Starting to think about Limitarianism

 I came across this article recently that explores something I'd recently begun thinking about. In part I was thinking about it because of recent conversations and also the persistent thought that there must be a limit to how much one can spend in a lifetime and perhaps that should inform a policy about how much one should accumulate.

“I contend,” Robeyns argues, “that for people who live in a society with a solid pension system, the ethical limit [on wealth] will be around 1 million pounds, dollars or euros per person.” 

This lines up with what I had started out thinking. Partly noting that when I was a kid, being a millionaire was a big thing. No-one was, as far as know /knew a billionaire. It seemed to me that multimillionaires had more than enough for a rather nice looking life in material terms.

A lot of people say: ‘I’ve been thinking this all my life.’ 

There is even some recognition among some of the ultra wealthy that something must change:

    Some, such as the Irish-American billionaire Chuck Feeney, who made his money from a monopoly of duty-free shops at airports, have enjoyed nothing so much as giving all their money away. Mackenzie Scott, ex-wife of Jeff Bezos, has been shedding billions of her divorce settlement a year, on the basis that “she is giving it back to [society] where it came from”. Others, such as the entertainment heiress Abigail Disney, or the British-based group “Patriotic Millionaires”, are sympathetic to the fundamentals of Robeyns’s ideas, recognising that “policies that favour the richest are unsustainable”.

All of which reinforces my sense that perhaps we should be talking and thinking about this way more than we do. The thing that I'm most interested in at this point, is the reasons for proposing this and making sure we have a solid basis for making the proposal founded in ethically defensible insights. And I think this bit gets us started on that.

... the idea that any discussion of a limit to wealth must be born out of envy, for example; or that most seductive of all myths, that people somehow deserve the wealth (or poverty) of their lives – that multimillions are made mostly by hard work and talent, not by luck and vast inequalities of opportunity... Despite the fact that “trickle down” economics has long been discredited as an idea, we apparently remain in thrall to the mythology of “wealth creators”

So what sorts of principles would soundly and ethically undergird a limitarian set of policies? Taking the hints above into account. We'd need to have a good sense of 'desert' in relation to wealth 'creation' or accumulation. This would include considerations of 'luck' and social-positionality (aka. systemic factors relating to opportunity). I guess also that the vast multiples in relation to basic wages being gained by the very rich also need to be questioned in relation to the influence power that such wealth buys; it accumulates power because to a large degree wealth is power. In a democracy, we can't ignore this.

However, I think that there are some other fairly fundamental things to pay attention to. Most fundamental of all is to think about how wealth is created and distributed. Another story: when I started work at around 13 years old (part time, I think there was a maximum of 12 hours or so a week we could legally work because we were also at school) I began to think about why it was pay rates were so different. We were told  that a different shop further down the mall paid their workers much better (but then their prices were higher too). I became aware that the more senior one was, the more pay people got. But I wasn't entirely sure why. I had gained the impression that hard work was praiseworthy and so I had an idea that hard work ought to be better rewarded. 'Hard' work being work that was physically or mentally more tiring -and that would include longer hours. I came to appreciate that there may be a case for paying someone for responsibility, that is if they had to make decisions which could affect other people's well-being to some degree. I guess that would amount to a form of 'hard work' in terms of emotional labour -especially anxiety.

In the light of such musings, it does feel ridiculous that someone should be paid multiples of many thousands in relation to the lowest paid. It is hard to find some kind of justification in terms of hard work or even rewarding risk or innovation for such differentials. On the other hand, what it does seem that such differentials are 'rewarding' is the holding of power: power to set rates (whether by rent or positional/hierarchical means). However, power is not necessarily fair, and usually is not unless held to account. Obviously, this consideration of pay and reward, shades into thinking about monopolistic power in markets which is a helpful reference point, I suspect.

Relatedly, there is sometimes an argument made to pay higher rates to attract people to do jobs that might be hard to recruit for otherwise. But it seems to me that this manifestly does not work in the case of menial and dirty jobs which are often among the worst paid and I can't really see why a CEO is 'worth' so much more than a sewage worker. In fact, to me, by standards of hard work and slog it seems to me they may be the wrong way round in remuneration. Furthermore, in terms of the anxiety-labour mentioned above, it seems to me that in actual fact, many CEO's are being rewarded for not caring and are in fact rewarded for failure oftentimes: they "fall upward".

I've just sketched out my concerns about concerns regarding reward and pay. I think that a lot of differentials are actually about social and hierarchical power in a way that is fundamentally similar to the power of monopolies or oligopolies to be rate setters in a market. My concern going forward from here, is to consider what kind of basis there might be for limiting the pay and wealth of the richest. It seems to me that this most fundamentally requires a consideration of 'just' 'rewards'. This would also require us to think about what unjust rewards are and how they work -which I've begun to alight on in considering hierarchical power ("controlling the purse strings", in popular saying). 

It feels now like this is a kind of introduction. I think that I will try to develop some of these threads a bit further is subsequent posts rather than here.

----------------------------------------

PS -as many blogs no longer link to an article or other web address at the title, I think that there's a danger that some readers may not be aware of this former custom that you can click on the title to be taken to the main post or article or page being commented on. In case that's so, the article quoted above at several points can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/21/how-much-personal-wealth-is-enough-ingrid-robeyns-limitarianism

Does the Church really exist for the worship of God?

What I need to say, right upfront, is that I support, broadly, the organisation Praxis which originated the following definition in support of its mission (this is the UK instantiation of the organisation):

The Church exists for the worship of God.
Worship is the only activity of the Church which will last into eternity.

Worship enriches and transforms our lives.
In Christ we are drawn closer to God in the here and now.
This shapes our beliefs, our actions and our way of life.
God transforms us as individuals, congregations and communities.

Worship provides a vital context for mission, teaching and pastoral care. Good worship and liturgy inspires and attracts, informs and delights. The worship of God can give hope and comfort in times of joy and of sorrow. Despite this significance, we are often under-resourced for worship. Praxis Home

I think the problem with this is a conflation and confusion of different meanings for the word 'worship' which often, I think, ends up misdirecting our attention and effort when it comes to what happens in church buildings.

I think I need to unpack what I mean more. You see, I think that the two meanings of worship play out in that statement but one tends to displace the other while relying on the displaced meaning for its justification.

I guess that still needs unpacking further. So let's start by saying what I think the two meanings are and how they relate to one another.

The first meaning is summed up in Romans 12:1-2 "... in view of God's mercies, offer your bodies as a living sacrifice to God which is your spiritual worship ...". This is picked up in Anglican communion liturgy in the prayer after communion in which we "offer our souls and bodies to be a living sacrifice". That this is an important way to understand "worship" is accentuated by Matthew Myers Boulton's book God Against Religion, which (drawing on insights from Karl Barth) makes a case for understanding liturgical worship as a fallen artefact and understanding the message of the first chapters of Genesis as showing the more fundamental human calling to be to tend and till creation as created co-creators.

So, I think that there is a problem with "The Church exists for the worship of God" and "Worship is the only activity of the Church which will last into eternity", if "worship" is understood primarily as an assembly for the the performance of  rites, actions, words (what many would call 'liturgy'). Assuming the basic rightness of Boulton's (and Barth's) thesis, the church exists for the worship of God only really if we understand worship primarily as becoming and being part of God's work (and rest from) [re]creating. The problem, it seems to me, with the Praxis landing page blurb is that it seems to shift the meaning into narrowly liturgical events. Such meaning -by the Barthean thesis as picked up by Boulton- is precisely the wrong way to go: there is no temple in the New Jerusalem and the liturgical acts of Revelation chapters 1 to 20 are not to be understood as eschatological but as representations of present reality (as per the kind of approach to interpretation of the book of Revelation in David Wilcox's commentary). The only  kind of worship in the New Jerusalem seems to that which could be included in the wealth of the nations -which would surely be all human achievement rooted in God's own work of creation.

So what place liturgical worship in the Christian life? Well, I think that the blurb does give indication of that where it says:

In Christ we are drawn closer to God in the here and now.
This shapes our beliefs, our actions and our way of life.
God transforms us as individuals, congregations and communities.

 Liturgical activity in the form of "public worship" and it cognates of prayer groups, family prayers, so-called personal devotions and the like, should have the effect all being well of drawing us closer to God, shaping us Christicly and transforming us ("by the renewal of our minds" as Romans 12:2 puts it). Barth and Boulton point out that this can only happen because such a fallen artefact as liturgy is reoccupied (my metaphor not theirs) by Christ who redeems it by the Spirit so that it can accomplish such purposes.

So, when the blurb says; "Worship provides a vital context for mission, teaching and pastoral care." I am inclined to say that it should be more radically stated still: Worship is mission, teaching and pastoral care (Rm.12:1-2, applied), some worship is accomplished through liturgical acts much may be supported by them.

And this speaks to that last line: "Despite this significance, we are often under-resourced for worship".  It might be better to rephrase it "... under-resourced for liturgical events" to help us to recall that the resourcing of these events is meant to be part of equipping the saints. Perhaps even a major part given that for many church folk an hour in church most weeks is it for corporate formation. Thought about like that, perhaps we should indeed be taking with utmost seriousness the potential of liturgy to support and strengthen worship in terms of joining God in mission beyond the service.

Of course, this prompts a question as to whether a lot of liturgical worship really does a good job of promoting in-life worship. I have doubts that  it does, in many cases. I suspect that the confusion between the two meanings of 'worship' misdirects churches as to what we are meant to be about when we meet together round the Lord's Table or other 'services'. Believing that worship is preeminent in Christian life and interpreting it as wh at we do together when gathered for a service, we end up fetishising liturgical acts and the criteria for assessing them becomes detached from -or downgrades- equipping the saints and prioritises aesthetics and/or shared emotion.

That's not to say aesthetics or shared emotion are irrelevant to equipping the saints. However, we should recognise that it is really easy for them to become ends in themselves with little carry over into the service of life. They should play their part in inspiring, encouraging and making connections. They make good servants but terrible masters. So liturgy might be under-resourced, but I'm not convinced. I worry that there may be many churches where liturgy is quite possibly over-resourced in relation to the in-life worship of their members. Where what goes on in church is in effect considered the most important part of discipleship.That would be like considering medical school the most important part of a medic's life and work. It clearly is important but it is supposed to be focussed towards a career which will help many people to be well, become well or not to die so soon.

Where's my leisure society, dude?

In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would have advanced sufficiently by century’s end that countries like Great Britain or the United States would achieve a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen.

In the late 1960s my primary school teachers were telling us that they were helping to educate us for leisure as well as for work because when we were adults our country would be able to produce enough wealth for us not to have to work such long hours.

Well, they were right and they were wrong: actually our country arguably does produce enough wealth for us all to live well enough without having to work 60 hour weeks or even less. Perhaps even only 15 hours. Perhaps someone's done the sums (let me know if you have come across them). Certainly in terms of productivity and capability in comparison with the 1960s it's hard to believe we couldn't possibly. In this respect, I reckon, my teachers and Keynes were right.

Obviously, they were wrong because ... austerity! By that I mean that we are in a situation where the idea of only needing to work for a fraction of the time many currently work seems ridiculous. Especially as there are many who feel that they would need to work more to be free from miserable conditions of life.

Part of the clue to why this might be so is in the policies Keynes proposed and which were being enacted between the start of the 1950s and the mid 1970s (and which produced what the Cambridge economist Ha Joon Chang calls the 'golden age' in relation to the political economy of the West). These were key in bringing about a period of time in which my teachers and those they were influenced by could seriously envisage the leisure society. After all it was a period when the gap between the wealth of the richest and that of the poorest was diminished allowing millions to be raised out of poverty. Productivity was growing. (Obviously this scared the would-be plutocrats who plotted to put this stuff into reverse).

So, I guess in short, the main answer to my query about what happened to my eagerly-anticipated leisure society is that it was smuggled away when the foundations for it were substituted by extractive rentier capitalism given a fig leaf of respectability of the superficially plausible Chicago school economics  and the idea of trickle down prosperity (Chang does a good job of showing how this rather one-dimensional approach to economics really isn't adequate).

What we need to remember is that economic activity is socialised at root. The reason why an arch capitalist like Henry Ford would pay his workers more than subsistence wages was a self-interested-but-enlightened recognition that for him to sell stuff, people had to be able to buy it. The name of the capitalist game is to find systems and ideological justifications to extract and suck up to the 1% as much as possible of the wealth that pretty much the whole of society is involved in producing and circulating. What Keynsian policies did was to offset some of the more egregious ways that this wealth-mining takes place and to re-settle the wealth back with those who actually produced much of the value in the first place.

One of the things that has bearing on this is the idea of a Citizen's Income or Basic Income Guarantee. It's been a policy of the Green Party in Britain since the 1970's and seen as likely in the book The History of the Future in 100 Objects (an intriguing read, btw). It would be one way to try to keep wealth from floating off into the stratosphere of offshore banking and ridiculously OTT property bubbles (which, remember, drive up prices for all of us and provide a further extractive mechanism for the already hyper rich).

Redistributive economic mechanism are a vital way to keep the economy balanced and serving the many. The BIG experiment seems to indicate that people will still work and it won't demotivate work being done. It would enable some people to do what turns out to be socially useful stuff 'for free' so to speak.

If, as many Christians would argue, it is true that humans are created to enjoy adding value to creation and to enjoy exercising creativity, learning and helping others (notwithstanding whatever distortions fallenness represents in those things), then we should expect that given opportunity people will indeed make efforts to do things which turn out to work towards the good of many others. The genuinely lazy and parasitical turn out to be relatively rare especially in circumstances where there is a genuine sense of belonging, inclusion and pride in playing ones part.

What we need, as Christians, to recall is that fallenness generally acts upon the already or in-principle good to distort, pervert or weaponise it. Our task in a fallen world is to work to preserve, enhance or even make more goodness and to undistort, revert and ploughshar-ise what has been caught up in fallen usage. We can expect some success in all of this because the Spirit of God still hovers over creation to empower ordering and teeming and redeeming.

The attractiveness of beauty, truth, goodness and love will always draw people (who are created to be drawn) to work with God whether or not they can name or recognise their activity as such.

I would expect 'my' leisure society to be filled with huge amounts of productive 'work' being done, in a sense, for free. Why? Because it would be enjoyable, fulfilling and create social bonds, respect and recognition.

Check out:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-mincome-experiment-dauphin?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email
On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs - STRIKE!:

Begin Your Email with a Deadline to Get a Quicker Response?

