You're viewing part of a thread.
I do agree with the general statement that norms and practices are worth examination after their establishment for continued validity. But this specific case isn't a great example of a space where such consideration needs a deep dive. But here we are.
For dividing kinds of labor, the difference between skilled and unskilled is reasonably satisfied by my definition. Such designations are logistical. A career advisor in high school probably doesn't have the time to delve into the nuance of work that requires further education (be it trade school, college, whatever) vs that which can be obtained with a high school diploma (if that) with every student (maybe not the best example, but lets keep moving). Skilled vs unskilled draws a useful, descriptive line for the sake of understanding. It also has the unfortunate effect of implying that skilled inherently deserving of greater respect than unskilled, which is wrong. I would hazard that it's a wider societal issue that we feel the need to rank ourselves, but that's a tangent I don't want to go off onto. There's an argument for a change in vocabulary to mitigate this (specialized vs general maybe?), but I would think that some terminology would arise naturally regardless as such categories of labor will continue to exist and need description.
Labor is not organized through systems that are natural, but rather through ones that are social.
Terminology is not emergent from systems that are natural, but rather from ones that are social.
You insist particular terminology is useful, but decline to consider carefully for whom it is useful, or for whom it may be harmful.
Do you think career advisors represent the group in society that benefit most substantially from the terminology you characterized as natural and logical? Do you think their work is truly being expedited by its use?
How could you conclude that the reason norms and values have become established is not worth considering for some particular case, despite the utility of doing so in general, while declining actually to consider the particular case about which your reached your conclusion?
First: natural != good. Mosquitos are natural, it does not make them desired. Save by bats. Try not to start with a fallacy. Things should be considered on their own merits, not because they are natural. Justify why natural is useful to your argument before you bring it up.
Humans are a social species, so social organization and terminology is a natural product of what we do as a collective. It's necessary. Redefining common terms every time you change jobs is inefficient (no comment on linguistics and the proliferation of language as a whole). While inefficiency doesn't bug most like it does me, it is still generally undesirable (for reasons, but do we want to source every thought? I have a life, more or less). I did note that it does hurt people. Right here:
It also has the unfortunate effect of implying that skilled inherently deserving of greater respect than unskilled, which is wrong.
I even proposed a alternate term pair, though with little hope that the same connotations wouldn't just attach themselves to those words. Humans are tricky fucks.
Ultimately, quibbling over words is really useless, because the words are a symptom of humanity's bad habits. We draw lines in the sand and decide who is more deserving of what based on those lines and our tribal instincts kick in and now those lines are the most important illusion in the world. If the lines weren't drawn with words, it would be something else.
Instead, let's treat people appropriately because they are people. Be sympathetic to both the fast food person and the amazon packer because those jobs are way more physical/emotional work than I do for my pay. And pick our battles better, because this pointless back and forth effort is very crabs in a bucket (which I am equally, if not more, guilty of) when we're on the same side.
My only real criticism for you (other than your argument to nature fallacy) is that you tore at my argument and never actually proposed anything yourself. It's real simple (not easy) to tear it all down, but it's not helpful. If you don't like something, don't just complain about it. Fix it. I fully appreciate the irony of that statement as made on the internet...
I never inserted an appeal to nature, as you have insinuated.
I only asked you to consider the particular social organization in the particular societal context, and to consider how constructs and terms originally emerge and become entrenched.
I also asked you to consider that while social organization is supported robustly by natural antecedents, any particular social organization is not particularly natural, but rather produced from historical antecedents.
How is labor organized in our society?
Which group dominates the culture and language, relating to labor, and to other processes and systems, in our society?
Who benefits, and who is harmed, within our current social organization, from our current social organization?
Is our social organization collective, as you have asserted, or is it rather dominated by one particular group?
What particular practices would be better suited for organization of labor that is authentically collective, with effects more transformative than effects of mere quibbles?
I'm cutting myself off here regardless of response for my own health, though I'll respond in good faith. Albeit with a bad attitude at this point.
The appeal to nature was implied. Don't bring it up if you don't want it to be part of things. Your argument would be better suited by saying "labor and terminology are socially constructed". Bears no implicit baggage. Also, see how I inserted something constructive? Arguments are not always to be won, but are often better for enhancing understanding, even if you feel like you're holding your interlocutor's hand.
You ask me a lot of questions without answering any yourself, which feels very bad faith. Especially when you're asking big societal level questions from a random person on the internet who has zero power to do any meaningful change beyond being nice to the people around me. I'm more than happy to bash rich white people (which most of your leading questions lead to) and you don't have to be a contrarian dick about it. Honey and vinegar my dude.
I'm not answering your bad faith spree of condescension. In the future, make your point and don't ask others to make it for you and avoid assuming that everyone else is dumb (which is how you come off). Just because a person doesn't list out all their reasoning, doesn't mean they haven't thought about it. You come of as militant and aggressive to people that are on your side, which is always bad.
Listen. The topic is terminology and constructs imposing on workers a division, of some being "unskilled".
You had suggested that such norms have a "logistical" (e.g. natural) utility, as for example of career counselors seeking to process cases more efficiently. Your repeated insistence that I have invoked an appeal to nature, even in spite of my denial, is dishonest.
I sought to challenge your representation of the natural utility for the construct of the "unskilled worker", and your representation of its occurrence in society. Constructs are not equally helpful to everyone. Society has structure.
Capitalists organize the division of labor, the recruitment of workers, and perpetuate the wage system.
The term "unskilled worker", obviously, is a construct reproduced by capitalists, toward the effect of marginalizing a cohort of the working class, and keeping the class divided and therefore disempowered, against becoming conscious of being oppressed beneath the wage system.
There is no argument to be won, or grand solution to be proposed. There is no value merely in subjecting the privileged to "bashing".
Value derives from being critical over how society is organized, and the processes by which it is reproduced, and from seeking the opportunities for meaningful change.
Answers and solutions cannot simply be passed to you, as though on a silver platter. You need to think and to learn, to ask questions yourself, and to try to answer them, with an attitude that is critical, not avoidant or assured.
What is abundantly clear is that if you are protected the construct of the "unskilled workers", then you are protecting capitalists, and harming the working class.