"THE MEANING OF A WORD DEPENDS ON THE LANGUAGE GAME BEING PLAYED ... WE
MIX UP ONE LANGUAGE GAME WITH ANOTHER ... THE JOB OF PHILOSOPHY IS TO
SORT OUT THESE LANGUAGE GAMES" Wittgenstein
Compounding the philosophical challenge is the job of getting others to
agree to play our favoured game.
Robert Needham wrote:
> The meaning of work is something that I have struggled with quite
> a bit in my own academic writing. It has many meanings, and these meanings
> have to be clarified in some way. Rather than totally dropping the word, I
> have chosen to clarify the different types.
As Wittgenstein understood, their is no 'essential' or 'objective'
meaning which can be attributed to a word. The attribution of meanings
to words (or visual/auditory signals) is a somewhat arbitrary matter,
requiring agreement between communicating actors - all the more
important when cooperation for mutual survival is needed.
Robert, the strategy of word clarification which you have chosen, seems
to assume that either (1) there was at some point in history, a clear
agreement (or god-given definition) relating a meaning to the word
'work', which only needs to be recovered, the puzzle being, which point
in history?, or (2) there is a range of operative meanings implied in
everyday speech, which the dictionary only roughly indicates, but which
need sorting out. I suspect you are pursuing the latter - an exercise
which I undertook some years ago.
Suppose that we successfully tease out a range of definitions, let's
call them language games, ie, sets of rules for distinguishing work from
non-work, we will still be faced with a number of dilemmas, some of
which I pointed to in my last posting. How will the exercise help us
all escape the semantic quagmire? I imagine that is the sincere purpose
of the exercise. Even when we beautifully clarified a range of language
games to be associated with the word work, we would still be left
floundering in the swamp, for whenever we use the word 'work' we would
have to guess which language game(s) were connoted. It would be like
confining us to the word 'ballgame' to denote the games - football,
tennis, basketball and cricket. Whenever anyone suggest that we
cooperate, and get organised around a 'ballgame' we would have to puzzle
over which game was talked about.
> I start with a rather simple, but broad, definition of work, and
> then add to it as required. I define work as nothing more than conscious
> activity directed toward the accomplishment of an end. This work can be
> waged or unwaged, biologically and economically (bio-economically)
> necessary or unnecessary, enjoyable or painful etc. There can be many
> combinations of these (e.g. waged work that is bio-economically necessary,
> or waged work that is bio-economically unnecessary).
Yes, I've also done this exercise, and found it valuable. Though
I've ditched the goal-oriented distinction because every conceivable
human activity is goal directed. I can't think of any activity that
isn't. Even blobbing in front of the TV is goal directed, as is sleep.
So associating the word 'work' with 'goal-directed activity' doesn't
achieve any
useful distinguishing purpose.
Rather than asking the one word 'work' to cover the variety of meanings,
which leaves us floundering in all the problems mentioned, I suggest
that we assign and agree on a newly invented, different word for each of
the qualitative distinctions worth keeping.
To that end, I have developed the following simple proposal.
Use the generative terms 'action', 'activity', 'active' and apply a
range of prefixes. I've thereby generated about eight words, allowing
us to speak more precisely and to deposit the word work in the trash
can. For example:
saction (sac, from sacrifice) = any action performed unwillingly. A
person specific, time specific and environment specific term. No task
is inherently 'sactive' . For example, I'm often willing to do the
dishes. But ask me to do them for a much longer time and I'll reach a
threshold beyond which the activity becomes 'sactivity' for me. To get
me to cross my threshold into sactivity, you'll have to coerce me, offer
me monetary rewards or prizes, or persuade me with moral arguments.
With the word saction in our tool kit, we can begin to talk about an
economy that minimises saction. Now wouldn't that be nice. A
'minisaction economy'. Or if you prefer it warm and cuddly, or
spiritually inclined, call it a 'love economy'.
Now attach the prefix 'con' (as in conditional, connive, conmanship) to
the word 'saction'. We have 'consaction'.
consaction = saction performed only on condition, expectation or promise
of future compensation or reward, where the compensation pursued is
assumed to be equivalent to the measure of sacrifice. Consaction
requires mutual deception. For as Aristotle understood (Nicomachean
Ethics), commensurations between apples and pears, or beds and chairs,
or time sacrifices and compensatory equivalents, are, in truth,
impossible. Aristotle suggested we overlook this impossibility and play
on.
Thus continuing to dominate the playground is a consaction game - the
market economy - the compulsion towards 'full employment', a game based
on the evident truth that incentives are needed to make people sactive.
Throw in the highest bidder game to allocate land, and we drive people
to become maximimally sactive. Understandably the playing fields are
also sacrificed.
Let's be honest, is it in our interests to continue playing the
consaction game to
continue?
Time for a bit of serious fun. Why not let go of the sacrificial 'work'
rubbish. Hands up for a new game. I'm looking for lateral-thinking
game designers. Who is willing to put their minds to developing,
presenting and trialing a minsaction game?
Richard Mochelle