I normally like Lifehacker's suggestions on productivity, but I'm a bit concerned about this.
Begin Your Email with a Deadline to Get a Quicker Response: "Skip the small talk and throw a deadline in the first sentence—for example, 'Attached, please see the draft of the Tuesday meeting notes, please reply with changes by 9 a.m. Monday.' Be clear about the deadline and the expected turn-around and don't waste their time with anything else. Check out the full post at Stepcase LIfehack for a few other helpful tips for inspiring prompt email replies."
A'm all for making a clear request. However, having been at the receiving end of terse emails in the workplace, I think that I would counsel the would-be writer of such emails to consider the emotional impact, paying particular attention to the possibility that if you already have prior record of dealing with people in a way that fails to acknowledge their difficulties, humanity or need for reasonable esteem, then an email of this type runs a high risk of coming over as officious or even with some kind of hinted criticism. Small talk can have the function of cementing, massaging, re-opening relationships. Failure to pay attention to the relational dimensions can be counter-productive. In this case, for instance non-co-operation from the colleague could be a way of reasserting their own power or sense of esteem.

Freaky job interview questions

It's hard to see it getting asked in many places but how's this for an interview question.
Crazy job interview questions: "UBS: If we were playing Russian roulette and had one bullet, I randomly spun the chamber and fired but nothing was fired. Would you rather fire the gun again or respin the chamber and then fire on your turn?"
It's hard to second guess what they'd look for: at face value exhibit your knowledge of statistics. But I think my answer might be, in the spirit of the response on the referenced site:
I think that I'd file the request as harassment and report it to HR. There's no way that such actions could pass health and safety and the macho culture that would generate such a scenario in the workplace is likely to be one which generates bullying. So I'd rather not do either of the alternatives: I'd rather reframe the situation altogether. And then, would I want to work for UBS if I'm likely to be shot?

We prayed, I started ...

Since we finished later on Thursday evening and I had to get up early to come to college in Nottingham, I didn't really get much chance until about now to note here that the service for the inauguration of my ministry at Northumbria University had taken place and, I think, went off well. The liturgy is below. I'd like to specially recognise the contribution of members of the university choir and of the girls' choir from the cathedral: it's a difficult occasion to plan for singing because of the variety of people present, so having a good musical lead (and they were) is really helpful.

There were several things that I wanted the liturgy to achieve humanly: to engage those of Christian faith in prayer for the chaplaincy; to recognise and engage some significant partners (the VC's office, the 'department' chaplaincy works out of, the students' union, local churches); to involve my colleagues in leading the liturgy; to begin my own ministry formally by leading us all in prayer for the university; to use embodied symbolism.

In leading the prayers I started with the university statement of values and wove those into prayers relating to the areas represented by those who gave official welcomes at the event. (I haven't got the copy of the prayers with me here; I'll blog them when I have the digital copy to hand). Having asked the welcomers to bring a symbolic object, these were laid on the table at the centre with each welcome. Then when I led the prayers I picked each symbol up and placed it, as I prayed, in the centre of the three candles we started the service by lighting -on top of my licence. I had made my statutory declarations and affirmations before a small party of witnesses earlier.

Set up: Rutherford Hall. Layout: table central surrounded on four sides by seats. Three candles in centre of table.

Gathering and opening

Candle lighting: (based on Iona ceremony) Three chaplains; a line each, as a candle is lit with each line.

• A Light in the name of God; author of all being, who lights the world with Life
• A light in the name of God the eternally begotten, who invests the world with grace
• A light in the name of God the Go-Between who energises all with God-ward-ness
• [together] Three lights in honour of God in whose three-fold friendship we now gather.

Greeting and Welcome: Bishop Frank White

§ O God beyond all praising (tune: Thaxted) [This was chosen because it is a well known and stirring tune by Elgar (?) -used for 'I vow to Thee my country' and suitable for starting. I also wanted to show that the tune could have other words!]

O God beyond all praising,
we worship you today ...

(Words: Michael Perry (1942-1996);
© by Jubilate Hymns, Ltd. )

Futher welcome and context setting: Chris Dalliston

Ministry of the word

Reading(s): (chaplains);

• Acts 11: 19-26
• John 15: 12-17

address: Bp Frank White [He made connections between Rutherford after whom the building we were meeting in was named, and the readings. Rutherford was the founder of what became Northumbria University]

Welcomes, declarations and prayers.

declarations:

... Therefore I now ask: Andii, do you believe that you have been called by God to work as Chaplain in this University?

Chaplain I do.

Bishop The charge of Chaplains is to work with staff and students of all faiths, beliefs and value-systems and to be available to offer pastoral and spiritual care. The Christian Chaplains work together with people in the University to discover God’s purpose for themselves and for the University as an institution. The co-ordinating chaplain is to be fully involved in the life of the University, and to seek the flourishing of life and diverse community in the University. Andii, mindful of this charge, will you commit yourself to serve the community of staff and students in this University of Northumbria?

Chaplain I will.

