What do you think?
Rate this book
工作、消费主义和新穷人
在生产者和普遍就业的社会中，贫穷是一回事。在消费者社会中，穷人是另一回事。在后者社会中，生活项目围绕消费者的选择而建立，而不是围绕工作、专业技能而建立。“贫穷”曾经与失业联系在一起，如今，它主要指向有缺陷消费者的困境。这种差异改变了贫穷的体验方式，对于拯救苦难产生重大影响。著名社会学家和思想家鲍曼的这部作品，对于消费者社会及其影响进行了反思和论述。在本书中，鲍曼书追溯现代历史上发生的这种变化，对其社会后果进行盘点，并考虑了与贫困作斗争和减轻困苦的各种方式的有效性。
社会学、政治学和社会政策学的研究者会发现，这是关于含义不断变化的一个持久社会问题的一本无价之书。
社会学、政治学和社会政策学的研究者会发现，这是关于含义不断变化的一个持久社会问题的一本无价之书。
180 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
131 people are currently reading
2198 people want to read
About the author
Zygmunt Bauman
290 books2,398 followersZygmunt Bauman was a world-renowned Polish sociologist and philosopher, and Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Leeds. He was one of the world's most eminent social theorists, writing on issues as diverse as modernity and the Holocaust, postmodern consumerism and liquid modernity and one of the creators of the concept of “postmodernism”.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
July 17, 2024
Bauman died yesterday - the point is not to mourn for him, but to learn from him.
I think you should consider reading this book – I have to say I found it a remarkably worthwhile.
Before capitalism there wasn’t really something called a ‘work ethic’. And this was for a fairly interesting reason – because before capitalism there wasn’t a particularly good reason for having such an ethic. People were either peasants, where the motivation to work was driven by their desire to eat and so this meant that their work was constrained by need much more than work is under capitalism, or one worked as an artisan of one sort or other. As an artisan people had a natural pride in their work that is very difficult to sustain under capitalism. As Marx explains in Wage Labour and Capital, one of the fundamental issues that workers face under capitalism is the very new idea of the alienation of their labour. By that he means that where, say, a blacksmith had the satisfaction of working on every part of what they produced, of expending not only their labour but also their skills on what they produced, so as to bring something into existence, a wage labourer under capitalism is mostly de-skilled. The point of capitalist production is the division of labour to such an extent that labourers possess virtually no skills at all, as such. In fact, as we see today, the ideal of capitalist production is a society of robots spitting out products without labourers at all. Labourers were always meant to be merely cogs in a machine that spits out commodities. The more mindless and routine the work they performed, the better for capitalism: the benefits being that each labourer would be easily replaced and therefore easier to regulate according to the pace and consistency of their effort, because their labour could be measured, monitored and increased by the speed of the factory process itself, rather than the skill needed to perform various tasks. It is, almost by definition, almost impossible for labourers to feel all that motivated to perform ‘over and above’ or to have all that much ‘pride’ in their work in such circumstances. Also, being bored out of your mind (a consequence of doing the same boringly mindless task over and over again) could hardly inspire a desire to work at the peak of your capacity for long periods of time. But capitalism, in its early phase as a ‘production’ society, needed two things – lots of workers who were working at full capacity and a reserve army of workers (the unemployed), who could be brought in at a moment’s notice to replace ‘uppity’ workers who were demanding more pay or better conditions.
So, because the work was crap and the wages also crap, there was a need to invent ‘the work ethic’ to make people feel it as their moral obligation to bust a gut for their boss. There was also an expectation on the part of those who benefited most from this system to view workers as essentially children that needed to be cajoled (no, not the right word – as we’ll see) to do what is in their best interests (the workers’ best interests, that is) – that is, give their all in the work they provided to their employer so that they became fully human. Since workers are lazy they need to be paid as little as possible to make sure they need to come back the next day to work again. The quantity of work needs to be disassociated from the ‘needs’ of the worker, their effort needs to be ever increasing. Those who ‘chose’ not to work had the work house to look forward to – a place so hideous that the threat of it alone ought to motivate people towards the benefits of working for starvation wages. As Bauman explains, this was mostly the case in Europe – in the US employees were encouraged by the promise of one day being rewarded for their hard work by becoming a capitalist one’s self or later by the dangling carrot that scientific management provided to the high value man.
The promoted moral benefits of working were not limited to the apologists of horrible right-wing types – the maxim of Marxism was ‘he who does not work does not eat’, work was the agreed condition of being worthy of living. True enough, but particularly with the early Marx, there is a lot of ambivalence around the whole idea of the division of labour – it is clear that he sees this as one of the chief causes of the dehumanisation he associated with capitalism. His vision splendid of communism – where one can be a hunter in the morning, a philosopher at tea time and so on – hardly explains how we are to ensure that stuff gets done. Nevertheless, ‘not working’ was not an option.
So, in the early days capitalism was a production society and the point of capitalism was to extract as much labour out of people as possible – this was something else Marx explained. The source of profit for capital came from exploiting labour. This is because you only need to pay the labourer enough for them to be able to reproduce their labour power – in simple terms, enough for them to be still alive to come to the factory tomorrow. Labourers may be able to achieve that after a couple of hours of work. But the capitalist then has them for the rest of the day making stuff the capitalist can then sell for profit. If the capitalist can increase the rate at which the labourer works or can increase the amount of time the labourer works – then the capitalist gets to keep this ‘surplus’ as profit. The fight between labour and capital, then, is about either side gaining access to more of this surplus or, what amounts to the same thing, the worker seeking to reduce the amount of work they do over and above that required for reproducing their labour power. Think eight hour day movements. It was in the interests of the capitalist to extend the time of labour in all ways – so children were forced to work, old people were forced to work, people had to work 16 hour days, they had to work on Saturdays and so on.
Except, today, in advanced capitalist countries we are no longer ‘production’ societies in this sense. Production has moved to parts of the world where labour is cheapest. This has meant a fundamental change in the nature of employment in advanced capitalist countries. One of the main changes has been a movement away from our defining ourselves on the basis of where we stand in relation to the production process and towards what we consume – what Bauman calls ‘the aesthetic of consumption’. The poor are no longer those who do not have a job, per se, but rather are those who are identified as ‘failed consumers’. People are no longer ‘unemployed’ – the ‘un’ implying that they have joined the reserve army needed to keep the price of labour down, but rather they have become ‘redundant’ – that is, there is little or no chance of them ever becoming employed again unless they can ‘renovate’ their skills in line with the ever changing needs of employers. Lifelong jobs have become an anachronism, as have workplace ‘teams’ – we are much more likely to talk today of ‘networks’, the key feature of which is the individual who is always at the centre of their very own network diagram and that any and all of the links the individual has with those around them are provisional and liable to be broken at a moment’s notice.
Today hours of work depend much more on the ‘job at hand’. People either work ridiculous hours – often with smug satisfaction, they work in precarious jobs in the ‘service’ industry requiring very few skills and are employed as casuals or ‘self-employed’ – or they do not work at all. You don’t start work when you are 8 years old, but rather when you are 25 and might only be employable until you are 50. Not only have the hours of work reduced, but the years of work also. Even in that ‘window’ of employability you may need to take time out of the workforce to update your skills, to ‘re-credential’ – generally at your own expense – so as to remain, or to become again, employable.
The problem is that late modern capitalism in advanced capitalist countries is no longer a ‘production society’ and has moved to being a consumption society –as Baudrillard made clear in his The Consumer Society (a book and thinker Bauman owes a huge debt to). The ethic of a consumer society is quite different from that of a production society – where a production society needs people to be constantly reminded of their moral obligation to work, a consumer society is much more obsessed with the need of them to shop. This was evident at 9/11 when George Bush the younger encouraged Americans to sate their horror by going to the mall. As Bauman repeatedly says, we live in a world of the credit card, not the savings book: there is never a time when you should not be buying, everything is focused on increasing your desire for products you didn’t even know existed yesterday and that you will want to throw away tomorrow so you can purchase the latest and newest thing. The distance between the showroom and the rubbish bin is diminishing and, ideally, should be instantaneous. As it can be with the purchase of ‘services’.
Consumption defines us – and those who cannot meet the call of our created desires have become failed consumers (and also, virtually by definition, also failed humans – whether they work or not – think of those in fulltime jobs in Walmart who are told how to apply for food stamps). In a world where work is increasingly precarious, where there is a growing underclass of people who are defined by their inability to consume or to get a job that would allow them to consume, then our role models also change. We are no longer attracted to the ‘self-made men’ of old, but rather to ‘celebrities’ – people known for being famous rather than for anything they have actually done. Our identities are defined by what we purchase, rather than what we do, and therefore our identities are constantly in need of being redefined and renewed. To truly be is to become.
The problem is that advanced capitalist societies don’t need mass employment in the same way that early capitalist society did. As such, ‘the work ethic’ is now used in a way that is, at best, disingenuous. And this will increasingly be the case. The need for labour and for very large parts of society to work is increasingly diminishing. But the function of the ‘work ethic’ today is to lay the blame for the plight of people excluded from the consumer society at the feet of those who have been excluded, rather than at the feet of society itself.
Where in previous societies this excess could be dumped – think of Australia, where the wasted humans (convicts) were dumped as far away from ‘proper society’ as was possible. As Robert Hughes said – further than the moon, as at least you could sometimes see the moon from England. Now the world is full and there remains nowhere to dump this human waste. So, instead they need to be contained – witness the growth of the prison industrial complex, where the US now has 25% of the world’s prisoners. Such is our future. The failed consumers need to be kept apart from society. They have failed because of their own ‘poor choices’ – it is society that needs protection from them…
All of this is also linked to the decline of the welfare state. There was a time when it was inconceivable that the welfare state could decline, particularly not in a ‘democracy’. It seemed clear that under the Christian maxim – ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ – that even if you were unlikely to ever ‘need’ to access welfare, the fact it provided a safety net was a kind of insurance policy most people were happy to pay. Even capitalists saw the benefits of this, as the people on welfare were seen as temporarily ‘unemployed’ and potentially – when the system was finally working properly – would be brought back to work, at some future time of full employment. That society, rather than capital itself, provided food and training for these ‘future employees’ in the meantime was recognised by capital as a benefit. But when the hope of full employment stopped being likely, even as something to aspire to, when the most likely outcome was that these people would never be required to work again, then providing for them became contrary to good sense, and consequently, of good morality too. A consumer society is one of ‘choice’. These people (welfare dependant people) are such because of their own poor choices. But also, and much more importantly as a moral imperative, welfare itself is about receiving a kind of standardised product – and this too is anathema in a consumer society.
Such a view of the virtues and wonders of ‘choice’ flows through to all aspects of the consumer society – particularly with reference to ‘state provided’ services. Education is ‘liberalised’ so that ‘parental choice’ becomes the essential consideration. Healthcare too becomes privatised so that one can ‘choose their own doctor’ – as if anyone has the technical expertise to make such a ‘choice’. The point is that freedom is defined as being identical with ‘the ability to choose’ and as such being a ‘consumer’ in a consumer society is the epitome of being a free citizen. Although, citizenship is barely a relevant category anymore – we are really all individuals, created by our own individual choices.
Precariousness is not a side feature of late modern capitalism, but fundamental to it, just as choice involves risk, so life itself involves being precarious due to our life choices. In fact, it is via precariousness that those excluded from the society of consumers are denied a means to resist or organise against their alienation. Without a firm footing on the present it is (as Bauman quotes Bourdieu) impossible to affect change in the future. Society is not to blame, society does not even exist (quoting Thatcher) – the individual exists and the measure of one’s success as an individual is apparent to all, because it is shown in your identity which in turn is defined by the products and (increasingly) experiences you can afford to purchase and display.
As I said, this really is an interesting book – the chapter on the welfare state particularly so.
I think you should consider reading this book – I have to say I found it a remarkably worthwhile.
