I’ve been reading, not just for uni, for pleasure. It dawned on me the other day that, although my reading material might to the casual observer look rather diverse, it’s all really about the same thing.
Do you work to live or live to work?
In quick succession there’s been:
Linda Cockburn’s Living the Good Life, her family’s story of cutting back on all non-essential spending so that they could work less and spend more time together and be more environmentally friendly into the bargin. Which was informative as well as fun. Having read it, I still want chickens, I probably wont invest in a goat.
John de Graaf, David Wann & Thomas H. Naylor’s Affluenza: The All Consuming Epidemic, which had me glaring at our television and all the plastic crap our kid has been given (even more than I was already). In many ways it’s stuff I already know or suspected, but having all the stats there on American (and more generally Western) consumption, coupled with a discussion of ‘how advertising is directly aimed at kids’, is a wee bit confronting. The mechanics of the credit industry bother me too. What with being one of those inner city latte drinking types, I’m inclined to think deregulation of the banking industry hasn’t been entirely successful. On the whole, I enjoyed the book, however: I’m used to reading books and journal articles aimed at an academic audience so it annoyed me a bit that each point was dealt with quickly rather than in detail. That may not bother everyone, lord knows the book has sold well. Which is what you want for an anti-consumerism Bible isn’t it? (Yes I think the writers see the inherent problem with that)
Amanda Blake Soule’s The Creative Family: How to Encourage Imagination and Nurture Family Connections. Because I’m trying to remind myself to remember to enjoy myself and do the things I actually like and I’m good at (or want to be good at) instead of putting them off because we have a toddler and a tiny house and no money and it’s all too hard. That sort of thinking means never having any fun again til I’m retired (or we put the kid in boarding school) and even if I never say it out loud I can hear the whining and it’s really annoying. The book is also imbued with the Soule family philosophy of buying as little as possible, only buying the good stuff that makes your life beautiful, and lots of practical ideas about storage and organising all these creative endeavours so that they actually happen (without driving you bonkers in the process because you’ve got nowhere to eat or you keep standing on things). It’s like a meditation on the practice of creativity in daily life and I don’t think you have to have a hoarde of pre-schoolers in your life to get something out of it.
Anne Manne’s Quarterly Essay contribution “Love and Money: The Family and the Free Market”. Which I haven’t finished yet, but I’m enjoying. Mostly because she starts with the assumption that our economy should serve society and not the other way around. I find some parts of her argument challenging, but I’ll write more about that when I’ve finished, just in case she answers my questions later.
Judith Levine’s Not Buying It: My year without shopping which is fun, reflective and well researched. It’s a personal journal of a year of anti-consumerism from someone who starts out thinking she didn’t buy that much, and quickly realising that in fact, her spending was pretty typical. Having lots of pairs of shoes is no less consumerist just because the shoes in question are hard-wearing and water-tight. I haven’t finished this one either, but so far her major challenge isn’t the “stuff” she has to give up, but the services. Going to the movies (she feels cut off from her friends and the world at large, and has to contend with boredom) and eating out (you can’t organise a business meeting on a park bench, or in your home office). I liked the discussion of gifts, especially the realisation that she’d spent $1001 on ‘the holidays’ and she’s Jewish. Whatever way you slice it, that’s a lot of Christmas for a non-believer, more than I spend on my very large Catholic family. The problem of gifts, the social understanding of appropriate price for each occasion dependent on giver and givee income, and the social contract that gifts are part of (not giving a gift is a distinctly uncomfortable position to be in at a party where everyone else has brought one, for example), ties in with her other strength: unlike a lot of commentary on the environment and consumerism Levine understands social policy. Governments regulate (or don’t regulate) and it has a very very big impact on the way we live. It’s not enough to talk about “community” as if it’s just our street, our town, or our subculture. Our governments at every level make decisions we all have to live with. We drive cars and pollute, not as individuals, but as people who have collectively failed to insist on decent public transport. There are decisions that are stupid environmentally, and that we have the power to change individually, but there are also enormous systemic problems that can’t be solved by dropping out of society.
For maximum smug points: I bought the Quarterly Essay at my local newsagent, as usual, and borrowed all the others from the library. I suggested The Creative Family and the were kind enough to purchase it for me (but I have to give it back). If only Levine’s library using experiences were as good as mine. Every book she looked for had been lost or stolen.
Now I have to go and play with little paper models of my loungeroom. We’re trying (again) to find a way of not having the television as a centrepiece of the room. It’s a tricky little puzzle of inconveniently located power-points, annoying room proportions (it looked big before we moved in) and perhaps too much bloody stuff.

11 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 24, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Tomas
Do you work to live or live to work?
This is the good question. The problem warns many. Thus it would be just impossible to list all thoughtful books on that theme. The last should make us feel happy, but it is otherwise in the concrete. While recalling hundreds of wise teachings and awe inspiring insights, I have questioned myself, why does nothing change for better? Are people deaf and blind ? What does make our dialogue the monologue?
I think, do you work to live or live to work? was raised up prior the books have appeared. “To be or not to be” voices clearly in what for do you live. Thus the question uncovers the roots of our being and deals with the spirituality of the humanity.
New details depict the wall more eloquently, but can’t substitute the door.
May 24, 2008 at 11:36 pm
innercitygarden
There are issues of spirituality in the question, but being an atheist I feel more comfortable describing it as “What makes life good” as opposed to “Work”. For some people “What makes life good” is God, for some it is work, some see God in their work. None of that really interests me so much. What fascinates me is how we decide we have “enough”, how we balance the enjoyment we get from acquiring goods and services, with the level of satisfaction we expect to get out of our working day. If you enjoy your work, you would presumably be happy to spend more time there (and by extension earn more money). If you don’t have work you enjoy, and you are there purely for the money, how do you decide how many hours to work? At what point is it enough? You’ve got a roof over your head and decent food, do you need to work longer to pay for the bigger house? What about a car?
The other thing that interests me is all the unpaid work, and how it’s distributed. In all of the books I’ve been reading there is an understanding that less paid work doesn’t exactly mean less work. It often means exchanging paid work for unpaid work. How we decide who does what work, who gets paid, how much they get paid and the long term impact of that on individuals and society as a whole are not directly matters of “sprituality” but of justice. Generally when a family simplifies their lifestyle, it is women who take on all the “traditionally” female roles (baking bread for example) and men do more in the way of fixing machinery. How we lead simple lives, without being the sort of people my Gran would have described as “a bit simple” is important to me, as is ensuring that (at least in my family) Environmental doesn’t equal Traditional Gender Roles.
May 25, 2008 at 1:42 am
Tomas
Dear innercitygarden ,
Thank you for so comprehensive reply to my humble comment. I would like to talk in the same manner and avoid the claptrap in shifting to the God. However, that will lead … nowhere. At best! I say so, because in the light of comparison of our situations, many “insights” that are wise out of itself would obtain the color of the musing for the sake of musing… or much worse – could be read as …the gibe.
Just think, lots around simply haven’t the time to think, because they need to work for to live and the cost of the newspaper is the luxury. Hundreds of our children leave the homeland just for one reason – for to be payed for they work. While the government talks nice, that beauty reminds just the fairy tales – has nothing in common with the concrete situation. Personally I have no rights for complaining because I am the jobless disabled who receives the disability pension (by the way it is much less than it is needed for the living) thus I work on a voluntary basis and rejoice over the possibility to share my artwork on the web. You may question what for that? Sorry I don’t know the answer. I receive no money via internet but otherwise -I need to pay the fees and thus my activity becomes the double miracle that is possible due to the accidental meeting with the prior unknown benefactor. (Paypal dont work here and I haven’t the credit car … and my state of health don’t allow to have it)
Sorry for my weak English. I dont hear that language in alive conversation and am writing with the dictionary.
Dear innercitygarden, sorry for the above weeping. The problems you touch are the universal. Thus the solution too could be the same to us both. Meanwhile our realities more than just differ between . Thus all the above urges searching for the key not in politics but the spirituality.
Let me end a bit brighter. Please visit my picture gallery on http://www.artmajeur.com/colourrain/. I hope you will enjoy the colors.
I would like to invite you to my blogs too. I will greatly appreciate your feedback on http://candleday.wordpress.com/
http://trustlight.blogspot.com/
http://arthiker.wordpress.com/
Your comments would make my day, would break the loneliness – Thank you.
May 25, 2008 at 12:14 pm
innercitygarden
It is political. It is definitely political for me to read at all, it is feminism, not spirituality that ensured I was taught to read. Feminism is the reason I have both the time and the intellectual resources to question my life at all. For women, the luxury of wondering, of choosing one path over another, of considering the wisdom of others, are all hard won political gains.
These issues are also political because I am a rich (in global terms) white woman. My house is full of things made in poorer countries than mine. Countries where people have far fewer choices about where they work, and the conditions under which they labour. My choices about how I live, how many hours I work and how many things I deem essential, have an impact on many people. I understand that issues of work and family are universal, but I am very conscious that my capacity to find a happy balance between time at home with my partner and child is far greater than it is for many other people. I don’t, as you say, have to leave my homeland to find work. This isn’t a matter of my own design or brilliance, I was just lucky.
I can’t afford newspapers since we started paying for the internet…
May 25, 2008 at 8:18 pm
kris
Hi – just finished Anne Manne and threw it against the wall in disgust more than once. Loved the starting premise, hated the way she blamed feminism and ‘elites’ for some kind of conspiracy to keep women out of the home. Nothing in that essay hasn’t been said millions of times by feminists but as soon as it’s said by a social conservative, it becomes a brave lone voice rather than drippy hippy claptrap.
Hmm, a strong comment but I’ll leave it stand. Feminist-blaming is one of my pet peeves.
I lived to work but am increasingly working to live.
May 25, 2008 at 8:40 pm
kate
Yeah Kris, I was wondering if I would be at wall-throwing soon. I still haven’t finished it, because the other stuff is from the library and needs to be returned, but when I do I’ll actually write what I think.
I was shocked to realise how much I miss my paid work, because I’ve never worked in a permanent full-time job, I’ve always made time for all the other stuff in life, I thought I’d always worked to live. Turns out I’m just as suckered by the work-related status and so on as everyone else.
May 26, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Iona
It’s a complicated thing, isn’t it? I’m currently in a job that I don’t enjoy and find very stressful – so part of the solution has become working mandated hours only (and looking for another job, of course). But I know that if I were in a job I loved (oh, I dunno, a lecturer in European politics, for example) I would have terrible trouble tearing myself away from it.
So, it’s not the payment that validates us as our choices. It’s what we do to receive that payment. I know that I will live to work when that work broadens my intellect, ennobles my being, and lets my creativity breathe. And by then I may say that I am simply living.
High falutin’ stuff, but it’s what you get when I blog at work and I’m procrastinating.
May 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm
innercitygarden
I’m not sure that a perfect job acually solves the problem, because the hours demanded by it still clash with all our other loves/duties in life. I want to be at my lovely job and at the school concert, and I can’t do both at the same time.
Speaking of balance: my favourite motorcyclist has come home early.
May 26, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Helen
Have you read Blubberland? I’ve been discussing another piece of writing by the same author, Elizabeth Farrelly, which I don’t buy at all, but I do agree with her urban design pieces which speak to the need to make hard choices between our “business as usual” and a sustainable lifestyle. A lot of people find her highhandedness offputting and that is a shame, because the “sustainable” side has to fight hard enough as it is against the Elitist Latte Sippers™ slur.
May 26, 2008 at 9:27 pm
innercitygarden
I haven’t read Blubberland, or anything else by Farrelly, wanna give us a review?
May 29, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Rebekka
” Turns out I’m just as suckered by the work-related status and so on as everyone else.”
I don’t think I’m suckered by work-related status, but I would definitely miss my job if I didn’t work – I’d miss the intellectual stimulation, my co-workers – both in terms of conversation and in terms of working collaboratively to get something done – and the structure it gives me.
And a perfect job doesn’t solve the problem of wanting to do other things at the same time, but that’s a problem with everything you do in life, not just with work – anything you choose to do excludes the possibility of doing other things at the same time. Yesterday I wanted to go and have a drink after work, but I also wanted to go home and spend a quiet evening on the couch. You can’t do both at the same time (and given the hangover I now have, the couch would have been the better plan!)
And now I am leaving my (almost) perfect job and going to have a chat with someone.