What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mythology of Work: How Capitalism Persists Despite Itself
Once, work was inextricably linked to survival and self-preservation: the farmer ploughed his land so that his family could eat. In contrast, today work has slowly morphed into a painful and meaningless ritual for many, colonizing almost every part of our day, endless and inescapable.
In The Mythology of Work, Peter Fleming examines how neoliberal society uses the ritual of work—and the threat of its denial—to maintain the late capitalist class order. Work becomes a universal reference point, devoid of any moral or political worth, transforming our society into a factory that never sleeps. Blending critical theory with recent accounts of job-related suicides, office-induced paranoia, fear of relaxation, managerial sadism, and cynical corporate social responsibility campaigns, Fleming paints a bleak picture of a society in which economic and emotional disasters greatly outweigh any professed benefits.
In The Mythology of Work, Peter Fleming examines how neoliberal society uses the ritual of work—and the threat of its denial—to maintain the late capitalist class order. Work becomes a universal reference point, devoid of any moral or political worth, transforming our society into a factory that never sleeps. Blending critical theory with recent accounts of job-related suicides, office-induced paranoia, fear of relaxation, managerial sadism, and cynical corporate social responsibility campaigns, Fleming paints a bleak picture of a society in which economic and emotional disasters greatly outweigh any professed benefits.
215 pages, Paperback
First published May 20, 2015
23 people are currently reading
839 people want to read
About the author
Peter Fleming
9 books28 followersProfessor of Work, Organisation and Society at Queen Mary College.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
April 18, 2020
For a book that is only 200 pages long, there is still a lot of unnecessary philosophical fluff fuckery. Some great ideas, but Fleming doesn’t seem to have a consistent audience in mind. It’s oftentimes unreadably filled with academic jargon and at other moments intimate and informal as Fleming reveals personal stories in a “fuck it, let’s curse now” style.
If you hate reading philosophy as much as I do, I recommend skipping the last chapter (Critique of Dialogical Reason) and maybe watching the movie Fight Club instead. I can’t say why, but the chapter had a distinctly Fight Club vibe. The last bit about Carmen Segarra is the only interesting part of that chapter.
Still, the ideas are good and goddamnit if I don’t love reading anything by an author who speaks Marxism.
If you hate reading philosophy as much as I do, I recommend skipping the last chapter (Critique of Dialogical Reason) and maybe watching the movie Fight Club instead. I can’t say why, but the chapter had a distinctly Fight Club vibe. The last bit about Carmen Segarra is the only interesting part of that chapter.
Still, the ideas are good and goddamnit if I don’t love reading anything by an author who speaks Marxism.
January 15, 2017
I was very much looking forward to reading this book, as a friend recommended it and had interviewed the author. It sounded, from certain highlights, that it would be illuminating on several levels. I have studied the psychology of work and workplaces, and frequently lecture on workplace motivation. I am very engaged in my work, though aspects of the job (bureaucratic minutia) are less valued. So, I was hoping for great insights.
This should have been an important book. However, the author writes in academic prose, which results in the obfuscating pedantry inherent in language such as "obfuscating pedantry". This book should be read by the very people who will never read it because it is not phrased for the audience but for the masters of his own enslavement world.
What is work, what contributes to survival, to a healthy and functional society, and to fulfillment? Early on, Fleming addresses the sad tragedy that only 13% of workers are engaged in their work. So, why is that and what is to be done? 199 pages of discussion follow, but not much beyond high minded and academic elocution. In the final pages, Fleming offers what he calls "easily achievable alternatives" (p. 199) but the list includes things such as changing the wage structure to where there s at most a 3 to 1 income differential. Hmmm, getting those who currently receive more than 95,000 pounds sterling to surrender that excess and divest of the lifestyles their grotesque wealth has afforded them, seems hardly "easily achievable." Such alternatives as he presents would require the type of cataclysmic scorched Earth upheaval that is referenced in "Brave New World" as the source of the changes made there that re-shaped the structure of their global society. They left me disappointed and with the very sense of hopelessness that he had just been discussing. What is to be done? He addresses the importance of taking action, but there is nothing suggesting action that a person can take.
In sum, this call for a revolution in work, and an understanding of what work could and should be vs. what it has become, is left impotent.
This should have been an important book. However, the author writes in academic prose, which results in the obfuscating pedantry inherent in language such as "obfuscating pedantry". This book should be read by the very people who will never read it because it is not phrased for the audience but for the masters of his own enslavement world.
What is work, what contributes to survival, to a healthy and functional society, and to fulfillment? Early on, Fleming addresses the sad tragedy that only 13% of workers are engaged in their work. So, why is that and what is to be done? 199 pages of discussion follow, but not much beyond high minded and academic elocution. In the final pages, Fleming offers what he calls "easily achievable alternatives" (p. 199) but the list includes things such as changing the wage structure to where there s at most a 3 to 1 income differential. Hmmm, getting those who currently receive more than 95,000 pounds sterling to surrender that excess and divest of the lifestyles their grotesque wealth has afforded them, seems hardly "easily achievable." Such alternatives as he presents would require the type of cataclysmic scorched Earth upheaval that is referenced in "Brave New World" as the source of the changes made there that re-shaped the structure of their global society. They left me disappointed and with the very sense of hopelessness that he had just been discussing. What is to be done? He addresses the importance of taking action, but there is nothing suggesting action that a person can take.
In sum, this call for a revolution in work, and an understanding of what work could and should be vs. what it has become, is left impotent.
June 18, 2018
Fleming neoliberal kapitalizmde çalışma düzeninin ideolojisinde arzu uyandırma boyutunu öne çıkaranları eleştirmektedir. Çünkü işi sevmek iş sözleşmesinin zorunlu bir maddesidir. Arzudan çok korku; dışlanma korkusu tetiklenmektedir. Bu terk edilme ideolojisidir. Bu ideolojinin üç ayağı vardır: istikrarsızlaştırma (nedensiz ceza, atılmaya yatkın işçi dengesi bozulan işçidir), seferber etmeme (seferber olmamış işçi) ve tasviye (insansız şirket yani tam taşeronlaşma).
İşten çıkınca fişi çekemeyen, işi kendisi olarak gören insanlar için iş bu yönüyle en uçta intiharlara neden olur.
"İşçiler niceliksel bir borca indirgenir", masraftır ve terk edilmeye hazır olmalıdır.
Mikro yönetimle gündelik hayat aşırı askerileşmiştir ve bu halka bir mesajdır. Liderlik ideolojisi de bu yönetimi besler. Karar yetkisinin değer katanlardan alınması "insan üstü lider" fikriyle meşrulaştırılır.
Kişisel özelliklerin işe alınma-alınmama-atılma-yükseltilmelerde gerekçe olarak gösterilmesi insan kaynakları teorilerinin merkezi özelliğidir; sorun kişidedir. "Zaman bir kenara bırakılmış ve daimi bir şimdi yaratılmıştır". Bu kişiselleşmiş dilde patron işçiden kurtulmak istediğinde "bu ilişki yürümüyor" der.
Yazar Foucault'nun disiplin toplumu yerine, bu fikirleri sınıf tahakkümü fikirne oturttuğunu söylediği, "kontrol toplumu" yaklaşımını kullanmaktadır.
Kitabın ilk yarısını okuması zevkli ve metin akıcı. Diğer yarısı o kadar ilgi çekici değil.
Yazar eyleyecekler için kitabın sonunda önerilerde de bulunuyor.
İşten çıkınca fişi çekemeyen, işi kendisi olarak gören insanlar için iş bu yönüyle en uçta intiharlara neden olur.
"İşçiler niceliksel bir borca indirgenir", masraftır ve terk edilmeye hazır olmalıdır.
Mikro yönetimle gündelik hayat aşırı askerileşmiştir ve bu halka bir mesajdır. Liderlik ideolojisi de bu yönetimi besler. Karar yetkisinin değer katanlardan alınması "insan üstü lider" fikriyle meşrulaştırılır.