Bishop reads out the license and presents it

Bishop The University Chaplaincy is a Local Ecumenical Partnership, created by the University and the Churches of this Region as a sign and a symbol of our commitment to one another. Will you commit yourself to working ecumenically with all the Chaplains, and on behalf of the Chaplaincy, supporting and contributing to the activities of the Chaplaincy team, and working together also with representatives of other faiths for the peace and welfare of the University as a whole?

Chaplain I will.

Bishop As Co-ordinator of the Chaplaincy Team you have responsibilities to the University. Will you, on behalf of the University Chaplaincy, undertake to be involved appropriately in the structures and management of this University?

Chaplain I will

Bishop And I invite the other Chaplains of the University to support Andii: will you offer support to him in his ministry.

Chaplains We will.

Bishop Let’s reflect in a moment’s quiet. ... [and he did leave a good long, but not too long pause]

In light and in darkness, in joy and in pain, in clarity and in confusion, may the Lord sustain you. May you be humble and just, steadfast and true, serving Christ and all people in righteousness, in holiness and in peace; and the blessing of God almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, be upon you and remain with you always.

Amen.

Welcomes: VC, SU, LAG, and others, each with a few words of welcome lay an object on the table

Reading from TS Eliot [originally the Buddhist chaplain had hoped to read this, but she was ill, and so the Anglican chaplain to Newcastle University, Catherine Lack, stepped in and read the excerpt from the Rock from her own copy of the volume]

The endless cycle of idea and action,
Endless invention, endless experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;
Knowledge of speech, but not of silence;
[Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.]
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death,
[But nearness to death no nearer to GOD.]
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

Prayers: Andii

§ O Lord hear my prayer: -music led by choir,

O Lord, hear my prayer, O Lord hear my prayer,

When I call, answer me.

O Lord, hear my prayer, O Lord hear my prayer,

Come, and listen to me.

Andii to lead petitions based on welcomes and declarations, gathering objects or visiting objects on the table.

Closing.

§ Rutter -The Lord Bless you …. ; Choir.

Dismissal: Bp Frank White

Nouslife: Ora pro me; 9 June

The Blame Game

I'm really enjoying the reflections on this blog by Patrick Goh. The usual theme is reflecting on organisational life in a Christian perspective. I really found myself resonating with this post
The Blame Game | gohbyname Go by nature. 'Resonating' because I have observed this in several workplaces or organisations I've been acquainted with:

In a blame culture, people behave in blaming ways. These behaviours are self-sustaining and self-perpetuating. It breeds a suspicion, politicking, backbiting, draconian organisational practice and non-risk taking. In these cultures, feedback such as “you should do better next time”, and even training and development events are seen as threats.

And, perhaps, what he goes on to say, therefore, is part of my mission in the job I began officially yesterday. Patrick says,

We can change our social world by changing our organising grammar to:

• Let’s discuss a helpful process for creating change.
• How can we inquire into and build on the best of what is?
• What can we help people to learn?
• How can we value everyone’s contribution?
• Who else, amongst us, do we need to involve?
• What processes do we need to put in place to help us improve continuously?
• How can we develop, coach and mentor people through a project

I love that 'organising grammar' phrase! He goes on to point out that it is an attitudinal shift, and he's right. I'd say the secret is to contrast a culture where a central tenet is blame (and it's even more unlovely concommitants, scapegoating and unjust assumptions) with a culture where the central tenet 'rightwising' -ie problem-solving; how to put it right and save the post-mortems for relaxed appraisal in an open and inclusive learning environment marked by positive regard for all.

You see, in my experience, workplace cultures where blame is to the fore are workplace cultures where people don't feel respected, feel victimised and scapegoated -often because the blame-drive doesn't really care about truth and justice, just sounding off and covering its own backside -it's easier to blame someone, move on and avoid facing ones own part in the systemic failure. A blame-reflex fails to encourage genuine collaboration and, ironically, creates the conditions for further 'blameworthy' in/actions by increasingly 'jobsworth' workers. All too often, in fact, when something goes wrong, the reasons are complex and both systemic and individualistic. Blame usually oversimplifies to the point of injustice and therefore foments discontent.

Patrick ends by asking a Christian question: "“How might we create a ’forgiveness’ rather than a ‘blame’ culture”?"
I think I'd like to suggest that we need to start a step back from 'forgiveness' since starting there seems to presuppose we know who is to blame for what right at the start. And we normally just don't. So what is needed is a fundamental orientation to fixing problems that arise and creating an atmosphere where honest, respectful and supportive communication can take place. That can support finding out what really happened and encourage people to take appropriate responsibility and offer support to each other.
This means unwinding our own 'blame reflexes' and remembering that we fallible too. A healthy dose of recalling that for every speck we can find in someone else's eye, there's probably a log in our own.

Ah, but the danger is that people don't take responsibility. Actually that's paradoxically not the case. By creating a constructive culture we enable adult responsibility taking. A blame culture encourages parent-child transactions, self-justification and hiding problems.