Before capitalism there wasn’t really something called a ‘work ethic’. And this was for a fairly interesting reason – because before capitalism there wasn’t a particularly good reason for having such an ethic. People were either peasants, where the motivation to work was driven by their desire to eat and so this meant that their work was constrained by need much more than work is under capitalism, or one worked as an artisan of one sort or other. As an artisan people had a natural pride in their work that is very difficult to sustain under capitalism. As Marx explains in Wage Labour and Capital, one of the fundamental issues that workers face under capitalism is the very new idea of the alienation of their labour. By that he means that where, say, a blacksmith had the satisfaction of working on every part of what they produced, of expending not only their labour but also their skills on what they produced, so as to bring something into existence, a wage labourer under capitalism is mostly de-skilled. The point of capitalist production is the division of labour to such an extent that labourers possess virtually no skills at all, as such. In fact, as we see today, the ideal of capitalist production is a society of robots spitting out products without labourers at all. Labourers were always meant to be merely cogs in a machine that spits out commodities. The more mindless and routine the work they performed, the better for capitalism: the benefits being that each labourer would be easily replaced and therefore easier to regulate according to the pace and consistency of their effort, because their labour could be measured, monitored and increased by the speed of the factory process itself, rather than the skill needed to perform various tasks. It is, almost by definition, almost impossible for labourers to feel all that motivated to perform ‘over and above’ or to have all that much ‘pride’ in their work in such circumstances. Also, being bored out of your mind (a consequence of doing the same boringly mindless task over and over again) could hardly inspire a desire to work at the peak of your capacity for long periods of time. But capitalism, in its early phase as a ‘production’ society, needed two things – lots of workers who were working at full capacity and a reserve army of workers (the unemployed), who could be brought in at a moment’s notice to replace ‘uppity’ workers who were demanding more pay or better conditions.
So, because the work was crap and the wages also crap, there was a need to invent ‘the work ethic’ to make people feel it as their moral obligation to bust a gut for their boss. There was also an expectation on the part of those who benefited most from this system to view workers as essentially children that needed to be cajoled (no, not the right word – as we’ll see) to do what is in their best interests (the workers’ best interests, that is) – that is, give their all in the work they provided to their employer so that they became fully human. Since workers are lazy they need to be paid as little as possible to make sure they need to come back the next day to work again. The quantity of work needs to be disassociated from the ‘needs’ of the worker, their effort needs to be ever increasing. Those who ‘chose’ not to work had the work house to look forward to – a place so hideous that the threat of it alone ought to motivate people towards the benefits of working for starvation wages. As Bauman explains, this was mostly the case in Europe – in the US employees were encouraged by the promise of one day being rewarded for their hard work by becoming a capitalist one’s self or later by the dangling carrot that scientific management provided to the high value man.
The promoted moral benefits of working were not limited to the apologists of horrible right-wing types – the maxim of Marxism was ‘he who does not work does not eat’, work was the agreed condition of being worthy of living. True enough, but particularly with the early Marx, there is a lot of ambivalence around the whole idea of the division of labour – it is clear that he sees this as one of the chief causes of the dehumanisation he associated with capitalism. His vision splendid of communism – where one can be a hunter in the morning, a philosopher at tea time and so on – hardly explains how we are to ensure that stuff gets done. Nevertheless, ‘not working’ was not an option.
So, in the early days capitalism was a production society and the point of capitalism was to extract as much labour out of people as possible – this was something else Marx explained. The source of profit for capital came from exploiting labour. This is because you only need to pay the labourer enough for them to be able to reproduce their labour power – in simple terms, enough for them to be still alive to come to the factory tomorrow. Labourers may be able to achieve that after a couple of hours of work. But the capitalist then has them for the rest of the day making stuff the capitalist can then sell for profit. If the capitalist can increase the rate at which the labourer works or can increase the amount of time the labourer works – then the capitalist gets to keep this ‘surplus’ as profit. The fight between labour and capital, then, is about either side gaining access to more of this surplus or, what amounts to the same thing, the worker seeking to reduce the amount of work they do over and above that required for reproducing their labour power. Think eight hour day movements. It was in the interests of the capitalist to extend the time of labour in all ways – so children were forced to work, old people were forced to work, people had to work 16 hour days, they had to work on Saturdays and so on.
Except, today, in advanced capitalist countries we are no longer ‘production’ societies in this sense. Production has moved to parts of the world where labour is cheapest. This has meant a fundamental change in the nature of employment in advanced capitalist countries. One of the main changes has been a movement away from our defining ourselves on the basis of where we stand in relation to the production process and towards what we consume – what Bauman calls ‘the aesthetic of consumption’. The poor are no longer those who do not have a job, per se, but rather are those who are identified as ‘failed consumers’. People are no longer ‘unemployed’ – the ‘un’ implying that they have joined the reserve army needed to keep the price of labour down, but rather they have become ‘redundant’ – that is, there is little or no chance of them ever becoming employed again unless they can ‘renovate’ their skills in line with the ever changing needs of employers. Lifelong jobs have become an anachronism, as have workplace ‘teams’ – we are much more likely to talk today of ‘networks’, the key feature of which is the individual who is always at the centre of their very own network diagram and that any and all of the links the individual has with those around them are provisional and liable to be broken at a moment’s notice.
Today hours of work depend much more on the ‘job at hand’. People either work ridiculous hours – often with smug satisfaction, they work in precarious jobs in the ‘service’ industry requiring very few skills and are employed as casuals or ‘self-employed’ – or they do not work at all. You don’t start work when you are 8 years old, but rather when you are 25 and might only be employable until you are 50. Not only have the hours of work reduced, but the years of work also. Even in that ‘window’ of employability you may need to take time out of the workforce to update your skills, to ‘re-credential’ – generally at your own expense – so as to remain, or to become again, employable.
The problem is that late modern capitalism in advanced capitalist countries is no longer a ‘production society’ and has moved to being a consumption society –as Baudrillard made clear in his The Consumer Society (a book and thinker Bauman owes a huge debt to). The ethic of a consumer society is quite different from that of a production society – where a production society needs people to be constantly reminded of their moral obligation to work, a consumer society is much more obsessed with the need of them to shop. This was evident at 9/11 when George Bush the younger encouraged Americans to sate their horror by going to the mall. As Bauman repeatedly says, we live in a world of the credit card, not the savings book: there is never a time when you should not be buying, everything is focused on increasing your desire for products you didn’t even know existed yesterday and that you will want to throw away tomorrow so you can purchase the latest and newest thing. The distance between the showroom and the rubbish bin is diminishing and, ideally, should be instantaneous. As it can be with the purchase of ‘services’.
Consumption defines us – and those who cannot meet the call of our created desires have become failed consumers (and also, virtually by definition, also failed humans – whether they work or not – think of those in fulltime jobs in Walmart who are told how to apply for food stamps). In a world where work is increasingly precarious, where there is a growing underclass of people who are defined by their inability to consume or to get a job that would allow them to consume, then our role models also change. We are no longer attracted to the ‘self-made men’ of old, but rather to ‘celebrities’ – people known for being famous rather than for anything they have actually done. Our identities are defined by what we purchase, rather than what we do, and therefore our identities are constantly in need of being redefined and renewed. To truly be is to become.
The problem is that advanced capitalist societies don’t need mass employment in the same way that early capitalist society did. As such, ‘the work ethic’ is now used in a way that is, at best, disingenuous. And this will increasingly be the case. The need for labour and for very large parts of society to work is increasingly diminishing. But the function of the ‘work ethic’ today is to lay the blame for the plight of people excluded from the consumer society at the feet of those who have been excluded, rather than at the feet of society itself.
Where in previous societies this excess could be dumped – think of Australia, where the wasted humans (convicts) were dumped as far away from ‘proper society’ as was possible. As Robert Hughes said – further than the moon, as at least you could sometimes see the moon from England. Now the world is full and there remains nowhere to dump this human waste. So, instead they need to be contained – witness the growth of the prison industrial complex, where the US now has 25% of the world’s prisoners. Such is our future. The failed consumers need to be kept apart from society. They have failed because of their own ‘poor choices’ – it is society that needs protection from them…
All of this is also linked to the decline of the welfare state. There was a time when it was inconceivable that the welfare state could decline, particularly not in a ‘democracy’. It seemed clear that under the Christian maxim – ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ – that even if you were unlikely to ever ‘need’ to access welfare, the fact it provided a safety net was a kind of insurance policy most people were happy to pay. Even capitalists saw the benefits of this, as the people on welfare were seen as temporarily ‘unemployed’ and potentially – when the system was finally working properly – would be brought back to work, at some future time of full employment. That society, rather than capital itself, provided food and training for these ‘future employees’ in the meantime was recognised by capital as a benefit. But when the hope of full employment stopped being likely, even as something to aspire to, when the most likely outcome was that these people would never be required to work again, then providing for them became contrary to good sense, and consequently, of good morality too. A consumer society is one of ‘choice’. These people (welfare dependant people) are such because of their own poor choices. But also, and much more importantly as a moral imperative, welfare itself is about receiving a kind of standardised product – and this too is anathema in a consumer society.
Such a view of the virtues and wonders of ‘choice’ flows through to all aspects of the consumer society – particularly with reference to ‘state provided’ services. Education is ‘liberalised’ so that ‘parental choice’ becomes the essential consideration. Healthcare too becomes privatised so that one can ‘choose their own doctor’ – as if anyone has the technical expertise to make such a ‘choice’. The point is that freedom is defined as being identical with ‘the ability to choose’ and as such being a ‘consumer’ in a consumer society is the epitome of being a free citizen. Although, citizenship is barely a relevant category anymore – we are really all individuals, created by our own individual choices.
Precariousness is not a side feature of late modern capitalism, but fundamental to it, just as choice involves risk, so life itself involves being precarious due to our life choices. In fact, it is via precariousness that those excluded from the society of consumers are denied a means to resist or organise against their alienation. Without a firm footing on the present it is (as Bauman quotes Bourdieu) impossible to affect change in the future. Society is not to blame, society does not even exist (quoting Thatcher) – the individual exists and the measure of one’s success as an individual is apparent to all, because it is shown in your identity which in turn is defined by the products and (increasingly) experiences you can afford to purchase and display.
As I said, this really is an interesting book – the chapter on the welfare state particularly so.
July 6, 2022
第一本highlight太多超过限制的书，最大的收获应该是作者对社会的界定，分成了之前的producer 和现在的consumer economy/society。
work ethic 这个概念和国情还蛮容易共感。“劳动最光荣”的口号至今还朗朗上口。Bullshit Jobs: A Theory也有提到类似观点。作者深入分析其中的原因是因为producer 时期unemployed labor可以填补市场对劳动力的需求，所以有各种政策、welfare帮助他们找到工厂里的工作。当时，股市会对增加岗位，招到更多员工有乐观反应；现在，公司都在想尽办法裁员，甚至研究科技试图用机器人代替人类。
简单的给那些“没有价值”的人贴上穷人的标签，缺少human-waste disposal的virgin land的结果就是对监狱的需求。还有提到Bill Clinton的总统竞选是增加警察数量，建立更新、更牢固的监���。
How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy一书中对于efficiency的质疑作者也有提及。
work ethic 这个概念和国情还蛮容易共感。“劳动最光荣”的口号至今还朗朗上口。Bullshit Jobs: A Theory也有提到类似观点。作者深入分析其中的原因是因为producer 时期unemployed labor可以填补市场对劳动力的需求，所以有各种政策、welfare帮助他们找到工厂里的工作。当时，股市会对增加岗位，招到更多员工有乐观反应；现在，公司都在想尽办法裁员，甚至研究科技试图用机器人代替人类。
简单的给那些“没有价值”的人贴上穷人的标签，缺少human-waste disposal的virgin land的结果就是对监狱的需求。还有提到Bill Clinton的总统竞选是增加警察数量，建立更新、更牢固的监���。
How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy一书中对于efficiency的质疑作者也有提及。
Everything is actually subordinated to effectiveness but effective for whom, in view of what, and in order to do what另一点则是提出现今少有与消费无关的打发时间的公共空间，购物中心、游乐场、健身房都需要金钱作为入场券。富人区的公园也比其他区域建设得更好、更多。
The individuality of each choice is restated and reconfirmed through being replicated by the copy-cat actions of the crowd of choosers.疫情之后重拾极简生活的理念，但这其实也算是copy-cat的行为，通过“不购买”的选择强调individuality。
April 8, 2021
Bauman insanı hayaller dünyasından alarak gerçekler dünyasına götürüyor..