Kişisel özelliklerin işe alınma-alınmama-atılma-yükseltilmelerde gerekçe olarak gösterilmesi insan kaynakları teorilerinin merkezi özelliğidir; sorun kişidedir. "Zaman bir kenara bırakılmış ve daimi bir şimdi yaratılmıştır". Bu kişiselleşmiş dilde patron işçiden kurtulmak istediğinde "bu ilişki yürümüyor" der.
Yazar Foucault'nun disiplin toplumu yerine, bu fikirleri sınıf tahakkümü fikirne oturttuğunu söylediği, "kontrol toplumu" yaklaşımını kullanmaktadır.
Kitabın ilk yarısını okuması zevkli ve metin akıcı. Diğer yarısı o kadar ilgi çekici değil.
Yazar eyleyecekler için kitabın sonunda önerilerde de bulunuyor.
September 1, 2017
There is a lot of interest here, but it is not really accessible. Firstly the prose is very dense and lacks clarity (I often felt like I was reading convoluted continental philosophy) which is bound to put a lot of readers off. But I found it worth persevering with and it many of the criticisms of capitalism mirrored my own experiences. Definitely worth reading if you are particularly interested in the failures of capitalism, but there must be more readable alternatives out there.
Read
September 21, 2019bitiremedim :(
October 9, 2015
This review will be in Red Pepper magazine in November 2015
Peter Fleming’s excellent book on the nature, function and status of work in post-industrial economies more or less confirms what we already know: work is meaningless.
Fleming provides ample statistics and survey data to show the nine to five is dead. He shows we work longer hours than ever before (‘today the average worker checks their work email at 7.42am and leaves the office at 7.19pm’). Some of us are what he terms the ‘bio-proletariat’ – people whose work has invaded their whole of life (‘bios’). Fleming offers three types of worker neoliberal societies currently produce:
1) ‘Engaged workers’ who link their personal welfare to the welfare of the firm
2) ‘Disengaged workers’ who don’t care about the firm or the work but suffer ‘presenteeism’
3) the ‘actively disengaged worker’ who deliberately sabotages the firm, their colleagues or themselves.
The book follows with long, intricate sections on managerialism and the development of fear in the workplace – ‘you should be grateful that you have a job’, the role of alcohol in the workplace, sickness and absence from work as a form of resistance, and corporate ideology.
The Mythology of Work is heavy on theory, regularly citing Deleuze, Foucault, Adorno and all that lot, but it is eminently readable. Fleming’s book could be read as a companion to Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism – a kind of introduction to the mechanics and effects of neoliberalism on everyday life. They share a similar writing style and a taste for referencing pop-culture to make a point. Whilst he seems to sympathise more with the anarchist ideas of refusal to work, Fleming doesn’t just suggest we all quit our jobs. Unlike the end Fisher’s book, the last chapter of The Mythology of Work goes on to explore a number of ways we can resist the violence of neoliberalism, from collectivizing and agitating for a three-day work week, to forming post-state democratic organisations and de-fetishising work.
Fleming is an entertaining guide to a world many of us live in but have no idea how to get out of.
Peter Fleming’s excellent book on the nature, function and status of work in post-industrial economies more or less confirms what we already know: work is meaningless.
Fleming provides ample statistics and survey data to show the nine to five is dead. He shows we work longer hours than ever before (‘today the average worker checks their work email at 7.42am and leaves the office at 7.19pm’). Some of us are what he terms the ‘bio-proletariat’ – people whose work has invaded their whole of life (‘bios’). Fleming offers three types of worker neoliberal societies currently produce:
1) ‘Engaged workers’ who link their personal welfare to the welfare of the firm
2) ‘Disengaged workers’ who don’t care about the firm or the work but suffer ‘presenteeism’
3) the ‘actively disengaged worker’ who deliberately sabotages the firm, their colleagues or themselves.
The book follows with long, intricate sections on managerialism and the development of fear in the workplace – ‘you should be grateful that you have a job’, the role of alcohol in the workplace, sickness and absence from work as a form of resistance, and corporate ideology.
