Division of Labor and Spirituality - Kat Lanzalotto

By

 I want to dip into Anderson's Private Government and think through the proposal that my group created last class regarding spirituality, the division of labor, and hierarchies of authority. We argued that spirituality justifies (and is weaponized by) the division of labor, which creates hierarchies of authority (which spirituality maintains). 

Anderson introduces the "great chain of being" as a mechanism that justified the massive hierarchies of authority within pre-industrial revolution England. All people linked through their superior authority figure in a chain until God. Hierarchies of authority were intensely pervasive at the time; as Anderson notes, all people except for the king were ruled by an authority who had almost limitless control over their lives. Each person in the great chain "​​Had some creature above and some below their place; even the king and pope were accountable to God; even the lowliest humans had dominion over animals" (Anderson 10). The doctrine of original sin was an additional explicitly spiritual ideology that rationalized authority hierarchy. Anderson argues that the human tendency toward original sin justified the constraint which authorities had over their inferiors – it even served as a justification for slavery. But, these forms of authority hierarchy, Anderson notes, would be considered far from free by our current standards. 


Anderson outlines the obvious and pervasive connection between spirituality and justifying authority hierarchies. But, before our discussion with her on Thursday, I want to think through ways in which the division of labor fits within the question of spirituality's role (and importance in the modern workplace). I want to solidify the relationship between spirituality, hierarchies of authority and the division of labor to look closely at how they work together in modern workplaces.  


The tie between authority and spirituality was presented by Anderson above, so I want to focus on the connections between the division of labor and authority hierarchy alongside the division of labor and spirituality. On the former, the division of labor creates authority hierarchies (at least some of them). As tasks for which labor is divided become more difficult or intense, it is necessary for a supervisor, or some person, to oversee their operations. From here, tasks become more specialized and complex, necessitating different positions and compensations for various work, creating a hierarchy of company positions, salaries, and people. So, the connections between the division of labor and authority (and authority and spirituality) are evident. 


Under the surface, the connections between the division of labor and spirituality are present as well. If we consider the connection between work ethic and spirituality (religious obligations or something else), the ability to act spiritually can help maintain the division of labor. We can look to Anderson's Puritan work ethic for this or even consider things as simple as communal obligations we feel like we have because of our spirituality. If we consider communal obligations to the private governments people work under, there is massive justification of an individual's spot in the division of labor. I have two examples: Imagine a person who is greatly overworked but buys into the Puritan work ethic (though a more modern iteration of it). They will likely justify their hard work (and how little they are rewarded by it) with a larger spiritual obligation that they are fulfilling through their work. This may be an obligation to not be idle to work aesthetically, and earn leisure. In another case, consider a young woman who has been practicing meditation through work promotions and programming to grapple with an expanding workload for her company role (which will only grow bigger). While the spirituality inherent in meditation may not justify the woman's position in the division of labor, the division of labor can use meditation to weaponize her spirituality in a way that explains her growing workload, which by normal standards would be overbearing. Although, I think we could debate if the commodified meditation companies use counts as a spiritual activity. 


Overall, I just thought about exploring how Anderson's argument in Private Government fits into the larger discussion of the division of labor and freedoms we discussed last seminar. Albeit, I discussed spirituality less related to freedom and more related to corporate weaponization. I wonder if anyone else thinks spirituality relates to the division of labor or others see its effects operating differently. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more