Kitabın I bölümünde Bauman "Çalışma Etiği" kavramını irdeliyor ve Sanayi Devriminin nasıl bir çalışma etiği oluşturduğunu gözler önüne seriyor. Bugüne (bu kitabı okuduğum güne) kadar benim de çalışmanın neredeyse bir insan etiği olarak gördüğüm kurumsallaşmış çalışmanın oluşması adeta insanın gerçekleri kavrayış şekline ve gerçeklere verdiği değere bir darbe niteliğinde.
II Bölümde Çalışma etiğinden geç-modern ve yahut postmodern dediğimiz günümüze gelindiğinde Tüketim Estetiğine geçiş ve tüketim toplumunda yaşama irdelenmiş.
III Bölümde Refah devletinin Yükselişi ve Çöküşü irdelenmiştir. Neoliberal İktisadın gelişi Refah Devleti kavramını adeta bir alay konusuna çevirmiş gözüküyor.
IV Bölümde Çalışma etiği ve Yeni Yoksullar konusu işlenmiştir. Ayrıca Bauman bu bölümde Tüketim Toplumunda fakirlik konusunu işlemiş ve fakirlerin yalnızca fakir değil, aynı zamanda "norm" adını verdiğimiz şeyden sapmışlar ve de görmek istemediğimiz "atıklar" olduğunu o kadar berrak şekilde gözler önüne seriyor ki, adeta insanın kendisinden utanası geliyor. Yoksulluk kavramının nasıl medya tarafından çarpıtıldığı ve de yoksulluğun yalnızca "açlık" olarak algılanması üzerine güzelce açıklama yapıyor Bauman. Bizim anladığımız biçimiyle yoksulluk insanın kendi suçuymuş. Ne saçma fikirmiş be. Algımızın yanlışlığını fark ettiğimizde insanın resmen utanası geliyor..
V Bölümde Bauman Peki, Yeni (Tüketim Toplumunun) yoksullar(ı) için umut var mı diye sormuş ve bu soruya yanıt bulmaya çalışmıştır. Mesela, gelir hakkını gelir kazanma kapasitesinden ayırma fikri bir umut arayışı olabilir mi ?
Ben Sosyoloji okumadım, ama soyolojiye karşı bir tutku hissediyorum. Amatör bir okuyucu olarak bu tür konulara da ilgi duyuyorum ve de dünyayı nasıl yanlış gördüğümüzü şimdi daha iyi anlamaya başlıyorum. Bauman okumak adeta insanın tüm hayat amacını sorgulamasına neden oluyor. Bu yüzden hem sosyolojiyi seviyorum hem de hüzünleniyorum. Kapitalist bir toplumda yaşamanın gerçekte ne demek olduğunu anlamak isteyenler bu kitabı mutlaka okumalı
Kitabın I bölümünde Bauman "Çalışma Etiği" kavramını irdeliyor ve Sanayi Devriminin nasıl bir çalışma etiği oluşturduğunu gözler önüne seriyor. Bugüne (bu kitabı okuduğum güne) kadar benim de çalışmanın neredeyse bir insan etiği olarak gördüğüm kurumsallaşmış çalışmanın oluşması adeta insanın gerçekleri kavrayış şekline ve gerçeklere verdiği değere bir darbe niteliğinde.
II Bölümde Çalışma etiğinden geç-modern ve yahut postmodern dediğimiz günümüze gelindiğinde Tüketim Estetiğine geçiş ve tüketim toplumunda yaşama irdelenmiş.
III Bölümde Refah devletinin Yükselişi ve Çöküşü irdelenmiştir. Neoliberal İktisadın gelişi Refah Devleti kavramını adeta bir alay konusuna çevirmiş gözüküyor.
IV Bölümde Çalışma etiği ve Yeni Yoksullar konusu işlenmiştir. Ayrıca Bauman bu bölümde Tüketim Toplumunda fakirlik konusunu işlemiş ve fakirlerin yalnızca fakir değil, aynı zamanda "norm" adını verdiğimiz şeyden sapmışlar ve de görmek istemediğimiz "atıklar" olduğunu o kadar berrak şekilde gözler önüne seriyor ki, adeta insanın kendisinden utanası geliyor. Yoksulluk kavramının nasıl medya tarafından çarpıtıldığı ve de yoksulluğun yalnızca "açlık" olarak algılanması üzerine güzelce açıklama yapıyor Bauman. Bizim anladığımız biçimiyle yoksulluk insanın kendi suçuymuş. Ne saçma fikirmiş be. Algımızın yanlışlığını fark ettiğimizde insanın resmen utanası geliyor..
V Bölümde Bauman Peki, Yeni (Tüketim Toplumunun) yoksullar(ı) için umut var mı diye sormuş ve bu soruya yanıt bulmaya çalışmıştır. Mesela, gelir hakkını gelir kazanma kapasitesinden ayırma fikri bir umut arayışı olabilir mi ?
Ben Sosyoloji okumadım, ama soyolojiye karşı bir tutku hissediyorum. Amatör bir okuyucu olarak bu tür konulara da ilgi duyuyorum ve de dünyayı nasıl yanlış gördüğümüzü şimdi daha iyi anlamaya başlıyorum. Bauman okumak adeta insanın tüm hayat amacını sorgulamasına neden oluyor. Bu yüzden hem sosyolojiyi seviyorum hem de hüzünleniyorum. Kapitalist bir toplumda yaşamanın gerçekte ne demek olduğunu anlamak isteyenler bu kitabı mutlaka okumalı
April 10, 2020
Esta obra de Bauman explora la relación existente entre la ética del trabajo, la sociedad de consumo y la conceptualización de la pobreza. Con un análisis muy lúcido, Bauman nos presenta de qué modo la concepción clásica de una ética del trabajo responsable de atribuir un valor a las personas ha terminado por excluir a un sector de población que se califica como marginal.
Bauman parte de la idea de que la sociedad de consumo ha crecido a la par que se han reducido las posibilidades de participar en ella de un sector cada vez más amplio de población. Este espectro marginal ha necesitado de la protección a través de subsidios públicos para no quedarse fuera del sistema. Sin embargo, a medida que esa sociedad de consumo y la ética del trabajo se hace más fuerte, la concepción de la marginalidad se plantea no tanto como un fallo del sistema sino como una incapacidad del propio individuo marginado de encajar en él.
Es a través de esa concepción que el discurso sobre la marginalidad y la pobreza pasa a ser discriminador, se le desposee de la identidad con el sistema, se le atribuye como una suerte de defecto de fábrica, con la consiguiente dificultad que ello implica para poder restablecer de algún modo la conexión social. Esa relación entre pobreza e inadaptación social que concibe el neoliberalismo más asentado es la que termina por generar la idea de que las prestaciones por desempleo y otros subsidios similares deberían dejarse de lado, algo que para Bauman es un claro reflejo de que la concepción de la ética del trabajo ha llegado a un punto en el que ha perdido su conexión con la humanidad.
Su concepción final del libro establece que si se desea superar esa barrera es necesario establecer un sistema de prestaciones que desvincule la capacidad de trabajar con la posibilidad de recibir un salario mínimo por parte de las instituciones públicas. Una concepción cada vez más en boga a medida que el capitalismo es incapaz de absorber la cantidad de fuerza de trabajo existente.
Igual que otros muchos textos del autor, un libro que vale la pena revisar por su claridad en la exposición.
Bauman parte de la idea de que la sociedad de consumo ha crecido a la par que se han reducido las posibilidades de participar en ella de un sector cada vez más amplio de población. Este espectro marginal ha necesitado de la protección a través de subsidios públicos para no quedarse fuera del sistema. Sin embargo, a medida que esa sociedad de consumo y la ética del trabajo se hace más fuerte, la concepción de la marginalidad se plantea no tanto como un fallo del sistema sino como una incapacidad del propio individuo marginado de encajar en él.
Es a través de esa concepción que el discurso sobre la marginalidad y la pobreza pasa a ser discriminador, se le desposee de la identidad con el sistema, se le atribuye como una suerte de defecto de fábrica, con la consiguiente dificultad que ello implica para poder restablecer de algún modo la conexión social. Esa relación entre pobreza e inadaptación social que concibe el neoliberalismo más asentado es la que termina por generar la idea de que las prestaciones por desempleo y otros subsidios similares deberían dejarse de lado, algo que para Bauman es un claro reflejo de que la concepción de la ética del trabajo ha llegado a un punto en el que ha perdido su conexión con la humanidad.
Su concepción final del libro establece que si se desea superar esa barrera es necesario establecer un sistema de prestaciones que desvincule la capacidad de trabajar con la posibilidad de recibir un salario mínimo por parte de las instituciones públicas. Una concepción cada vez más en boga a medida que el capitalismo es incapaz de absorber la cantidad de fuerza de trabajo existente.
Igual que otros muchos textos del autor, un libro que vale la pena revisar por su claridad en la exposición.
July 24, 2021
Una clara y lúcida explicación de cómo se ha ido entendiendo y definiendo el problema de la pobreza desde la Revolución industrial hasta la actualidad; y cómo ha afectado eso a las teorizaciones de cada momento, así como a las actuaciones del estado respecto de la gente pobre. La obra cuestiona dogmas que damos por ciertos sin reflexinar siquiera de dónde viene ese pensamiento, con qué finalidad se difunde y sus consecuencias.
Le quito una estrella porque sólo se centra en la sociedad occidental y especialmente en EEUU. Entiendo que es el paradigma del modelo que explica, ya que es el dominante y que ha extendido sus ideas de capitalismo y liberalismo económico por el mundo. No obstante, me hubiera gustado que analizara las realidades de otros lugares del mundo, que son precisamente los que tienen cuotas de pobreza más elevadas y es muy posible que no tengan las mismas ideas ni concepciones. Y que se hubiera analizado la relación entre los países ricos y pobres en lugar de quedarse sólo en la gente pobre de los países ricos. Sí, son un problema, pero no creo que se pueda hacer un análisis completo de la pobreza si sólo se aborda un punto de vista y es justamente el de los países ricos.
Le quito una estrella porque sólo se centra en la sociedad occidental y especialmente en EEUU. Entiendo que es el paradigma del modelo que explica, ya que es el dominante y que ha extendido sus ideas de capitalismo y liberalismo económico por el mundo. No obstante, me hubiera gustado que analizara las realidades de otros lugares del mundo, que son precisamente los que tienen cuotas de pobreza más elevadas y es muy posible que no tengan las mismas ideas ni concepciones. Y que se hubiera analizado la relación entre los países ricos y pobres en lugar de quedarse sólo en la gente pobre de los países ricos. Sí, son un problema, pero no creo que se pueda hacer un análisis completo de la pobreza si sólo se aborda un punto de vista y es justamente el de los países ricos.
July 6, 2017
Good philosophical presentation of the plight of the poor from a socialist perspective. He does acknowledge that every society has struggled with poverty, but seems to only delve into the failure of western society. Maybe he covers this in his other work but, I see a distinct bias with no offered solution. Except on the last page he suggests simple living as a way out of it. This is a spiritual issue which he never covers, not an economic/social issue.
Would like to see where he takes his theories across the spectrum of economic foundations (let's agree that there is no pure example--so where's the optimum point of balance? If being poor is relative what constitutes an 'acceptable' lack of means?). There's nothing on social mobility and the place of individualism. I'll read more from Bauman because he helps me more clearly understand the flaws in socialist thinking.