The Mythology of Work is heavy on theory, regularly citing Deleuze, Foucault, Adorno and all that lot, but it is eminently readable. Fleming’s book could be read as a companion to Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism – a kind of introduction to the mechanics and effects of neoliberalism on everyday life. They share a similar writing style and a taste for referencing pop-culture to make a point. Whilst he seems to sympathise more with the anarchist ideas of refusal to work, Fleming doesn’t just suggest we all quit our jobs. Unlike the end Fisher’s book, the last chapter of The Mythology of Work goes on to explore a number of ways we can resist the violence of neoliberalism, from collectivizing and agitating for a three-day work week, to forming post-state democratic organisations and de-fetishising work.
Fleming is an entertaining guide to a world many of us live in but have no idea how to get out of.
August 2, 2016
While I mainly agree with Fleming's argument, his points are poorly argued and the book lacks evidence. This is written for an audience that already agrees with Fleming's diagnosis for the most part. This topic is much better theoretically addressed by Kathi Weeks.
June 30, 2025
Değerlendirmeye Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları ile başlamam gerekiyor. Puntoları biraz daha küçültüp, satır aralıklarını biraz daha daraltsalar kitabı büyüteçle okumak gerekecekti. Satır aralıklarını daraltıp puntoları küçültmek sayfa sayısını düşürdüğü için maliyetleri kısıyor olabilir ancak okuma deneyimini kötüleştiriyor.
Kitaba gelirsek 6 bölümden oluşuyor: Hiç Uyumayan Fabrika, Çalışma Gezegeni, Yönetici Kapitalizmi Nedir, Viral Kapitalizm Yatak Odasında, Sahte Hakikatlerin Dile Getirilmesi Olarak Şirket İdeolojisi ve Diyalojik Aklın Eleştiri. Felsefe ile iç içe ama son bölüm daha çok felsefe üzerinden. Çeviri kaynaklı mı bilmiyorum yazarın dili genel olarak akıcı değil. Yer yer okuması güç. Ancak asıl sorun yazarın çok laf kalabalığı yaparken pek bir şey söylememesi. Hadi bu ağır oldu diyelim, tezinin altını dolduramaması bunca lafa rağmen. Bu açıdan sadece sonuç kısmını okumanız bence yeterli yazarın derdini anlamak adına, 16 sayfa. Alternatif önerilerinin nasılını soracak olursanız orası koca bir soru işareti, solun aşamadığı genel problem.
Yazar diyor ki, dünyada en az kazananla en çok kazanan arasında en fazla üç kat fark olmalı. İnsanlar yaptıkları iş ne olursa olsun yılda en az 30 bin sterlin kazanmalı (ödenmeli), en fazla kazananlar da buna göre maksimum 95 bin sterlin kazanmalı. Bugünkü haliyle hükûmet yapısı ve parlementer demokrasi bırakılmalı. Çünkü bunlar elitin çıkarını koruyan kurumlar. Bütün tekelci ve oligopolcü işletmeler kamuya devredilmeli. Haftada üç gün maksimum 20 saat çalışılmalı… Böyle devam ediyor. Nasıl kısmına verilen cevaplar ortaya koyduğu bu tezler kadar büyük değil. Çalışan çalışmayı kabul etmemeli, düzene uymamalı ile savuşturulan noktalar bile var. Çalışmayı fetiş haline getirmeyelim. Peki ne yapalım? Çalışmayı reddedelim. Haftada üç gün, maksimum 20 saat çalışınca düşen GSYH nasıl çözülecek? Benim görebildiğim kadarıyla cevap yok. Sanırım en zengin bile yılda 95 bin sterlin kazanabilince sorun otomatikman çözülecek zannediyor. Parlementer demokrasi yerine önerileri daha da enteresan. Mahalli, yerel oluşumlardan vesaire bahsediyor.
Bugün dünyanın en az kazananı ile en fazla kazananı arasında fark 500 katın üzerine çıkmış durumda. Evet, azaltılmalı. Çalışma günleri ve saatleri de azaltılmalı. Ve yine evet, parlementer demokrasi elitlerin çıkarlarını koruyor öncelikle. Hemfikiriz. Ama bunları nasıl çözeceğiz? Elbette yazarın yaptığı gibi felsefe yaparak değil. Somut çözüm önerileri ve alternatifleri ortaya koyarak.