Recognize the Road to Burnout -spiritually

It's important to catch it sooner rather than later: for your own good and the good of your nearest and dearest -they're the ones who suffer the most from it in the early stages; believe me. So do check this article out and file it away for future use if necessary.
Running on Empty? How to Recognize When You're on the Road to Burnout | Psychology Today
Among the things that it points up as potential signs are these:

"Psychological signs, such as loss of enjoyment for activities once enjoyed; sadness; excessive anxiety or worry; panic attacks; feeling trapped without options for relief or escape; loss of motivation; loss of concentration; emotional hypersensitivity at seemingly inconsequential things; feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, or pessimism; and/or increasing feelings of irritability, frustration, or anger"

For Christian (and from experience) I would say that some of these impact your prayer life especially loss of enjoyment of activities once enjoyed, loss of motivation. Some of the other things are the kinds of things that show up in self-examination and the danger is to misdiagnose them by simply telling yourself (and God) that you've done and thought wrong. Thing is it may not be the wrong you think. The real sin may be lack of self care so that you don't have the energy to give properly to others and to other-care. That's not ot say that you have an excuse to be irritable (or whatever); just that the response should be to take appropriate care of yourself (and keep the spirit of the law on Sabbath) rather than simply confessing and moving on ... to repeat again because you're still tired and worn down. The sin then is to continue in the burnout patterns rather than seeking to sabbath.

test yourself. Leave work on a Friday and commit to treating yourself to a relaxing, stress-free weekend. Don't bring any work home, sleep in on Saturday and Sunday morning, eat right, and occupy your time with activities that you rarely allow yourself to enjoy (yes, I know you're busy, but trust me--make the time).

If you wake up on Monday morning feeling exactly the same as you did before your time off, you're probably going to have to make some pretty significant changes in your lifestyle to turn things around.

Governance gaps and international Labour rights

Some shocking details about suppliers for some western products. Governance gaps -failed or tes, to be less euphemistic, allow slave labour to flourish. Underregulated markets do the equivalent of sending children up chimneys if we let them ...
Part of the problem is that some firms simply go round regulation by stepping into a governance gap or allowing a proxy to do so for them. We need an international response to a global set of problems -otherwise globalisation is a race to the bottom. Outsourcing has been a way for manufacturers and marketters to evade responsibilities. So contracts now increasingly embody human rights standards and these are more effective than 'police actions' by global HR agencies.
Building trust, partnership and co-operation can create the basis for a progressive 'strange new world' where TNC's actually offer the basis for human rights; listen to this mini-lecture to find out how ...
Ono of my recently-written liturgies has added agencies and corporations to praying for those who rule the world, this video gives a sense of why.
AuretvanHeerden_2010G.mp4 (video/mp4 Object)

Where do you go when you really want to get something done?

That's the question at the heart of this bit of video. The answer, interestingly and significantly, is rarely "the office" which is supposedly created for productivity. Here, we hear why (in effect, we go into the office to be interrupted! Or to be monitered by a distrustful management who have bought into an ideology of 'dstraction') ... and why the answer should reconfigure the way we work and the way that organisations resource their workforce. My answers are 'a coffee shop' and 'the train' occasionally it's the office. ... it turns out I'm not alone.
Also mentioned is the role of sleep and the analogy it gives to the way we might work. (I'm increasingly thinking that 'sabbath' is a key motif in theology and theological anthropology -and that relates to this).
Twitter and Facebook are not the distractions that they are supposed to be: managers and meetings are. Managers are for interrupting people. Managers call meetings which are toxic -and they procreate! Ten people in a one-hour meeting is 10 hours of company time.
It's a cartoon, but with enough truth to get us to think about 'received practice' and perhaps make offices work for work.
Three suggestions: 'no talk Thursdays'; good use of passive communication; just erase meetings.
On the passive communication; the warning would be that in some cases they can be too open to misinterpretation and need a good infrastructure of trust and respect to cradle them otherwise they become as toxic as the memo can be. On erasing meetings, we've just moved to a regime where faculty meetings are not automatic; some have been erased. We seem to be discovering that agendas can expand to fill the meetings called. One manager I knew used to believe in 'corridor meetings' that is that some of the most effective work gets done in chance meetings and in two minutes between things ... it's worth considering, because I've seen it work sometimes ...
JasonFried_2010X.mp4 (video/mp4 Object)

Scenius: genius made corporate

I hadn't come across the word 'scenius' before but I definitely recognised the concept. See here: FT.com / Life & Arts - Lightning in a bottle. And here's the definition: "Eno coined the odd but apt word “scenius” to describe the unusual pockets of group creativity and invention that emerge in certain intellectual or artistic scenes: philosophers in 18th-century Scotland; Parisian artists and intellectuals in the 1920s. In Eno’s words, scenius is “the communal form of the concept of the genius.”". It's a concept related to something I've been advocating for a good while; that we need to have zones and times when diverse people can meet and exchange ideas and insights in a relaxed atmosphere. An apparently unproductive space can give rise to very productive outcomes; but you can't predict what they would be or when they would emerge. It's about obliquity, and I have been noticing and saying how some good stuff occurs when it's not on the agenda, it's an oblique outcome and as such you can't aim at it, you can only create the conditions for it to emerge (whatever it would be) if/when it might emerge. However, the point is that it almost certainly won't if you try to force 'it'.

My interest was given a practical bent by noticing how current university pursuit of efficiency and maximising 'productivity' means that people no longer have time (or feel they have the time, more to the point) to turn up at meeting places (common rooms, for example) and linger for 20 minutes and just 'share' with others. And yet it is those times that can be, in my observation, extraordinarily productive of new ideas, cross-pollination of ideas and insights. In our own college, one of the most interesting assessments we have recently come up with was born in a moment of free-wheeling idea exchange between various of us who don't teach in the the same streams of theology. Of course there needed to be some careful thinking and work to make it into a properly defined assessment, but the idea would not have occured without a moment of free association without a defined 'productive' agenda.

The article I referenced at the start is arguing that cities are mavens of creativity because they bring people together and create 'unproductive' spaces of intellectual and creative exchange.

In this light, perhaps we could see the problem with the Tower of Babylon (Gen 11) as the idea of setting up an artefact with a monomaniacal agenda which would exclude diversity and 'freewheeling' (and we know historically that the Mesopotamian civilisations did have mythical ideologies which emphasised the idea of 'work' (well, slavery, really) -contrariwise Genesis writes leisure -sabbath- into the picture, for example). That may be the point of the 'punishment': forced diversity and diaspora (echoing 'go forth and multiply; fill the earth ...'). Given that my reading of Genesis 2 would tend to indicate that God has an interest in cultural diversity and human freedom, it would seem to run with a theme going through Genesis 1-12: God wants humans all over the place being creative and diverse.

'Work-life' balance, telecommuters vs officeers

This is interesting, well, I think so. Telecommuters with flextime stay balanced up to 19 hours longer: "identifying the point at which 25 percent of employees reported that work interfered with personal and family life.
For office workers on a regular schedule, the breaking point was 38 hours per week. Given a flexible schedule and the option to telecommute, employees were able to clock 57 hours per week before experiencing such conflict."
I'd love to see the research done with clergy in the picture too. Partly because I think that it would bear this out to some extent but, given that often clergy are often not apparently good at work-life balance (judging by the talk at chapter meetings) and probably are working the kind of hours reported here; ie 57 (plus). I know that in parish I stopped counting at 38 hours worked and still did a day or two more. Many clergy feel that they should work a 37 hours week pluss several hours to make their time-worked equivalent to lay officers.

Brown's bullying -highlights why bullying is a bad thing

It's not just that it's not nice. It's not just that it harms people. It's that it makes for organisational stupidity and waste. Check out the whole article Brown's bullying has paralysed Labour | Jenni Russell | Comment is free | The Guardian if you're into the politics but the bullying issue is nicely summarised here: :

"Anyone who has worked alongside a bully knows how destabilising they can be. The tension and fright that a highly placed bully creates cascades down an organisation, as impotent subjects and witnesses relieve their own feelings by being sharp, tense or unfair to their colleagues or inferiors. Bad behaviour is legitimised, and anxiety gets in the way of good decision-making."

This is of a piece with the reasons for not creating classrooms where aggression and anxiety are normalised: it gets in the way of any but the most primitive, behaviouristic learning. I'we seen the effects in workplaces and would have to say that bullying deprives an organisation of talent by stealing the emotional security and energy needed to sustain and nurture creativity, good will and focus on proper mission. Instead you get people who become anxious, protective, defensive, and spending much time calming down and debriefing the latest assaults on their dignity.

Loving ones neighbour is good for corporate mission.

The importance of co-operatives

After a brief history of the Co-op movement mainly in Leeds, there's this comment: "I hope Labour is serious about introducing support and encouragement for the co-operative movement. It could unleash a power for social change which I hope would be irreversible."
I too hope Labour would be serious about this: I fear it's a 'nothing-to-lose-so-what-the-heck?' partial rediscovery of its radicalism on the part of the Labour movement. Unfortunately probably, too little too late and probably looking too cynical.
The importance of co-operatives | Peter Lazenby | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk:

Take Friday off… forever?

Part of New Scientist's 'Better World' series:Better world: Take Friday off… forever - 15 September 2009 - New Scientist First we learn that Utah state did this in an effort to cut building costs by offering 4x10hr days instead of 5x8 and did cut costs not only of the buildings but also of covering sick-leave. Then we are told an interesting piece of history: "According to Facer, it was the crash of 1929 that led to the five-day week. 'Before that it was common to work six-day weeks with 12 to 14-hour days. When the Great Depression hit, the idea was to share work around to get more people into employment.' During the next big financial crisis in the 1970s, there was much talk of moving to a four-day week, but for a variety of reasons that didn't pan out. 'Things are different now,' says Facer. 'I wouldn't be surprised if we could get 50 per cent or more of the workforce working four-day weeks in the next few years.'"
This was based on the more radical work less hours but for same hourly rate. Those who've done this have found that many people are up for it: it seems that more leisure may work for some people's 'marginal utility' better than our orthodoxies might lead us to believe. This probably goes with the research that indicated that above a certain amount, more money coming in didn't actually improve people's reported happiness. But it's worth looking at the discussion in the comments section of the article page.

Christians at Work, some helps

Hereford Dioceses get a hat tip from me for this: CristiansatWork Here's why the issue is important: "Too often we give the impression that work is part of the ‘secular' world and that the ‘real work', God's work, only gets done in church or through the church in our neighbourhoods. It is a fundamental view of the project that life should not be separated into the ‘sacred' and the ‘secular'; all of life is sacred to God and consequently to ourselves. The ‘Christians at Work' project aims to enable people to be more effective in their place of work and encourage Churches to support them, through prayer, teaching and action."
The hat-tip is because they've made materials freely available. I've yet to go through them. Do let me know with a comment on this post if you've seen them and used them and what you think.
Also worth checking out:
The Christian and Paid Work.
Ministry in Daily Life (ECLA).

Mind mapping web2.0

Could be useful for peops like me:
"Collaborative mind mapping in your browser
Isn't 42 the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything? Well, in this case it means FOR TWO and indicates the collaborative character of mind42. Manage all your ideas, whether alone, twosome or working together with the whole world - collaborative, browser-based and for free. "
Here's one I made earlier about a year ago when just starting my present job.

The End Of Our Work As We Know It

You might be excited or worried by what this article says, but it probably should be read by anyone wanting to keep abreast of trends that project in all likelihood into the future. It explores the effects of increasingly ubiquitous and easy virtualisation technologies. Here's a snippet.

"Researchers at Stanford University noticed that people in online role-playing games such as Star Wars Galaxies spend countless hours carefully doing what looks like a job—not only battling Empire troops but also building pharmaceutical manufacturing operations and serving as medics. Researchers tested the possibility of having players view real medical scans inside the game to find signs of cancer. They think groups of gamers could do as well as an actual pathologist.... Amazon.com (AMZN ) is experimenting with a marketplace it created called Mechanical Turk. Companies parcel out small pieces of jobs online, such as transcribing podcasts and labeling photos, to people around the world. The workers, who often do it in lieu of watching TV or fooling around on MySpace, process the tasks for a few pennies per minute or photo. The work of all these 'Turkers' is reassembled into finished products, often within hours. In short, Amazon is creating an on-demand workforce for companies that can't afford to hire staff for such quick or ephemeral jobs."

I suspect that one of the key things is found in this quote: "this is a more virtual, self-managed ecosystem." In other words, I think that we are seeing the rise of the mass day-labourer. But it's global and so we have westerners potentially competing with those from the two-thirds world who have somehow gained access to this kind of technology. Now I know there are a host of issues playing out even in that scenario, but I just wanted to alert us to the fact that they will be (and in some cases now are) here. The article is right to flag up some of the implications;

the traditional role of an employer is dissolving. "A job is a bundle of privileges and obligations," notes longtime technology futurist Paul Saffo. "Digital technology has allowed us to break up that bundle" and reassemble it into "mass-customized jobs," he adds, as they fit our skills, the work to be done, and the goals of the companies we're working for.
All that raises a fundamental question about technology's ultimate impact on workers. Will this be a new world of empowered individuals encased in a bubble of time-saving technologies? Or will it be a brave new world of virtual sweatshops, where all but a tech-savvy few are relegated to an always-on world in which keystrokes, contacts, and purchases are tracked and fed into the faceless corporate maw?

Are we back to the day labourers of Jesus' day? What is the gospel and Christian ministry for these sorts of times?
The End Of Work As You Know It:

The culture of work

small ritual: I really want to flag this up: an excellent set of articles by Steve Collins on contemporary British work culture and its effects.

I've responded thus:
... [As a church leader] I became aware of two things: one is the disconnect between work life and church life the other is the way that for too many work saps energy from the rest of life; energy that used to be there for family and community and increasingly is not any longer. Of course much of our social structure is predicated on this volunteer army that can no longer volunteer because of work commitments. The government is even increasing reliance on it! Churches are being asked to step up to fill the gaps in community care/building etc at a time when they are less and less able to find volunteers to do the work.

So, ironically, church leaders begin to reproduce the same patterns when really they/we should be modelling a better way and encouraging a different culture.

I think that the individualising of response [vs unionised responses] is spot on -read Bauman's Liquid Modernity- it may be what lies behind the growth in life coaching [yes and I'm one, but critical and frustrated sometimes that what my clients really need is a union].

I have really found your analysis good. Thanks.