Would like to see where he takes his theories across the spectrum of economic foundations (let's agree that there is no pure example--so where's the optimum point of balance? If being poor is relative what constitutes an 'acceptable' lack of means?). There's nothing on social mobility and the place of individualism. I'll read more from Bauman because he helps me more clearly understand the flaws in socialist thinking.
April 10, 2023
Nunca falla Zygmunt Bauman
lectura obligatoria siempre.
lectura obligatoria siempre.
Want to read
August 11, 2021Recommended by Trevor in relation to surveillance capitalism.
November 12, 2021
老调重弹。工作伦理被创造又改写成消费社会还挺有意思。其余实在是缺乏原创性。
June 21, 2022
Creo que, cuando una persona se encuentra ante la tesitura de hacer una reseña no especialmente positiva, pueden pasar dos cosas: que creas que tu punto de vista puede ayudar al autor a una visión en sus futuros trabajos, o que creas que puedes disuadir al lector de que, aunque no te guste lo que has leído, puede haber personas a las que sí. Considero que se deben hacer reseñas siempre desde el máximo respeto al autor, ya que es su trabajo lo que se está analizando, y yo no soy más que una especie de “chupóptero” que se alimenta del trabajo de los demás y que ensalza lo que cree mejor. Por ello, con esta reseña, aviso: las opiniones aquí vertidas son mías, no de nadie más, y aunque tengo un profundo respeto por la obra de Bauman, considero que no siempre se puede estar acertado en el diagnóstico que aporta un experto. Y creo que esta ocasión es una de ellas.
El libro del que se habla a continuación es una de las obras más famosas del sociólogo y pensador Zygmunt Bauman, que nos dejó el pasado 9 de enero de 2017 a la edad de 91 años. El tratado en cuestión es Trabajo, consumismo y nuevos pobres, del que analizaremos brevemente sus entresijos en esta disertación. A lo largo de las casi ciento treinta páginas de ensayo, el autor va desgranando la evolución del concepto de pobreza desde la primera Revolución Industrial, así como la evolución del concepto de ética del trabajo hasta la actual sociedad de masas (actual hasta el momento en que fue escrita).
El ensayo se compone de cinco capítulos bien diferenciados, y que si bien tienen conexión en la temática central, no es así al entrar en profundidad. Por ejemplo, el primer capítulo es más “histórico”, si se le puede llamar así, ya que centra su atención en la evolución del concepto Ética del trabajo desde la sociedad gremial hasta las sociedades industriales, en las cuales Bauman alega que el concepto no es más que el trabajar para conseguir satisfacer las necesidades básicas, sin ningún tipo de aspiración personal o de pensamiento ya que la industrialización de las fábricas lleva al obrero a realizar trabajos mecánicos que eviten el pensamiento del individuo, siendo esta, para el autor, la principal causa de la mecanización del trabajo, obviando el hecho de que las máquinas producen más en menos tiempo, trayendo pingües beneficios frente a la inversión inicial colosal que supone la compra de maquinaria. En cambio, en el segundo capítulo Bauman hace referencia a la sociedad de consumidores y la sociedad de productores, las diferencias que hay entre estas, cómo se realiza el cambio de una a otra y a que se debe este consumo.
En estas primeras páginas se citan a otros pensadores como Diderot, Francis Bacon, Descartes… pero es quizás Marx el que más atina para Bauman al definir el progreso histórico como la necesidad innata del hombre por controlar la naturaleza. En paralelo a este debate sobre la ética del trabajo, se divaga sobre el papel del pobre en estas sociedades, volviendo a poner el ojo en el pasado, pues en la Edad Moderna no fueron pocos los gobernantes que quisieron separar a los “buenos pobres” (aquellos que no podían trabajar) de los “malos pobres” (aquellos que sí podían pero no querían), complicándoles la vida para que se pensasen dos veces si querían seguir viviendo en esa situación. Bauman acota la ética del trabajo a Europa, ya que dice que en Norteamérica es el espíritu de empresa y de ascenso laboral lo que motiva a los trabajadores. ¿En qué marco queda, entonces, la ética del trabajo si EEUU ha exportado su modelo de negocio a todo el mundo? Bauman se lava las manos en ese sentido. Más adelante se habla de la identidad social, elemento inherente al trabajo, ya que el estatus de alguien depende del trabajo que se realice, algo en lo que creo que vuelve a errar Bauman, ya que el estatus de una persona no depende tanto del trabajo que realice como del poder adquisitivo que reciba del mismo. Es decir: un trabajador de las TIC puede tener mejor consideración que un presentador de telediario gracias al salario que obtenga en contraposición al otro.
Me gusta que relacione el término “buena vida” con la estética, ya que, si no lo entendí mal, en función de tu capacidad de elección a la hora de consumir (algo que Bauman considera un acto individual y que no necesariamente tiene porqué ser así), el individuo puede ocupar un lugar más alto en la escala social, mayor respeto y autoestima. Esto es así nos guste o no, y hay que reconocer su elemento integrador en la sociedad: el pudiente podrá vestir a la moda y podría llegar a ser “influencer” de los demás, mientras que el que no llega a fin de mes tirará de rebajas y difícilmente podría aspirar a marcas, por poner un ejemplo.
Bauman alega en el capítulo destinado al Estado Benefactor que el individuo no espera recibir demasiado del Estado, algo falso ya que, al menos en Europa, se pagan unos impuestos a cambio de beneficios como la sanidad o la educación universal, algo que en EEUU, por ejemplo, no existe al no pagarse tantos impuestos. El Estado benefactor definido por Townsend cae por pérdida de apoyo popular, y en la actualidad vemos que ese Estado del Bienestar está en crisis, pero no porque la gente no quiera pagar impuestos, como arguye Bauman, sino por factores de diversa índole como el trabajo precario, el encarecimiento de los productos procedentes de zonas en conflicto o el auge de los populismos de diferentes ideologías. Quizás parte del problema resida no en que no se quieran pagar impuestos, sino en que simplemente no se pueden pagar los ya existentes, o en que los que pagan impuestos son la clase media y baja, mientras que los que más ganan no pagan en proporción a lo que obtienen de su trabajo.
El autor define la sociedad de manera correcta, y defiende la fuerza que tiene para excluir a las personas que no actúan acorde a lo que se espera de ellas. Estas personas suelen ser los pobres, aquellos que se han querido integrar en una sociedad pero que no han querido respetar las normas que se imponían. Es decir, identifica al pobre con el inadaptado (como el nuevo pobre). Por tanto, pobre es todo aquel que no puede entrar en el marco de consumo que marca la sociedad. Pero, ¿y si no existiese ese marco de consumo? ¿Cómo se definiría al nuevo pobre entonces? ¿Quién es el nuevo pobre en sociedades ya pobres de por sí? Y en las sociedades en las que la clase media está desapareciendo, ¿será nuevo pobre la mitad de la población, ya que según su definición no pueden consumir en la misma medida que antaño?
A modo de conclusión, se deben hacer varios apuntes. En primer lugar, que este libro fue publicado a finales del año pasado, por lo que su planteamiento se queda a medio camino actualmente (e incluso en el momento de su escritura) e incluso podría haber quedado obsoleto. En la sociedad actual, en la que hablar de los cambios producidos en una década podría ser equiparable a medio siglo en épocas anteriores, tratados como este pueden ser útiles en los marcos académicos como reflexión para los estudiantes sobre cómo ha evolucionado una sociedad. Quizás ese sea su objetivo. Pero se olvida de algunos factores externos al ser humano, como por ejemplo las guerras. Siria era una de las regiones más opulentas antes de la guerra, y muchos europeos iban a estudiar a sus universidades. Ahora, que la guerra lo ha destruido todo, ¿es toda la población susceptible de ser nuevos pobres? Además, olvida el peso que la Historia tiene en las sociedades, ya que condiciona completamente el modo de pensar de todo un conjunto de personas, así como su evolución como pueblo, y decir que el obrero es explotado con el objetivo de evitar que piense es reducir el asunto al absurdo. Los problemas sociales no se pueden abordar sin tener en cuenta aspectos económicos, históricos y culturales, y por eso creo que Bauman se queda a medio camino, porque los menciona, pero no profundiza en ellos. Quizás debería profundizar en otras obras suyas para entender sus planteamientos y su razonamiento, pero para mí, la idea esencial es la de que ha intentado abarcar demasiado en poco espacio, y por eso algunas ideas se quedan un poco cojas.
El libro del que se habla a continuación es una de las obras más famosas del sociólogo y pensador Zygmunt Bauman, que nos dejó el pasado 9 de enero de 2017 a la edad de 91 años. El tratado en cuestión es Trabajo, consumismo y nuevos pobres, del que analizaremos brevemente sus entresijos en esta disertación. A lo largo de las casi ciento treinta páginas de ensayo, el autor va desgranando la evolución del concepto de pobreza desde la primera Revolución Industrial, así como la evolución del concepto de ética del trabajo hasta la actual sociedad de masas (actual hasta el momento en que fue escrita).
El ensayo se compone de cinco capítulos bien diferenciados, y que si bien tienen conexión en la temática central, no es así al entrar en profundidad. Por ejemplo, el primer capítulo es más “histórico”, si se le puede llamar así, ya que centra su atención en la evolución del concepto Ética del trabajo desde la sociedad gremial hasta las sociedades industriales, en las cuales Bauman alega que el concepto no es más que el trabajar para conseguir satisfacer las necesidades básicas, sin ningún tipo de aspiración personal o de pensamiento ya que la industrialización de las fábricas lleva al obrero a realizar trabajos mecánicos que eviten el pensamiento del individuo, siendo esta, para el autor, la principal causa de la mecanización del trabajo, obviando el hecho de que las máquinas producen más en menos tiempo, trayendo pingües beneficios frente a la inversión inicial colosal que supone la compra de maquinaria. En cambio, en el segundo capítulo Bauman hace referencia a la sociedad de consumidores y la sociedad de productores, las diferencias que hay entre estas, cómo se realiza el cambio de una a otra y a que se debe este consumo.
En estas primeras páginas se citan a otros pensadores como Diderot, Francis Bacon, Descartes… pero es quizás Marx el que más atina para Bauman al definir el progreso histórico como la necesidad innata del hombre por controlar la naturaleza. En paralelo a este debate sobre la ética del trabajo, se divaga sobre el papel del pobre en estas sociedades, volviendo a poner el ojo en el pasado, pues en la Edad Moderna no fueron pocos los gobernantes que quisieron separar a los “buenos pobres” (aquellos que no podían trabajar) de los “malos pobres” (aquellos que sí podían pero no querían), complicándoles la vida para que se pensasen dos veces si querían seguir viviendo en esa situación. Bauman acota la ética del trabajo a Europa, ya que dice que en Norteamérica es el espíritu de empresa y de ascenso laboral lo que motiva a los trabajadores. ¿En qué marco queda, entonces, la ética del trabajo si EEUU ha exportado su modelo de negocio a todo el mundo? Bauman se lava las manos en ese sentido. Más adelante se habla de la identidad social, elemento inherente al trabajo, ya que el estatus de alguien depende del trabajo que se realice, algo en lo que creo que vuelve a errar Bauman, ya que el estatus de una persona no depende tanto del trabajo que realice como del poder adquisitivo que reciba del mismo. Es decir: un trabajador de las TIC puede tener mejor consideración que un presentador de telediario gracias al salario que obtenga en contraposición al otro.
Me gusta que relacione el término “buena vida” con la estética, ya que, si no lo entendí mal, en función de tu capacidad de elección a la hora de consumir (algo que Bauman considera un acto individual y que no necesariamente tiene porqué ser así), el individuo puede ocupar un lugar más alto en la escala social, mayor respeto y autoestima. Esto es así nos guste o no, y hay que reconocer su elemento integrador en la sociedad: el pudiente podrá vestir a la moda y podría llegar a ser “influencer” de los demás, mientras que el que no llega a fin de mes tirará de rebajas y difícilmente podría aspirar a marcas, por poner un ejemplo.