Kitaba gelirsek 6 bölümden oluşuyor: Hiç Uyumayan Fabrika, Çalışma Gezegeni, Yönetici Kapitalizmi Nedir, Viral Kapitalizm Yatak Odasında, Sahte Hakikatlerin Dile Getirilmesi Olarak Şirket İdeolojisi ve Diyalojik Aklın Eleştiri. Felsefe ile iç içe ama son bölüm daha çok felsefe üzerinden. Çeviri kaynaklı mı bilmiyorum yazarın dili genel olarak akıcı değil. Yer yer okuması güç. Ancak asıl sorun yazarın çok laf kalabalığı yaparken pek bir şey söylememesi. Hadi bu ağır oldu diyelim, tezinin altını dolduramaması bunca lafa rağmen. Bu açıdan sadece sonuç kısmını okumanız bence yeterli yazarın derdini anlamak adına, 16 sayfa. Alternatif önerilerinin nasılını soracak olursanız orası koca bir soru işareti, solun aşamadığı genel problem.
Yazar diyor ki, dünyada en az kazananla en çok kazanan arasında en fazla üç kat fark olmalı. İnsanlar yaptıkları iş ne olursa olsun yılda en az 30 bin sterlin kazanmalı (ödenmeli), en fazla kazananlar da buna göre maksimum 95 bin sterlin kazanmalı. Bugünkü haliyle hükûmet yapısı ve parlementer demokrasi bırakılmalı. Çünkü bunlar elitin çıkarını koruyan kurumlar. Bütün tekelci ve oligopolcü işletmeler kamuya devredilmeli. Haftada üç gün maksimum 20 saat çalışılmalı… Böyle devam ediyor. Nasıl kısmına verilen cevaplar ortaya koyduğu bu tezler kadar büyük değil. Çalışan çalışmayı kabul etmemeli, düzene uymamalı ile savuşturulan noktalar bile var. Çalışmayı fetiş haline getirmeyelim. Peki ne yapalım? Çalışmayı reddedelim. Haftada üç gün, maksimum 20 saat çalışınca düşen GSYH nasıl çözülecek? Benim görebildiğim kadarıyla cevap yok. Sanırım en zengin bile yılda 95 bin sterlin kazanabilince sorun otomatikman çözülecek zannediyor. Parlementer demokrasi yerine önerileri daha da enteresan. Mahalli, yerel oluşumlardan vesaire bahsediyor.
Bugün dünyanın en az kazananı ile en fazla kazananı arasında fark 500 katın üzerine çıkmış durumda. Evet, azaltılmalı. Çalışma günleri ve saatleri de azaltılmalı. Ve yine evet, parlementer demokrasi elitlerin çıkarlarını koruyor öncelikle. Hemfikiriz. Ama bunları nasıl çözeceğiz? Elbette yazarın yaptığı gibi felsefe yaparak değil. Somut çözüm önerileri ve alternatifleri ortaya koyarak.
March 5, 2016
This is a short version of a longer review on ninetytwothousandhours.com
Peter Fleming, I have a confession: I am a manager. And managers, according to The Mythology of Work, are the scum of the earth.
The Mythology of Work is a complex, dense and deeply serious book, and I’m not going to attempt to summarise its arguments here. But what bothers me about it is that coupled with very sophisticated arguments I find an oddly naïve, almost cartoonish picture of the world, in which all organisations are ruthlessly capitalistic and run for the sole benefit of the global elite, all managers are irredeemably evil and all workers are equally alienated.
Am I evil? I don’t think I am. Of course it’s possible I’m deluding myself here – but even if I am, this in itself makes me a much more complex individual than the cardboard-cut-out villains Fleming evokes. He clearly wants to effect change, but by flattening out the complexities of different jobs, different organisations and different people he overlooks the fact that even if we are working within a fundamentally unjust and corrupt system, within that system there are still choices to be made on an individual level. And if a lot of people (a lot of managers, even) were making choices to, for example, keep to their contracted hours, or empower people instead of micromanage them, or simplify surplus regulation, then this could actually add up to quite a lot.
It could even add up to something that Peter Fleming might, just perhaps, call resistance.
Peter Fleming, I have a confession: I am a manager. And managers, according to The Mythology of Work, are the scum of the earth.
