Yet, we need the couch-sitting loser to validate ourselves, to rationalize our slavish devotion to work and the endless production of value. The unspoken capitalist myth that keeps us working and achieving even at the expense of our freedom, happiness, and health, is that we could end up like the loser if we stopped working hard. We resent the slob and the failure that he supposedly embodies. Yet he is freer than we are, and he controls the way we live our lives; we are constantly striving not to become a loser, and so we are imprisoned by work and the pressure to achieve more. The degree to which we loathe the figure of the slob determines how devoted to work we are. Ironically, then, the metaphor of the lazy bum keeps us wedded to excessive work and determines our choices in life.
What is the unsavory consequence slobbery? How does the life cycle of a slob affect or destroy us as a society? There is an obvious economic cost to slobbery in lost economic value, but this is offset by the centrality of social laziness – vain consumption – to capitalism. All said then, I cannot think of any significant cost imposed on society by slothfulness. If anything, it is central to our self-esteem and is a fulcrum of our capitalism.
Moses,
I loved your analysis and enjoyed contemplating the importance of mediocrity. It reminded me of the American Senator, Roman Hruska, who once defended a Nixon Supreme Court appointment by arguing that even if he were mediocre, that there are a lot of mediocre people, and that they were entitled to representation on the Court as well! (The nominee did not get confirmed.)
In truth, the real reason I work so hard is so my three daughters can consume. Our family has the proper capitalist balance – I work, they shop.
Thanks for brightening my day.
Tom
“Capitalism is supposedly about working and producing but it depends for its survival on a non-productive activity that requires little or no work: consumption. Consumption is not a capitalist activity.”
Thanks for the exciting essay that reminded me of Bertrand Russell’s “In Praise of Idleness,” in which he, like you, pummels the exaggerated status of work. His idleness is, however, supposed to be creative; one that helps us recover our humanity. I have always thought that consumption was as capitalist as production is. The basic law of demand and supply would support my thinking in this regard. Consumption is, however, not entirely to be equated with “little or no work.” Your students consume your lecture – and they are not exactly welfare kings and queens. I consumed your essay, and I reply, hoping that you will produce more. One needs to make qualitative differences between consumptions. On another note, you give badness a negative value (I think this is a term in physics, which I cannot explain). However I allow myself the freedom to have it mean that something is important for what it is not or what it doesn’t do, or what its absence brings to light. Following your logic, darkness is important because it allows us to perceive light; dirt is important because it allows us to perceive cleanliness. Yet, how much should we take negative value seriously? Who the heck needs darkness or lazy people for that matter? If crudity paid off in the Nigerian film industry, it might be because the crude or hurriedly made films have found an unsophisticated audience that just happily raves about mediocrity. That doesn’t raise the crudity of the films to a position of value.
I would offer a comment, but can’t seem to muster the effort.