Bauman alega en el capítulo destinado al Estado Benefactor que el individuo no espera recibir demasiado del Estado, algo falso ya que, al menos en Europa, se pagan unos impuestos a cambio de beneficios como la sanidad o la educación universal, algo que en EEUU, por ejemplo, no existe al no pagarse tantos impuestos. El Estado benefactor definido por Townsend cae por pérdida de apoyo popular, y en la actualidad vemos que ese Estado del Bienestar está en crisis, pero no porque la gente no quiera pagar impuestos, como arguye Bauman, sino por factores de diversa índole como el trabajo precario, el encarecimiento de los productos procedentes de zonas en conflicto o el auge de los populismos de diferentes ideologías. Quizás parte del problema resida no en que no se quieran pagar impuestos, sino en que simplemente no se pueden pagar los ya existentes, o en que los que pagan impuestos son la clase media y baja, mientras que los que más ganan no pagan en proporción a lo que obtienen de su trabajo.
El autor define la sociedad de manera correcta, y defiende la fuerza que tiene para excluir a las personas que no actúan acorde a lo que se espera de ellas. Estas personas suelen ser los pobres, aquellos que se han querido integrar en una sociedad pero que no han querido respetar las normas que se imponían. Es decir, identifica al pobre con el inadaptado (como el nuevo pobre). Por tanto, pobre es todo aquel que no puede entrar en el marco de consumo que marca la sociedad. Pero, ¿y si no existiese ese marco de consumo? ¿Cómo se definiría al nuevo pobre entonces? ¿Quién es el nuevo pobre en sociedades ya pobres de por sí? Y en las sociedades en las que la clase media está desapareciendo, ¿será nuevo pobre la mitad de la población, ya que según su definición no pueden consumir en la misma medida que antaño?
A modo de conclusión, se deben hacer varios apuntes. En primer lugar, que este libro fue publicado a finales del año pasado, por lo que su planteamiento se queda a medio camino actualmente (e incluso en el momento de su escritura) e incluso podría haber quedado obsoleto. En la sociedad actual, en la que hablar de los cambios producidos en una década podría ser equiparable a medio siglo en épocas anteriores, tratados como este pueden ser útiles en los marcos académicos como reflexión para los estudiantes sobre cómo ha evolucionado una sociedad. Quizás ese sea su objetivo. Pero se olvida de algunos factores externos al ser humano, como por ejemplo las guerras. Siria era una de las regiones más opulentas antes de la guerra, y muchos europeos iban a estudiar a sus universidades. Ahora, que la guerra lo ha destruido todo, ¿es toda la población susceptible de ser nuevos pobres? Además, olvida el peso que la Historia tiene en las sociedades, ya que condiciona completamente el modo de pensar de todo un conjunto de personas, así como su evolución como pueblo, y decir que el obrero es explotado con el objetivo de evitar que piense es reducir el asunto al absurdo. Los problemas sociales no se pueden abordar sin tener en cuenta aspectos económicos, históricos y culturales, y por eso creo que Bauman se queda a medio camino, porque los menciona, pero no profundiza en ellos. Quizás debería profundizar en otras obras suyas para entender sus planteamientos y su razonamiento, pero para mí, la idea esencial es la de que ha intentado abarcar demasiado en poco espacio, y por eso algunas ideas se quedan un poco cojas.
February 8, 2021
Realmente creo que vale la pena leerlo. El autor parte de un análisis desde la ética del trabajo durante la revolución industrial, y lo que nos lleva en la actualidad a ser una sociedad de consumo. Cómo todo esto está relacionado, y la “anormalidad” con la que se llega a ver a aquellas personas que no cumplen con las normas de la sociedad de consumo.
Me re gustó que me haya hecho pensar un montón, hasta de lo que se conoce como el “estado de felicidad”. Lo que no me gustó es que se usaron muchas palabras como: hombre (para generalizar) y la palabra denigrar varias veces, entre otras. Igual son cosas que ya asumo que van a hacer los autorEs.
Me re gustó que me haya hecho pensar un montón, hasta de lo que se conoce como el “estado de felicidad”. Lo que no me gustó es que se usaron muchas palabras como: hombre (para generalizar) y la palabra denigrar varias veces, entre otras. Igual son cosas que ya asumo que van a hacer los autorEs.
February 26, 2024
句子好长，同时好像没有读到什么内容…
February 8, 2022
这本书讲述了经济基础的变化（ 工业型社会转向服务型社会）下所引发的上层建筑（工作的意义，穷人的定义）的变化。
作者将现代化分为两个阶段：生产者社会和消费者社会。生产者社会就是过去以制造业为主的工业化社会，而消费者社会对应我们现在以服务业为主的社会。
在生产者社会，工作伦理成为了主导社会的上层建筑。工作伦理是一条戒律。工作伦理认为，每个人都应该努力工作，做一些他人认同并有价值的事。而安于现状、不思进取是可耻的。工作伦理产生于工业化社会与小农社会之间的矛盾。工作伦理的观念与小农社会“人的需求是有限的，安于现状”的观念是相对立的。最终，在社会的工业化变革中，工作伦理取代了小农社会的观念，在社会中占据了主导地位。
在消费者社会，工作伦理被消费者美学所取代。在生产者社会，一个人的身份由他所做的工作决定。一旦一个人选择了一种职业，他的工作就会终其一生去塑造他的身份认知。而在消费者社会，工作岗位不再是终身制的了，新的工作岗位是灵活的，有期限的。因此，在这样一个社会，人的社会是多重的，是不稳定不牢固的，人的身份转而由他所拥有的商品定义。美学作为一种上层建筑被整合入消费者社会。消费者美学取代了工作伦理的统治地位，工作的地位也受到美学的深刻影响，工作的价值取决于愉悦体验的能力，能够获得满足感，成就感的工作成为了上等的工作。工作必须得是有趣的，而不能是无聊的。
相应的，穷人的概念也随着社会变迁而改变。在生产者社会中，穷人是“潜在的劳动力后备军”，因为生产力的发展需要源源不断的劳动力输入。在消费者社会，越来越多的工作被机器取代，劳动者的需求变低，穷人不再是”潜在的劳动力后备军“，而成为了”有缺陷的消费者“。穷人从社会的资产转变成了社会的负担，成为了一种需要摆脱的累赘。
作者用这种变化为福利国家的衰败提供了解释。现代的福利国家是有选择性的（经济审查）而非普遍性的，这导致社会分裂成了两极：付出无回报的和吃白食的人。资本主义的发展会自然使得劳动力成本过高，因此为了维持生产利润，资本必须不断开垦新的处女地。（这也是为什么产生了殖民主义）全球化让福利国家的劳动力被抛弃，成为了吃白食的人。因为社会的二元化，申请福利的人被打上了穷人的烙印，在文化上成为了底层人。因此，民主国家的中层选民不再愿意多缴税为”吃白食的“穷人提供福利制度。第二个原因是，福利国家体系性与消费者社会是格格不入的。消费主义强调选择性与差异化，而福利国家则代表了一致性和同一化。消费者希望能够自我选择保险制度，而不是被国家统一分配。
穷人不再是”后备的劳动力“，他们没有任何经济意义，成为了彻底的累赘。穷人是社会的垃圾，他们需要被清理。在过去，穷人会被扔到大洋彼岸，去殖民新的的处女地上。而如今，在全球化的背景下，地球上已经没有未开垦的土地能够丢弃这些穷人，能够容纳他们的地方只有监狱。这似乎预示着一个赛博朋克般的未来前景。
面对当今的困境，作者最后用较短的篇幅探讨了潜在的解决方案：将个人收入能力与实际收入权利脱钩。收入将以个人的基本权利为基础，而不是取决于一个人是否能够创造可交换的价值。我理解，以上的解决方案就是universal basic income。在AI即将取代人类大多数岗位的背景下，我认为社会体制的变革确实迫在眉睫。我希望，在物质极大丰富的未来，AI能够生产绝大多数的商品，提供绝大多数的服务，而每个人都能按照自身的需求获得相应的商品与服务。人类未来的工作能够不再是为了创造价值（制造商品，提供服务），不再和经济发展的需求挂钩，而是为了充分发挥自身的创造力与主观能动性（元宇宙似乎能提供新的基于创造力的工作内容，工作即使游戏，游戏即是工作）。我期待着这一天的到来。
作者将现代化分为两个阶段：生产者社会和消费者社会。生产者社会就是过去以制造业为主的工业化社会，而消费者社会对应我们现在以服务业为主的社会。
在生产者社会，工作伦理成为了主导社会的上层建筑。工作伦理是一条戒律。工作伦理认为，每个人都应该努力工作，做一些他人认同并有价值的事。而安于现状、不思进取是可耻的。工作伦理产生于工业化社会与小农社会之间的矛盾。工作伦理的观念与小农社会“人的需求是有限的，安于现状”的观念是相对立的。最终，在社会的工业化变革中，工作伦理取代了小农社会的观念，在社会中占据了主导地位。
在消费者社会，工作伦理被消费者美学所取代。在生产者社会，一个人的身份由他所做的工作决定。一旦一个人选择了一种职业，他的工作就会终其一生去塑造他的身份认知。而在消费者社会，工作岗位不再是终身制的了，新的工作岗位是灵活的，有期限的。因此，在这样一个社会，人的社会是多重的，是不稳定不牢固的，人的身份转而由他所拥有的商品定义。美学作为一种上层建筑被整合入消费者社会。消费者美学取代了工作伦理的统治地位，工作的地位也受到美学的深刻影响，工作的价值取决于愉悦体验的能力，能够获得满足感，成就感的工作成为了上等的工作。工作必须得是有趣的，而不能是无聊的。
相应的，穷人的概念也随着社会变迁而改变。在生产者社会中，穷人是“潜在的劳动力后备军”，因为生产力的发展需要源源不断的劳动力输入。在消费者社会，越来越多的工作被机器取代，劳动者的需求变低，穷人不再是”潜在的劳动力后备军“，而成为了”有缺陷的消费者“。穷人从社会的资产转变成了社会的负担，成为了一种需要摆脱的累赘。
作者用这种变化为福利国家的衰败提供了解释。现代的福利国家是有选择性的（经济审查）而非普遍性的，这导致社会分裂成了两极：付出无回报的和吃白食的人。资本主义的发展会自然使得劳动力成本过高，因此为了维持生产利润，资本必须不断开垦新的处女地。（这也是为什么产生了殖民主义）全球化让福利国家的劳动力被抛弃，成为了吃白食的人。因为社会的二元化，申请福利的人被打上了穷人的烙印，在文化上成为了底层人。因此，民主国家的中层选民不再愿意多缴税为”吃白食的“穷人提供福利制度。第二个原因是，福利国家体系性与消费者社会是格格不入的。消费主义强调选择性与差异化，而福利国家则代表了一致性和同一化。消费者希望能够自我选择保险制度，而不是被国家统一分配。
穷人不再是”后备的劳动力“，他们没有任何经济意义，成为了彻底的累赘。穷人是社会的垃圾，他们需要被清理。在过去，穷人会被扔到大洋彼岸，去殖民新的的处女地上。而如今，在全球化的背景下，地球上已经没有未开垦的土地能够丢弃这些穷人，能够容纳他们的地方只有监狱。这似乎预示着一个赛博朋克般的未来前景。
面对当今的困境，作者最后用较短的篇幅探讨了潜在的解决方案：将个人收入能力与实际收入权利脱钩。收入将以个人的基本权利为基础，而不是取决于一个人是否能够创造可交换的价值。我理解，以上的解决方案就是universal basic income。在AI即将取代人类大多数岗位的背景下，我认为社会体制的变革确实迫在眉睫。我希望，在物质极大丰富的未来，AI能够生产绝大多数的商品，提供绝大多数的服务，而每个人都能按照自身的需求获得相应的商品与服务。人类未来的工作能够不再是为了创造价值（制造商品，提供服务），不再和经济发展的需求挂钩，而是为了充分发挥自身的创造力与主观能动性（元宇宙似乎能提供新的基于创造力的工作内容，工作即使游戏，游戏即是工作）。我期待着这一天的到来。
January 13, 2017
Estamos inmersos en una época de cambio. Los mercados mandan, los logros sociales están en retroceso, el estado del bienestar está moribundo. La situación evoluciona de una forma que parece irreversible, y que, leyendo este libro, parece una consecuencia lógica de la evolución que ha tenido la sociedad y el mercado de trabajo. Pero 'lógica' no es sinónimo de 'buena' o 'adecuada'... De hecho, no parece que el camino por el que bajamos cada vez a mayor velocidad sea, ni mucho menos, beneficioso para el grueso de la sociedad; tan sólo para una minoría.
¿Podemos hacer algo? Lo ignoro. Pero en cualquier caso, lo más importante es conocer primero lo que está pasando, lo que nos está pasando sin casi darnos cuenta. Este libro nos abre los ojos al respecto.
Leer un ensayo no suele ser una diversión. Pero leer este libro casi diría que es necesario. Nos puede ir nuestra forma de vida en ello...
¿Podemos hacer algo? Lo ignoro. Pero en cualquier caso, lo más importante es conocer primero lo que está pasando, lo que nos está pasando sin casi darnos cuenta. Este libro nos abre los ojos al respecto.
Leer un ensayo no suele ser una diversión. Pero leer este libro casi diría que es necesario. Nos puede ir nuestra forma de vida en ello...
January 20, 2022
Brief book but iluminating. Apparently about 30 years later, today we still live in what is wrtitten in this book, not only a private utopia but private pain and agony. The poor is for the first time totally "useless" and the warefare is no longer wanted. We still see moral decay when it is actually a story of exploitation.
March 14, 2019
La evolución de la ética del trabajo hasta el punto actual en poco más de 100 páginas. Una maravilla de libro.
February 1, 2025
Bauman skillfully covered exclusion of underclass in society that still operates on XIX work ethics myth (to get workers to fabrics, narrative of achieving freedom and success through work and effort was picked up by masses). He outlined how in current (ca.2000) consumer based economy we are misguided still following said work ethic. I suppose it might have been a thought provoking point of view more than few decades ago.
All is tad repetitive, starting from overview of construction (based on UK Beveridge's welfare state system), through it's deconstruction (again mostly UK sources, with US thinkers:Richard Rorty, Lawrence M. Mead, Ken Auletta, Richard Sennett). Contemplating disposables in a French sauce (Cornelius Castoriadis,Paul Ricoeaur,Droit Roger-Pol,Finkielkraut Alain,Pierre Bourdieu) with a bit of German radish for basic income idea Claus Offe and Aínsa Fernando for a spicy thought on pan-topia (vs u-topia).
Definitely worthy a quick read as the case is outlined clearly and (I) haven't heard of half of the authors quoted before. Still Bauman totally misses migration movements, ability of 'developed' economies to consume only due to their credibility (ability to raise capital through debt issuance). Hence, his thoughts put on rather rushed final pages aren't going anywhere in particular, change, change is the answer on the crossroad we are. Will it be craftsmanship, income entitlement or something else for one doesn't seem Bauman offers his point of view (nor rejects consumerisms?). Leaving you handinging..
All is tad repetitive, starting from overview of construction (based on UK Beveridge's welfare state system), through it's deconstruction (again mostly UK sources, with US thinkers:Richard Rorty, Lawrence M. Mead, Ken Auletta, Richard Sennett). Contemplating disposables in a French sauce (Cornelius Castoriadis,Paul Ricoeaur,Droit Roger-Pol,Finkielkraut Alain,Pierre Bourdieu) with a bit of German radish for basic income idea Claus Offe and Aínsa Fernando for a spicy thought on pan-topia (vs u-topia).
Definitely worthy a quick read as the case is outlined clearly and (I) haven't heard of half of the authors quoted before. Still Bauman totally misses migration movements, ability of 'developed' economies to consume only due to their credibility (ability to raise capital through debt issuance). Hence, his thoughts put on rather rushed final pages aren't going anywhere in particular, change, change is the answer on the crossroad we are. Will it be craftsmanship, income entitlement or something else for one doesn't seem Bauman offers his point of view (nor rejects consumerisms?). Leaving you handinging..
November 7, 2023
Although not a new book, I found Bauman's historical and at times philosophical argument about consumerism eclipsing the work ethic to be revelatory He discusses the moral crusade to impart the work ethic tied to industrialization as a tripartite solution to poverty, insufficient labor supply, and the threat of revolution. Pre-industrial work attitudes of "workmanship" under new industrial, alienated conditions didn't apply yet were invoked. Whereas workers tended to have a mixed range of materials needs, prefer leisure, and forgo unnecessary labor, this was disparaged as the owners of production sought to make workers dependent on them and increase necessary labor. As the owners made factory work the norm, artisans became disenfranchised and, with the help of government, forced a full societal transition.
That's just the background context. During the industrial era, the work ethic socially reproduced a society of producers. In the post-industrial era, this transitioned to a society of consumers. Satisfaction was no longer desired so much as the opportunity for more desire in facilitating the ideal consumer. This marked a transition from inherited class consciousness to self-construction and its aesthetic from the foundation up. The more choices, the better one could exercise one's freedom to choose and identity in choosing. Identities became part of a marketplace to be appropriated and possessed but only to be consumed. A society of consumers becomes resentful of restrictions on choice and so favored deregulation (neoliberalism).
Applied to work, work devoid of its capacity to intrinsically generate pleasurable experiences becomes devoid of value. To fill jobs that people don't want to work, a situation of survival must be recreated – but this time without the moral ennoblement that undergirded the work ethic. The poor then become defined as inadequate consumers. Whereas previously society felt a moral imperative to help the poor and provide opportunities to be uplifted, the transition away from this can be seen in displacing moral responsibility and agency onto the poor – the "underclass" – who are bracketed out as beyond redemption. Welfare politics used to reflect a lack of self-confidence in self-reliance and hope that the state would uplift those temporarily downtrodden, but through the negative example of poverty and refusal to be condemned to lack of choice – lack of consumer confidence – Americans came to favor lower taxes to have more in their pockets than the abstract possibility of public care with perceptively low standards.
That's just the background context. During the industrial era, the work ethic socially reproduced a society of producers. In the post-industrial era, this transitioned to a society of consumers. Satisfaction was no longer desired so much as the opportunity for more desire in facilitating the ideal consumer. This marked a transition from inherited class consciousness to self-construction and its aesthetic from the foundation up. The more choices, the better one could exercise one's freedom to choose and identity in choosing. Identities became part of a marketplace to be appropriated and possessed but only to be consumed. A society of consumers becomes resentful of restrictions on choice and so favored deregulation (neoliberalism).
Applied to work, work devoid of its capacity to intrinsically generate pleasurable experiences becomes devoid of value. To fill jobs that people don't want to work, a situation of survival must be recreated – but this time without the moral ennoblement that undergirded the work ethic. The poor then become defined as inadequate consumers. Whereas previously society felt a moral imperative to help the poor and provide opportunities to be uplifted, the transition away from this can be seen in displacing moral responsibility and agency onto the poor – the "underclass" – who are bracketed out as beyond redemption. Welfare politics used to reflect a lack of self-confidence in self-reliance and hope that the state would uplift those temporarily downtrodden, but through the negative example of poverty and refusal to be condemned to lack of choice – lack of consumer confidence – Americans came to favor lower taxes to have more in their pockets than the abstract possibility of public care with perceptively low standards.
October 12, 2023
At first glance, the title seems to blame the poor for falling into the trap of consumerism. However, Bauman shows the deepest compassion for the poor, who are blamed for being lazy and not willing to work but are actually the victims. He shows how work ethics were invented to encourage and force labour to work in the factories. In the new age of consumerism, society doesn't need so many labourers anymore. The last contribution of work ethics is to put the blame on the unemployed, as if they choose not to work and getting them employed would solve the problem. Work ethics is a weapon to justify the rich's apathy towards the suffering poor. Globalization causes another complexity, because, in a world where the capital is free to roam, local government has nothing they can do to help the poor. Any effort to improve the low labour would cause them to lose their job. The situation is worse than one might imagine. Bauman pointed out that surplus labour has existed long ago since industrialization started. However, in our age, surplus labour cannot move to an industrialized country because all countries are industrialized. Modern society deals with the poor by marginalizing them, criminalizing them, and then segregating them. In fact, the new poor is not an unemployed person, but an incompetent consumer. They are not potential workers anymore since society doesn't need more workers. They are simply a trouble to the indifferent majority.
Bauman points out a potential solution—universal basic income, a concept raised by C. Offe. Society needs to shift its center from employment and labour to its members's basic rights and protection. However, this suggestion seems too optimistic. Just as Bauman himself explains, local governments have very little influence on roaming capital. It is not hard to imagine that capital will leave once the government imposes the burden of universal income on them.
It is a very incisive book. There are only two downsides:
1. Bauman seems to think that work ethics were invented and used in such a way by design, as if a group of people conspired it. It could be true but it has no solid proof.
2. He focuses a lot on explaining the problem, but he himself must know that the solution he suggests is only a local solution that can't solve a global problem.
Bauman points out a potential solution—universal basic income, a concept raised by C. Offe. Society needs to shift its center from employment and labour to its members's basic rights and protection. However, this suggestion seems too optimistic. Just as Bauman himself explains, local governments have very little influence on roaming capital. It is not hard to imagine that capital will leave once the government imposes the burden of universal income on them.
It is a very incisive book. There are only two downsides:
1. Bauman seems to think that work ethics were invented and used in such a way by design, as if a group of people conspired it. It could be true but it has no solid proof.
2. He focuses a lot on explaining the problem, but he himself must know that the solution he suggests is only a local solution that can't solve a global problem.
September 6, 2024
Sin lugar a dudas, uno de los mejores libros de sociología. Esta es mi segunda lectura, luego de veinte años, y lo cierto es que las conclusiones de Bauman siguen tan frescas como cuando lo escribió a finales del siglo pasado (XX). En otras palabras, pareciera que en realidad éste sociólogo estuviera describiendo nuestro mundo actual; así, de importante me parece la información y los hallazgos que nos presenta en esta investigación.
El ensayo empieza problematizando la influencia que ha tenido la denominada "ética del trabajo", en la aparición de una "clase marginal" en plena sociedad de consumo. En este sentido, Bauman nos da un recorrido histórico de lo que esta ideología ("ética del trabajo") significó en el siglo XIX y, significa actualmente para las sociedades occidentales; se pregunta, además, cúal ha sido su rol legitimador como ideología, en cuanto a la manera de comprender a los pobres de ayer y hoy. Todo esto, sin perder de vista que éstos últimos son "consumidores imperfectos" o "no consumidores" dentro de una lógica societal basada en la "estética de consumo" (nuestras sociedades contemporáneas) y, los agonizantes Estados de Bienestar... lo dejo hasta ahí, pero no sin antes destacar el hecho de que Bauman nos presenta algunos escenarios catastróficos y los posibles catalizadores. En este sentido, aplaudo al sociólogo polaco por atreverse a trascender el "cómo" (lo puramente descriptivo), para pasar a las posibles alternativas por utópicas que puedan parecer.
En lo personal, he encontrado la lectura amena y muy interesante, ya que, lo que nos cuenta Bauman tiene mucha relevancia actual, al tiempo que nos permite repensar esta problemática y sus posibles consecuencias futuras. Muy recomendable.
El ensayo empieza problematizando la influencia que ha tenido la denominada "ética del trabajo", en la aparición de una "clase marginal" en plena sociedad de consumo. En este sentido, Bauman nos da un recorrido histórico de lo que esta ideología ("ética del trabajo") significó en el siglo XIX y, significa actualmente para las sociedades occidentales; se pregunta, además, cúal ha sido su rol legitimador como ideología, en cuanto a la manera de comprender a los pobres de ayer y hoy. Todo esto, sin perder de vista que éstos últimos son "consumidores imperfectos" o "no consumidores" dentro de una lógica societal basada en la "estética de consumo" (nuestras sociedades contemporáneas) y, los agonizantes Estados de Bienestar... lo dejo hasta ahí, pero no sin antes destacar el hecho de que Bauman nos presenta algunos escenarios catastróficos y los posibles catalizadores. En este sentido, aplaudo al sociólogo polaco por atreverse a trascender el "cómo" (lo puramente descriptivo), para pasar a las posibles alternativas por utópicas que puedan parecer.
En lo personal, he encontrado la lectura amena y muy interesante, ya que, lo que nos cuenta Bauman tiene mucha relevancia actual, al tiempo que nos permite repensar esta problemática y sus posibles consecuencias futuras. Muy recomendable.
May 25, 2022
This is a difficult book to read. Another book that, in my opinion, does not live up to the hype. It didn't dive deep enough to tackle the modern consumerism problems. No such thing as society exists. It placed far too much emphasis on consumerism as the dividing line between new and old poor. I guessed it made sense given the book was written almost 20 years ago.
We all have too much to say about consumerism at this point, what we've seen over the last couple decades is a systematic encroachment of greed into many facets of life with the sole purpose seems to be to fleece everyone dry. The modern game plan from birth to death is to make sure you die with $0, and there are major systems in play banking hard on this. Housing is just one area. Healthcare is a major one as is life care once you're of old age. There are major players specifically leveraged to take every dime you have, and none of us is capable of fighting against it.
Well, we race to the top as best you can. We work hard at leveraging your schooling and getting into a good career. The early career is leveraging skill sets, promotions, and employer changes to bounce our way up the income ladder. We race up. And we'll get...somewhere. Maybe.
All too many people race just as equally to fill their expenses just as fast as they race to increase wages. At the end of the day, you build a prison of your own making. This is very much a choice, and it's equally a trap.
We all have too much to say about consumerism at this point, what we've seen over the last couple decades is a systematic encroachment of greed into many facets of life with the sole purpose seems to be to fleece everyone dry. The modern game plan from birth to death is to make sure you die with $0, and there are major systems in play banking hard on this. Housing is just one area. Healthcare is a major one as is life care once you're of old age. There are major players specifically leveraged to take every dime you have, and none of us is capable of fighting against it.
Well, we race to the top as best you can. We work hard at leveraging your schooling and getting into a good career. The early career is leveraging skill sets, promotions, and employer changes to bounce our way up the income ladder. We race up. And we'll get...somewhere. Maybe.
All too many people race just as equally to fill their expenses just as fast as they race to increase wages. At the end of the day, you build a prison of your own making. This is very much a choice, and it's equally a trap.
September 28, 2022
这本书讲了经济基础的改变引起的上层建筑（思想）的变化。
作者将社会的发展分为两个阶段：生产者社会和消费者社会。生产者社会指制造业为主的工业化社会，以老牌的福利国家为代表（德国），消费者社会指的是以服务业为主的社会。
在生产者社会，为了推进社会发展，工作伦理成为主流方式。工作伦理认为，每个人都应当努力工作，不思进取是可耻的。衡量社会地位的因素是工作道德，是他们终其一生构建和捍卫的身份的核心。道德情操与工作选择无关，因此更具规律和可预判性。因此人们更倾向于找到工作，热爱这项工作并且具有职业操守。工作是平等的。
在消费者社会，消费美学占了主导地位。消费美学认为，工作岗位是灵活多变的，能体验新鲜感的工作被称为好工作。衡量人们声望和社会地位的是工资的差别，而不是勤于工作的道德或惰于工作的罪恶。它在现代生产者的思想和行动中灌输的与其说是“资本主义精神”，不如说是以经济水平评判人的价值和尊严的倾向。一个社会期望的合格消费者应具备无常性，欲求不满，寻求即时满足。该书提出一个有趣的观点，市场以“自由意志”之名，培养合格消费者，但在每次来到市场时，消费者以为自己在掌控一切。在工作选择中，它强调了区别，放大了差异。它把某些职业提升到引人入胜的程度，把工作分为了三六九等。
“穷人”在生产者社会的定义为好吃懒做的人，而生产者社会的上层建筑是资助穷人，他们是劳动力后备军。随着生产力，AI的发展，并且全球化的推进，本社会廉价劳动力的需求减少。在新消费社会，“穷人”的定义为做简单重复性工作，会被机器取代的人。上层建筑为抛弃。社会贫富差距不断扩大。富人备受追捧的核心是他们对消费美学的掌握，即对于选择的自由（而非对工作伦理的服从和经济上的成功）。未来的恐怖童话就是不发扬美德与人性，不符合社会需求的都推进监狱。
“精神贫穷”：未能达到社会所标定的“体面生活”从而导致自尊心受到打击，产生羞愧和负罪感。
----------------------------
那些已经登上顶峰的人不再需要国家提供的梯子，他们急于脱离关系将其销毁。
----------------------------
问题的关键在于穷人能否对自己负责，首先，他们是否有能力管理自己的生活[19]……无论罗列出什么外在原因，这些无业者的内心始终是个谜——赤贫的人在把握明显存在的机会时总是表现得消极被动。
---------------------------
越来越多的行为被归类为犯罪，这种行为不是一蹴而就的，是在不断的社会价值观熏陶下的产物。
---------------------------
所有人都知道底层阶级必须保持贫穷，否则他们永远不会勤奋。
---------------------------
学识渊博的经济学家忙不迭地立即证明，当工资保持在低水平的时候，“穷人会做更多的工作，实际上生活得更好”，而他们领取高工资时，他们就迷失于无所事事和聚众闹事。
作者将社会的发展分为两个阶段：生产者社会和消费者社会。生产者社会指制造业为主的工业化社会，以老牌的福利国家为代表（德国），消费者社会指的是以服务业为主的社会。
在生产者社会，为了推进社会发展，工作伦理成为主流方式。工作伦理认为，每个人都应当努力工作，不思进取是可耻的。衡量社会地位的因素是工作道德，是他们终其一生构建和捍卫的身份的核心。道德情操与工作选择无关，因此更具规律和可预判性。因此人们更倾向于找到工作，热爱这项工作并且具有职业操守。工作是平等的。
在消费者社会，消费美学占了主导地位。消费美学认为，工作岗位是灵活多变的，能体验新鲜感的工作被称为好工作。衡量人们声望和社会地位的是工资的差别，而不是勤于工作的道德或惰于工作的罪恶。它在现代生产者的思想和行动中灌输的与其说是“资本主义精神”，不如说是以经济水平评判人的价值和尊严的倾向。一个社会期望的合格消费者应具备无常性，欲求不满，寻求即时满足。该书提出一个有趣的观点，市场以“自由意志”之名，培养合格消费者，但在每次来到市场时，消费者以为自己在掌控一切。在工作选择中，它强调了区别，放大了差异。它把某些职业提升到引人入胜的程度，把工作分为了三六九等。
“穷人”在生产者社会的定义为好吃懒做的人，而生产者社会的上层建筑是资助穷人，他们是劳动力后备军。随着生产力，AI的发展，并且全球化的推进，本社会廉价劳动力的需求减少。在新消费社会，“穷人”的定义为做简单重复性工作，会被机器取代的人。上层建筑为抛弃。社会贫富差距不断扩大。富人备受追捧的核心是他们对消费美学的掌握，即对于选择的自由（而非对工作伦理的服从和经济上的成功）。未来的恐怖童话就是不发扬美德与人性，不符合社会需求的都推进监狱。
“精神贫穷”：未能达到社会所标定的“体面生活”从而导致自尊心受到打击，产生羞愧和负罪感。
----------------------------
那些已经登上顶峰的人不再需要国家提供的梯子，他们急于脱离关系将其销毁。
----------------------------
问题的关键在于穷人能否对自己负责，首先，他们是否有能力管理自己的生活[19]……无论罗列出什么外在原因，这些无业者的内心始终是个谜——赤贫的人在把握明显存在的机会时总是表现得消极被动。
---------------------------
越来越多的行为被归类为犯罪，这种行为不是一蹴而就的，是在不断的社会价值观熏陶下的产物。
---------------------------
所有人都知道底层阶级必须保持贫穷，否则他们永远不会勤奋。
---------------------------
学识渊博的经济学家忙不迭地立即证明，当工资保持在低水平的时候，“穷人会做更多的工作，实际上生活得更好”，而他们领取高工资时，他们就迷失于无所事事和聚众闹事。
June 3, 2023
不知道为什么，读这本书让我感到很累。也许是因为翻译之后显得句子冗长，也许是因为前几天儿童节，太多的促销、赠品，催促着引诱着我消费。（好像没有特别读懂每个部分……）
其中印象深刻的，是有关工作伦理的部分。它向我展示了人们的观念、价值观，是如何一步一步被塑造成为工业社会、工厂生产所服务的，以及一个观念一但在大多数人中间形成，人们便会自动吞噬内部与之不同的小部分人——没有比这更省事的了。
还有“消费者社会”。早前就稍有意识到人们在当今社会中扮演的消费者的角色。“市场诱导越有效，消费者社会就越安全、越繁荣。”被催促着消费的压力令我不适，被欲望控制的感觉也让我感到沮丧。如今，我们被层出不穷的新奇事物吸引目光，闯进一个又一个商店，争先恐后购买联名、盲盒、套餐和第二份半价。“现在不快点买以后就没了”，这样的声音从四面八方涌向我。消费让人们可以消耗、占有、处置物品，消费彰显和传递着某种信息。打开朋友圈、上下打量某个经过的人……这种信息几乎渗透所有我们目光的所及之处。
当消费与社会声望、生活方式，甚至与爱（情感表达）紧紧联系起来，似乎就成了一个不得不参与的游戏。饥饿、欲望和不安全感……随便哪种情绪上都有可被利用的价值。
然而，仍可被利用意味着仍然“有用”；那些已经失去基本消费能力的“没用的”人，不被需要，他们只剩下消失的宿命。
这本书教我更深入地思考“贫穷”。
消费者社会强调选择。似乎目前的窘境是因为之前没能做出明确的选择，或者人们总是能够“选择”去过某种生活。如果过得不如意，那是因为他们做了不明智的选择，怪他们自己。这样，穷人身上总是有能够被责备的地方，他们需要为自己的困境负责，工作伦理只帮助接受帮助的人，对于拒绝或放弃的人，社会只好将他们抛弃。这样的逻辑也免除了其他人的负罪感，使贫困问题显得“正常”。
可是，有时人们做出选择并不是因为这个所选的选项更好，而是因为已经没有其他选项。另外，因为有了一些被有意塑造得“坏得离谱”的选项，就显得眼下拥有的选项已是奢侈。
与工作伦理不同，我们应该推崇“工艺本能”、让“收入权利与收入能力脱钩”……书的末尾提到了很多看似与当前常识不同的“不切实际”的构想，最后呼吁，应该拥抱巨大的转变。
从未想过贫穷的复杂，也从未认真思考当今经济的不合理性，更没有分析这背后的观念塑造和转变的问题。对我来说很有启发性的一本书。就好像一边撬开一个不透明的物体，一边告诉我要多疯狂才能把它敲碎。
其中印象深刻的，是有关工作伦理的部分。它向我展示了人们的观念、价值观，是如何一步一步被塑造成为工业社会、工厂生产所服务的，以及一个观念一但在大多数人中间形成，人们便会自动吞噬内部与之不同的小部分人——没有比这更省事的了。
还有“消费者社会”。早前就稍有意识到人们在当今社会中扮演的消费者的角色。“市场诱导越有效，消费者社会就越安全、越繁荣。”被催促着消费的压力令我不适，被欲望控制的感觉也让我感到沮丧。如今，我们被层出不穷的新奇事物吸引目光，闯进一个又一个商店，争先恐后购买联名、盲盒、套餐和第二份半价。“现在不快点买以后就没了”，这样的声音从四面八方涌向我。消费让人们可以消耗、占有、处置物品，消费彰显和传递着某种信息。打开朋友圈、上下打量某个经过的人……这种信息几乎渗透所有我们目光的所及之处。
当消费与社会声望、生活方式，甚至与爱（情感表达）紧紧联系起来，似乎就成了一个不得不参与的游戏。饥饿、欲望和不安全感……随便哪种情绪上都有可被利用的价值。
然而，仍可被利用意味着仍然“有用”；那些已经失去基本消费能力的“没用的”人，不被需要，他们只剩下消失的宿命。
这本书教我更深入地思考“贫穷”。
消费者社会强调选择。似乎目前的窘境是因为之前没能做出明确的选择，或者人们总是能够“选择”去过某种生活。如果过得不如意，那是因为他们做了不明智的选择，怪他们自己。这样，穷人身上总是有能够被责备的地方，他们需要为自己的困境负责，工作伦理只帮助接受帮助的人，对于拒绝或放弃的人，社会只好将他们抛弃。这样的逻辑也免除了其他人的负罪感，使贫困问题显得“正常”。
可是，有时人们做出选择并不是因为这个所选的选项更好，而是因为已经没有其他选项。另外，因为有了一些被有意塑造得“坏得离谱”的选项，就显得眼下拥有的选项已是奢侈。
与工作伦理不同，我们应该推崇“工艺本能”、让“收入权利与收入能力脱钩”……书的末尾提到了很多看似与当前常识不同的“不切实际”的构想，最后呼吁，应该拥抱巨大的转变。
从未想过贫穷的复杂，也从未认真思考当今经济的不合理性，更没有分析这背后的观念塑造和转变的问题。对我来说很有启发性的一本书。就好像一边撬开一个不透明的物体，一边告诉我要多疯狂才能把它敲碎。
April 18, 2022
It is so enlightening and prophetic that one almost couldn’t believe that it’s written almost two decades ago. Bauman incisively pinpointed the many ailments of the late modern society: increasing polarization and widening wealth gap, the stigmatization and marginalization of the underclass, the atomization of social and political structure… In the East, many of the underclass have opted for “laying down”, withdrawing themselves from the ever more intense competition in the labor market, which could no longer supply jobs to all willing hands. It presents an intriguing parallel to the world described by Bauman and witnessed in the west. I also cannot help but to see the unfolding of the solution given by Bauman at the end of this book, as many North European welfare countries and other countries in the post-COVID world re-embrace the idea of dignity for all and redistribute wealth without(or at least with less stringent) means-test.