The Mythology of Work is a complex, dense and deeply serious book, and I’m not going to attempt to summarise its arguments here. But what bothers me about it is that coupled with very sophisticated arguments I find an oddly naïve, almost cartoonish picture of the world, in which all organisations are ruthlessly capitalistic and run for the sole benefit of the global elite, all managers are irredeemably evil and all workers are equally alienated.
Am I evil? I don’t think I am. Of course it’s possible I’m deluding myself here – but even if I am, this in itself makes me a much more complex individual than the cardboard-cut-out villains Fleming evokes. He clearly wants to effect change, but by flattening out the complexities of different jobs, different organisations and different people he overlooks the fact that even if we are working within a fundamentally unjust and corrupt system, within that system there are still choices to be made on an individual level. And if a lot of people (a lot of managers, even) were making choices to, for example, keep to their contracted hours, or empower people instead of micromanage them, or simplify surplus regulation, then this could actually add up to quite a lot.
It could even add up to something that Peter Fleming might, just perhaps, call resistance.
January 5, 2025
For me this falls into the box of ‘some good, not really worth the difficulty to get it.’ A number of stylistic things stand out, including a remarkable reliance on infamously impenetrable authors (Adorno, Deleuze and Guattari are perhaps the biggest issues here) to make somewhat torturous points.
Picking on the conclusion as the primary point of contention (as it’s what I’ve most recently read), some points which permeate the whole work emerge.
1. Some of the interdisciplinary borrowings are really insightful. A pithy reference to Lacan (even if jealousy is justified it is still pathological) lands squarely in this camp.
2. A slight disconnect in that it seems Fleming wants to have his cake and eat it too. There is a comment that the current system is rubbish for employees anyway, and his proposed alternative would also produce better objective outcomes. It is akin to not liking a response so running an argument in the alternative which completely counters your own institute argument. Not to mention I find this sort of claim (the ethos of which is something like ‘it’s shit now so it can’t get worse’) a little bit ahistorical.
3. Luddism. There are strains of Luddism at play in this work, but I suspect a lot of what is dealt with extends beyond what even Enoch’s Hammer would attempt to smash. This work I think wants to be revolutionary, but it does not address the necessary values - despite acknowledging the risk of a ‘wound attachment’ (which I found another very neat point).
4. Neoliberalism is used to the point of perhaps lacking much meaning. It seems a fair few of the maladies which emerge towards the back third of the book are not unique to the neoliberal age. Not to say these are not issues to address - an asshole boss is an asshole boss, and no amount of anarchistic ‘flat hierarchy’ rhetoric gets around a boss who knows something you do not - but rather they should be parcelled out and dealt with on their own.
5. The bad taste that I ended with I think emerged from a counter argument being dismissed as ‘deluded’. ‘Why would people work more than they have to?’ Is not best hand waved; plenty of people work for reasons beyond monetary subsistence: a bad family dynamic, a preoccupation with habit (in a Merleau-Ponty manner), or (in the rarer case) an enjoyment of the technical proficiency. While the detriments to work are largely correct, I find the book glosses over how it is that the developed world’s workforce is complicit in their own historic subjugation. That is not to say a Foner-tier history of unionism or Luddism is needed, but some exploration of that would go a long way to being an antidote to the current lopsidedness.
Picking on the conclusion as the primary point of contention (as it’s what I’ve most recently read), some points which permeate the whole work emerge.
1. Some of the interdisciplinary borrowings are really insightful. A pithy reference to Lacan (even if jealousy is justified it is still pathological) lands squarely in this camp.
2. A slight disconnect in that it seems Fleming wants to have his cake and eat it too. There is a comment that the current system is rubbish for employees anyway, and his proposed alternative would also produce better objective outcomes. It is akin to not liking a response so running an argument in the alternative which completely counters your own institute argument. Not to mention I find this sort of claim (the ethos of which is something like ‘it’s shit now so it can’t get worse’) a little bit ahistorical.
3. Luddism. There are strains of Luddism at play in this work, but I suspect a lot of what is dealt with extends beyond what even Enoch’s Hammer would attempt to smash. This work I think wants to be revolutionary, but it does not address the necessary values - despite acknowledging the risk of a ‘wound attachment’ (which I found another very neat point).
4. Neoliberalism is used to the point of perhaps lacking much meaning. It seems a fair few of the maladies which emerge towards the back third of the book are not unique to the neoliberal age. Not to say these are not issues to address - an asshole boss is an asshole boss, and no amount of anarchistic ‘flat hierarchy’ rhetoric gets around a boss who knows something you do not - but rather they should be parcelled out and dealt with on their own.
5. The bad taste that I ended with I think emerged from a counter argument being dismissed as ‘deluded’. ‘Why would people work more than they have to?’ Is not best hand waved; plenty of people work for reasons beyond monetary subsistence: a bad family dynamic, a preoccupation with habit (in a Merleau-Ponty manner), or (in the rarer case) an enjoyment of the technical proficiency. While the detriments to work are largely correct, I find the book glosses over how it is that the developed world’s workforce is complicit in their own historic subjugation. That is not to say a Foner-tier history of unionism or Luddism is needed, but some exploration of that would go a long way to being an antidote to the current lopsidedness.
October 13, 2022
Gerçi okumada biraz zorlandığım kitap oldu ama kapitalist bir toplumda işin tam olarak ne anlama geldiğini, ortak iyilik lafının saçma ve gülünç bir hayal olduğunu, aşırı çalışmanın neden olduğu depresif bozukluklar ve intiharlar, neoliberal bir toplumda çalışmanın hiç de toplumun iyiliği için olmadığı konularını harika bir şekilde anlatmış. Bazı konuları fazla felsefi ve teorik açıdan ifade etmiş ama yine de önemli bilgiler barındırıyor. Çalışmanın ne anlama geldiğini anlamak isteyen insanların okumasını tavsiye ederim. Tabii ki aynı zamanda kalıp düşüncelerden azade şekilde toz-pembe hayal dünyasından kurtulmak isteyenler için iyi bir okuma olabilir. Şu aralar sosyal konular favorim.
December 24, 2019
Oldukça teorik bir o kadar derin bir çalışma. Çalışmanın sosyolojisi üzerine kapsamlı içgörüler sağlıyor.
Read
November 8, 2020read this for a summative don't mind me (still good tho I'd read it for fun)
May 9, 2023
Hard work ( if you excuse the pun ) Wilfully obscure in parts but never less than insightful.
November 28, 2023
Çalışma hayatının detaylı bir analizi ve ekonomik hayatın içinde taraf olduğumuz yerleri sorgulama
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 23, 2016
Fleming's criticisms of neoliberal capitalism are scholarly and necessary reading for any 21st century social thinker. Dissecting the manners in which late-capitalist corporations have effectively co-opted our very lives, governments, and values, Fleming is both relevant for issues in your workplace, and immediate for how bad this regressive tendency has developed in the last few decades. I particularly found the chapter on Managerialism worthwhile, demonstrating how the co-optation of our identities, the inclusion of our selves into the job itself, makes it that much harder to separate out from work. Work thus becomes the sole driving factor of our lives, enslaved to a system of control that pretends to care for us, yet both actively despises its workers and seeks to abandon them.
Despite some particularly difficult and academic language, the meat of the chapters make strong condemnations of "freedom management" with results-oriented work environments, double standards in governments co-opted for the protection of corporations instead of people, and ultimately how all the contradictions and double-speak of corporate ideology demonstrates the weaknesses it purports to overcome. It is the worker, now being anyone but the capitalist elite, who picks up the tab for the negligence and control of this so apparently dysfunctional system.
Despite some particularly difficult and academic language, the meat of the chapters make strong condemnations of "freedom management" with results-oriented work environments, double standards in governments co-opted for the protection of corporations instead of people, and ultimately how all the contradictions and double-speak of corporate ideology demonstrates the weaknesses it purports to overcome. It is the worker, now being anyone but the capitalist elite, who picks up the tab for the negligence and control of this so apparently dysfunctional system.
June 3, 2015
Really thought provoking analysis of our addiction to work and the culture of work we have created. Loses a star for a few typos that were annoying.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews