means for it to capture an
    aspect of human life that is essentially collective, rather than
    solitary or distinguished by the "separateness" of persons. This
    collective condition, where speech and action materialize, Arendt
    calls "the human condition of plurality." [20]

    Plurality is perhaps the key concept in Arendt's understanding of
    action. She uses it to explore the situation humans achieve when
    they "gather together to act in concert", thus finding themselves
    enmeshed within a "web of relationships". [21]

    In general terms, plurality is the simultaneous realization of
    shared equality and distinctive, individual differences. Arendt
    calls it "the basic condition of both action and speech." [22]

    Without equality, individuals would not be able to comprehend each
    other or communicate, and without distinctiveness, they would have
    no reason to communicate, no impetus to interject themselves as
    *unique* selves into the shared world.

    Plurality, then, is the common condition in which human beings
    reveal their "unique distinctiveness." Arendt presents this in terms
    of a paradox:

      "Plurality is the condition of human action because we are all
       the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the
       same as anyone else who ever lived, lives, or will live." [23]

    Thus, plurality promotes the notion of a politics of shared

 Because Arendt introduces plurality as a political and not a
 metaphysical concept, she also locates this common condition in a
 discernible space which she calls "the public" or the "space of
 appearances". [24]

 The public exists in stark contrast to the private realm; it is where
 the revelation of individuality amidst collectivity takes place. The
 barest existence of a public realm "bestowed upon politics a
 dignity", Arendt writes, "that even today has not altogether
 disappeared". [25]

 Arendt's concept of plurality as the basic condition of action and
 speech allows her to reconceptulize politics and power in significant
 ways. Put simply, politics at its most dignified is the realization of
 human plurality -- the activity that simply *is* the sharing of the
 world and exemplary of the human capacity for "beginning anew" through
 mutual speech and deed. [26]

 Power, which Arendt understands as "acting together", maintains the
 space of appearances; as long as it persists, the public realm is
 preserved. [27]

 Politics is the activity that renders us something more than just the
 *animal laborans*, subject to the cyclicality of human biological
 processes, or the *homo faber*, artificer of the world.

 When Arendt characterizes action as the only activity entirely
 dependent on "being together" and "the existence of other people", she
 intends to posit the existential difference between politics on the
 one hand, and labor and work on the other. She also wants to use
 action as a way of getting us to consider yet one other dispositional
 capacity we possess -- something she variously calls common sense,
 judging insight, or "representative thinking". [28]

 Representative thinking can be distinguished from both the process
 logic of *animal laborans* and the instrumentalism of *homo faber*
 insofar as it is guided by a respect for persons as distinctive
 agents, as "speakers of words and doers of deeds."

 In order to flourish, the public realm requires this way of thinking;
 it proceeds from the notion that we can put ourselves in the place
 of others, in a manner that is open, communicative, and aware of
 individual differences, opinions and concerns.

 Without question, Arendt understands politics as existentially
 superior to both labor and work. Thus she has often been interpreted
 as devaluing the latter, or worse, as having contempt for the lives of
 the poor and working classes -- in her own words, "the vast majority
 of humankind". [29]

 Here it is worth repeating that Arendt presents labor, work and action
 *not* as constructs of class or social relations, but rather as the
 properties of the human condition which are within the range of every
 human being.

 Likewise, our "world alienation" is not a matter of rising masses or
 threatened aristocracies, but has to do with the fact that, as
 *humans*, we are rapidly losing our collective capacity to exercise
 power through shared word and deed, and succumbing ever more steadily
 to an existence governed by the instrumental calculations of
 *homo faber* and the process mentality of *animal laborans*.

 Freedom is fast disappearing in the face of the sheer survivalism and
 automatic functioning that is the condition of the modern world.


 [6] Hanna Arendt, *The Human Condition* (Chicago: University of
     Chicago Press, 1958), p.6.
 [7] Ibid., p.7.
 [8] Ibid., p.22.
 [9] Ibid., p.5.
[10] Arendt takes the phrase in quotes from Locke, and uses it to set
     off her discussion of labor and work as the human activities
     elevated in both liberal and Marxist thought.
[11] Arendt, *Human Condition*, p.96.
[12] Ibid., p.131. For a helpful clarification of the relationship
     between labor, work, and action and the mentalities Arendt
     associates with them, see Pitkin, "Justice".
[13] Arendt, *Human Condition*, p.144. Or, as she puts it, *homo faber*
     the creator of human artifice, is also a "destroyer of nature",
[14] Ibid., pp.136-7.
[15] Ibid., p.157.
[16] Ibid., p.305.
[17] Ibid., p.137.
[18] Ibid., p.190.
[19] Ibid., p.204.
[20] Ibid., p.7.
[21] Ibid., p.244.
[22] Ibid., p.175. The spontaneous political uprising of the Chinese
     people in Tiananmen Square was one of the most dramatic examples
     of what Arendt means by "action" and "plurality". What arose there
     was a community of equals, "where everyone has the same capacity
     to act ... and the impossibility of remaining unique masters of
     what they do, of knowing its consequences and relying upon the
     future" (p.244). Arendt calls this the "price paid for plurality"
     -- for the joy of inhabiting together with others a world whose
     reality is guaranteed for each by the presence of all. Hence her
     emphasis on the "unpredictability" and the "boundlessness" of
     action, as well as its inherent glory and irreducible
[23] Ibid., p.8.
[24] Ibid., pp.52,204.
[25] Ibid., p.205.
[26] Ibid., p.9.
[27] Ibid., p.204.
[28] Arendt develops the dimensions of this mentality more fully in her
     essay, "The Crisis in Culture", in her *Between Past and Future*
     (New York: Viking Press, 1961), pp. 220-4. In contemporary
     terminology, the capacity to judge is communicative, not
[29] Arendt is well aware that, throughout history, vast numbers of
     people have been prevented from realizing their existentially
     highest human activities. See *Human Condition*, p.199.

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:19:25 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] Stefan Meretz wrote:

Btw. can you or someone explain "punching the clock and working for the
man"? Is it an idiom?

"Punching the clock", refers to the automated clocking-in and clocking-out process, some work places have. Each worker has their own named card, and you put this card in the clock slot at the beginning and end of each shift and the clock "punches" your card with a time, date stamp.

"Working for the man" ... maybe this can be thought of as "Working for the cybernetic machine" ... although it is usually a man relaying the orders.

-- adam
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04129 Message: 16/23 L1 [In index]
Message 04185 [Homepage] [Navigation]