November 28, 2024
however the perspective cuts deep into reality, the book has nothing to offer to solve the problem. The poor, or the abnormality, is a perpetual being in every society, a natural division. In this age, the poor do not have many roles to play and the haves have no obligation to help, morally or financially, the conflict, resentment, and sometimes violence, are always there until a genius way is found like in the 'Brave new world', in which everyone has a programed mind to be happy for whatever the society gives to them. Even, the occasional grunting is like a side dish to make life not so boring as endless bliss.
Like a lot of non-fiction, the book can be 1/3 of its length without any loss in meaning. Truly, why repeat itself to make 6 chapters, as if there's a requirement to write a certain amount of words? Since it gives no way out, enlightening, torturously lengthy one, is not quite a happy experience.
Like a lot of non-fiction, the book can be 1/3 of its length without any loss in meaning. Truly, why repeat itself to make 6 chapters, as if there's a requirement to write a certain amount of words? Since it gives no way out, enlightening, torturously lengthy one, is not quite a happy experience.
January 5, 2025
"A necessary condition of human freedom is the ability to have acted otherwise and to imagine and practice different ways of organizing societies and living together".
It was great to read it at the beginning of the year, when I'm still motivated to set new resolution, to think through how to commit my time and what to do to make myself and the people around me happier. Work, Consumerism and the New Poor is also a good one to read together with Bullshit jobs by David Graeber, which shares a lot of opinions with this book while analyzing it using a different approach. Both of them are good starting point for readers to open up the door to imagination to an alternative of 9-5 job and (post)modern society.
Compared to other work by Bauman (i.e Modernity and the holocaust, Liquid modernity), this book is relatively lighter and easier to read. Would recommend starting with this one if you're interested in learning from Bauman's theories.
It was great to read it at the beginning of the year, when I'm still motivated to set new resolution, to think through how to commit my time and what to do to make myself and the people around me happier. Work, Consumerism and the New Poor is also a good one to read together with Bullshit jobs by David Graeber, which shares a lot of opinions with this book while analyzing it using a different approach. Both of them are good starting point for readers to open up the door to imagination to an alternative of 9-5 job and (post)modern society.
Compared to other work by Bauman (i.e Modernity and the holocaust, Liquid modernity), this book is relatively lighter and easier to read. Would recommend starting with this one if you're interested in learning from Bauman's theories.
December 22, 2018
"...‘reality is full like an egg. To the point of making it virtually impossible to escape its constraints. We believe them to be eternal – until they are effaced by history.’ And he [Droit] goes on pointing out that in Pericles’ Greece or Caesar’s Rome it would be a tall order to think of a world without slave labour, much like it would be all but impossible to think of a world without monarchy in the times of Bossuet. How can we be sure, therefore, that an economy which is not a slave of markets is an incongruity and that rising inequality cannot be stopped? Droit concludes: ‘Instead of arresting the progress of utopia, our times prepare perhaps the ground for its return. The more we repeat that politics has no room for dreams, the more the desire of a radically different world worms in.’ "
July 26, 2024
☘️为了推进文明进程，人类创造了工作伦理——努力搬砖、多劳多得、人生圆满、价值实现。这道”文化隔离墙“制造了大批的生产者，让他们甘愿摒弃自由、被驯化、被洗脑、服从不抵抗。它发展了经济、维持了社会稳定，让经济发展和道德情感合二为一，给了很多人生活的重心和被赋予的意义。一切都是那么美好，这也是我们在学校里学到的”如何过好这一生“。
.
☘️但是今天我们过的并不好。我们抱怨资本的压榨、社会福利的不作为、老板对员工的不重视，在不理解中持续内耗、蹉跎时光。
.
🦧为什么？
👉因为社会已经转型，而我们只理解了一半。
.
☘️作为当中的一份子，我们享受快节奏的生活、享受即时满足但永不满足的欲望，开心于可以自己给自己贴标签，不用成为业界顶级就能”过上幸福生活“。但是作为一个需要挣工资的工人，我们没有意识到即使技术飞速发展、科学马上突破太阳系，资本从未改变、利益最大化一直是经济逻辑的中心、而就业再就业从不是必需的一部分。所以我们失业、待业、并且不太容易东山再起。
.
☘️而今，”劳动力市场灵活性“让忠诚、道德、长期合作、一生的事业成为泡影，”过剩“的”人才“一旦失业、很难再就业，而喝着鸡汤长大的我们还在徒劳的努力着。但结果呢？一次次尝试、一次次失败，最终“自我精神隔离”，沦为时代背景的一部分。然后我们以为世道不公、以为这是命。
.
☘️同时，为了艰难生存、我们无暇他顾、所以没有精力去同情怜悯别人，殊不知这也是社会发展的一部分。它制造了一个“底层阶级”，让大众排斥它、“逼迫”他们做出不好的选择然后苛责他们、借助法律上的大力惩罚以强化概念、最后通过媒体宣传淡化我们的道德力量。然后我们被眼花缭乱的信息扰乱了心神，只想尽快逃离“成为穷人”，没功夫思考“为什么”。
.
.
🌸不过这或许是大趋势，但是绝对不是我们的命运！只要我们多思考多探究、勇敢破除思想的桎梏、把责任心和意志力用对地方，促进自己从工作伦理到工艺伦理的转型，未来可期？
🌸希望更多徘徊的人早日读到这本书！
🌸BTW工作伦理绑架的是“新穷人”，过度解读容易裸辞。
.
☘️但是今天我们过的并不好。我们抱怨资本的压榨、社会福利的不作为、老板对员工的不重视，在不理解中持续内耗、蹉跎时光。
.
🦧为什么？
👉因为社会已经转型，而我们只理解了一半。
.
☘️作为当中的一份子，我们享受快节奏的生活、享受即时满足但永不满足的欲望，开心于可以自己给自己贴标签，不用成为业界顶级就能”过上幸福生活“。但是作为一个需要挣工资的工人，我们没有意识到即使技术飞速发展、科学马上突破太阳系，资本从未改变、利益最大化一直是经济逻辑的中心、而就业再就业从不是必需的一部分。所以我们失业、待业、并且不太容易东山再起。
.
☘️而今，”劳动力市场灵活性“让忠诚、道德、长期合作、一生的事业成为泡影，”过剩“的”人才“一旦失业、很难再就业，而喝着鸡汤长大的我们还在徒劳的努力着。但结果呢？一次次尝试、一次次失败，最终“自我精神隔离”，沦为时代背景的一部分。然后我们以为世道不公、以为这是命。
.
☘️同时，为了艰难生存、我们无暇他顾、所以没有精力去同情怜悯别人，殊不知这也是社会发展的一部分。它制造了一个“底层阶级”，让大众排斥它、“逼迫”他们做出不好的选择然后苛责他们、借助法律上的大力惩罚以强化概念、最后通过媒体宣传淡化我们的道德力量。然后我们被眼花缭乱的信息扰乱了心神，只想尽快逃离“成为穷人”，没功夫思考“为什么”。
.
.
🌸不过这或许是大趋势，但是绝对不是我们的命运！只要我们多思考多探究、勇敢破除思想的桎梏、把责任心和意志力用对地方，促进自己从工作伦理到工艺伦理的转型，未来可期？
🌸希望更多徘徊的人早日读到这本书！
🌸BTW工作伦理绑架的是“新穷人”，过度解读容易裸辞。
October 12, 2024
The author's language style is academic. I couldn't understand some of the content very well.But I still learned a lot things from this book.It made me think carefully about my consumption habits.Society has trained us to be good consumers.When buying something doesn't satisfy our desire, we choose other goods to make us feel excited.It shows many similar examples in different ways, such as short videos, beautiful pictures on social media, and fantastic internet novels.We push ourselves from one thing to another to keep ourselves busy. It seems we have done a lot of things, but it turns out that we have accomplished nothing.After I finish this book, I check the total time spending on the network novel, and shocked by the number. However when I try to develop a good consumption habit, the plan fails in just a few weeks later.
February 17, 2024
"The way present-day society shapes up its members
is dictated first and foremost by the need to play the role of the consumer,
and the norm our society holds up to its members is that of the ability and
willingness to play it."
"Consumption is a thoroughly individual, solitary and, in the end, lonely activity; an activity which is fulfilled by quenching and arousing, assuaging and whipping up a desire which is
always a private, and not easily communicable sensation." - "There is no such
thing as ‘collective consumption’. True, consumers may get together in the
course of consumption, but even then the actual consumption remains a
thoroughly lonely, individually lived-through experience."
is dictated first and foremost by the need to play the role of the consumer,
and the norm our society holds up to its members is that of the ability and
willingness to play it."
"Consumption is a thoroughly individual, solitary and, in the end, lonely activity; an activity which is fulfilled by quenching and arousing, assuaging and whipping up a desire which is
always a private, and not easily communicable sensation." - "There is no such
thing as ‘collective consumption’. True, consumers may get together in the
course of consumption, but even then the actual consumption remains a
thoroughly lonely, individually lived-through experience."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews