Employment is now largely privatized, and work-based activism in the United States has atrophied. Weeks argues that in taking work as a given, we have “depoliticized” it, or removed it from the realm of political critique. While progressive political movements, including the Marxist and feminist movements, have fought for equal pay, better work conditions, and the recognition of unpaid work as a valued form of labor, even they have tended to accept work as a naturalized or inevitable activity. In The Problem with Work, Kathi Weeks boldly challenges the presupposition that work, or waged labor, is inherently a social and political good. Many of the authors address the ways in which structural injustice is embedded in current systems all share a common interest in a future of work which is more empathetic, more human. It touches upon a range of underrepresented topics in philosophical work literature: perspectives offered by members of underrepresented groups, underexplored problems presented by existing systems, and creative solutions which challenge many of the basic foundations of our current cultural relationship to work. Therefore, this blueprint offers an overview of a wider range of philosophical perspectives which have considered alternatives to our current systems of work and employment. These questions, while important, address a narrow range of problems and offer a limited vision of what the future of work could look like. Much of that discussion, however, has primarily been focused on questions regarding the role of AI and automation, the possibilities of mass unemployment, and, in the wake of the COVID pandemic, the future of the workplace. 26 October 2013.The future of work is gaining traction as a central topic of discussion, both within academic philosophy and broader public discourse. The argument was therefore written with observance and adherence to grammatical rules and using the support from Rose’s affirmations. Thus, the audience could be anyone who had previously regarded blue-collar workers as assuming a lower stature in the labor market. One is convinced that readers would agree with one’s argumentation since the basic premise was clearly contended and any counterargument was appropriately addressed. How do you think readers will respond to your argumentation essay and why? Who is your audience and how did you write for this audience? (diction, syntax, exempts, facts, etc.?) The arguments proposed by Rose evidently provided enough support to validate the fact that “to acknowledge a broader range of intellectual capacity is to take seriously the concept of cognitive variability, to appreciate in all the Rosies and Joes the thought that drives their accomplishments and defines who they are”. Any discrimination or prejudice should therefore be avoided as society tends to pose stereotyped beliefs on categorizing blue-collar workers as significantly lower in the employment hierarchy. One is convinced that blue-collar workers actually apply as much high-level skills as those being applied by white-collar workers, depending on the nature of their tasks and how they perceive that their manner of performance could be improved in the process. Summarize your argumentation discussion and include your salient position points (including your counterarguments) His reason for comparing these two is to assert the disparities between white-collar workers with blue-collar workers.Ĥ. One portion where Rose compared different views was when he stated that: “The big difference between the psychologist’s laboratory and the workplace is that in the former the problems are isolated and in the latter they are embedded in the real-time flow of work with all its messiness and social complexity”. Where does Rose mention differently views and what is his reason for bring them up? Therefore, I agree with his contentions that blue-collar workers apply different levels and expansiveness of skills in their respective work settings depending on their experiences and how they perceive tasks could be improved in the undertaking of their expected roles and responsibilities.ģ. Rose’s arguments and the manner by which these are presented make them convincing through the use of rhetorical appeals which include logical and emotional appeals. Discuss how convincing his argument is and whether you agree or disagree with it and why? Mike Rose asserts that people in blue-collar jobs, deemed to be repetitive, routinary, and do not require high-level of literacy, actually require as much application of diverse skills including cognitive, verbal, mathematical, visual representations and illustrations, and analytical skills as people in white-collar jobs apply.Ģ. What salient points does he make to develop his position?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |