I quote from the text of R. Sennett, "The culture of new capitalism."
"
The term 'skill' is mostly used to refer to manual workers and indicates the quality of research, for example in building a violin, a clock or vase. E 'but a point of view too narrow. There is also the 'intellectual ability, such as the ability to write clearly, the social skills may be to create a solid marriage. A comprehensive definition might be this: do something well for herself. [...]
The craftsmanship gives an important objectification. When Nicolo Amati violin built did not express himself through that violin. He built a violin. Dear Whatever he tried he invested himself, so to speak, in that object and judged according to whether he did right or wrong. We do not care if you love to be happy or depressed when he worked. This objectification means: something that is made to assert itself. [...]
understood in that sense, the craftsmanship is not at ease in the institutions of capitalism flexible. The problem lies in the second part of the definition: to make something good for herself.
The more you understand how to do something well, the greater the value that is assigned.
However, institutions based on short-term transactions and constantly changing tasks did not promote this 'ethos' of work. They may even fear it.
"
Needless to say, you prefer to express himself even when he was an object ... not even willing ... but the strength of Sennett's argument is still standing.
"
The term 'skill' is mostly used to refer to manual workers and indicates the quality of research, for example in building a violin, a clock or vase. E 'but a point of view too narrow. There is also the 'intellectual ability, such as the ability to write clearly, the social skills may be to create a solid marriage. A comprehensive definition might be this: do something well for herself. [...]
The craftsmanship gives an important objectification. When Nicolo Amati violin built did not express himself through that violin. He built a violin. Dear Whatever he tried he invested himself, so to speak, in that object and judged according to whether he did right or wrong. We do not care if you love to be happy or depressed when he worked. This objectification means: something that is made to assert itself. [...]
understood in that sense, the craftsmanship is not at ease in the institutions of capitalism flexible. The problem lies in the second part of the definition: to make something good for herself.
The more you understand how to do something well, the greater the value that is assigned.
However, institutions based on short-term transactions and constantly changing tasks did not promote this 'ethos' of work. They may even fear it.
"
Needless to say, you prefer to express himself even when he was an object ... not even willing ... but the strength of Sennett's argument is still standing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment