Throughout history it has been common for people to be defined by their occupation. We can see this in surnames such as Smith, Wright, Miller, etc. Today, when people are mentioned in articles, their occupations are usually listed along with their age and place of residence, for example: “Justin Martin, a 26-year-old construction worker from Bothell…” It is usually only the notable and famous who are exempt from this rule.
Perhaps in times of peace and stability this makes sense, but it seems such a domesticated, emasculating way to define oneself that I can’t help but dislike it. This method of categorization has permeated every area of society, so that one can be out at a bar, a bowling alley, or a barbecue, and, inevitably, somebody will ask “what do you do?” They mean, of course, “where do you work and what is your job?” This question is the universal measure, and asked without a second thought. Perhaps in the past people used to ask “where do you go to church?” or “where do you live?” But now, it all boils down to this vague question about what you “do.” Not even how you do, but always what you do.
In truth, the question isn’t an honest one, because the interrogator does not really want to know what you do at work, but rather what your income or status happens to be. For example, if asking a surgeon this question, would the surgeon reply by saying “I cut people open with knives”? Would the attorney say “I argue with people”? Of course not. It is, to put it crudely, merely a universal shit test.
Next time someone asks me what I do, I’d like to ask them “what do you mean?” If they say “what kind of work do you do,” I suppose I could say that I look at a computer screen and read things, type, talk on the phone a lot and occasionally drive around to various places. But what I’d really rather be talking about – especially when asked by someone I do not work with – is what I believe in, what interests me or even what I think about the weather. This is not to say that I find nothing interesting about work, but if a farmer and fisherman wanted to find common ground, why would they talk about what they “do” at work? Does the farmer really want to hear about mending nets, or the fisherman about mending fences?
Of course, it may be instructive to use work metaphors to explain things to people, but even these have their limits. Jesus, for example, frequently spoke in terms common people would understand. He compared his work to being a fisher of men, a broody hen, a military officer, a farmer and, of course, a builder. But these were all things people in general would understand. One doesn’t see him getting into arcana such as the particular nails used for certain joints, although he certainly knew of these things. He was speaking to the general experience of the people of his time, and doing so very effectively. Likewise, Laozi compares the Dao to a skillful butcher cutting a hog to make a point about mastery that the common people can relate to. The difference here is that Jesus and Laozi are using metaphors derived from what we “do” to bring people together in understanding their message, whereas the modern tendency to classify people according to occupation is an effort to segregate individuals into different levels of status.
The red Indians, it is said, would be sent out as youths to find their names. They would spend days in the wilderness, getting to know themselves while facing the emptiness alone, finding their place in the world and discovering who they are. The Vikings would win names by virtue of their reputations. Yet we modern Americans, supposedly living in a more humanist world than these savages, do not even have the luxury of being defined by who we are, but rather by what niche we occupy in a complex, increasingly hierarchical society. Perhaps a little rebellion against this is in order, and it is time to start defining ourselves not by our status in a realm in which we have little control, but rather by who we are and what we do when we have a choice. After all, a man’s true nature is only revealed when he is free from constraints and given the opportunity to express his nature unfettered.
9 responses so far ↓
1 joel // Jun 7, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I ask people what they do all the time. It helps me to understand who I am speaking to. It offers many topics for conversation. What we do for a living is “real” as opposed to politics and sports. And, often very much more interesting.
I don’t think I have ever offended anybody, and I am certainly never offended, by the question of “what do you do?”
2 Welmer // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Everybody asks it, so it would be silly to get offended over the question. I’ve certainly asked it before, and not too long ago.
What I am really trying to do is get people to think about defining themselves outside of the context that they are used to. As men, we are more than our jobs, and I think it’s worth putting some thought into what we really are even without these socially coded attributes. If we know who we are without a family, without a job, without money, etc., we are much stronger people.
3 Derek // Jun 7, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Welmer,
Interesting post. I have thought of dumping this concept a lot but I think it’s a bit ingrained in us. Men’s groups usually have to find a roll for everyone. Every guy tries to find a roll with in a group so that we can all be useful and functional together.
I think that’s the reason we define ourselves by our jobs/position in life. Are you sure it’s a bad thing?
4 Welmer // Jun 7, 2009 at 9:49 pm
At this point, Derek, I think it is kind of a bad thing. Not bad for every man, mind you, but on the balance it’s problematic. And thinking in selfish terms has hurt us all over the last few decades, so it might be wise now to reject this as the measure of the man today.
So many men have made the point that our work has been suborned to a philosophy that sees us only as providers, but not as fathers, individuals, or even full human beings under the law. What this says to me is that the emphasis on what we do to make money is only so much grease on the slide to slavery.
Defining ourselves outside of that paradigm is a revolutionary act at this point. It is, in fact, an act of civil disobedience that can get one thrown in jail in family law courts across the country.
Think hard about that. Refusing to define yourself as a productive unit can result in imprisonment. To me, this is sufficient reason to resist it.
5 Derek // Jun 8, 2009 at 12:42 am
Welmer,
It is a revolutionary concept. But it’s one I would have a hard time living with. And I don’t think that all revolutionary ideas are good ones. Point in fact most lead to disaster and tend to quickly fail.
I am trying to fit this into the big picture. People as a groups (and men’s groups specifically) have driven most of human progress. We made roles for ourselves in these group and we conquered the world. Though in retrospective I think we would be happier as stone age hunter/gathers as we where meant to be.
Maybe I am looking at this from the wrong perspective. Thinking about how much a man makes is very much a female way of looking at a man. How to men measure other men? As guess I would say we measure someone based on their actions, not their status.
So Welmer, who are you?
6 Lukobe // Jun 8, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I’m generally with Welmer here, but the commenters do have a point as well. After all, if you’re working “full-time” in the United States, you’re spending at least a quarter of your time working — a third of your weekday time — and, assuming you sleep eight hours a day, half of your weekday waking hours. So it is of some interest what you spend so much time doing. However, I think Welmer’s right — people quite often want to assess your status and don’t really care about the nuts and bolts.
Me, I’m actually interested in the nuts and bolts. I would love to know what certain job types actually do all day…
7 novaseeker // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:58 am
It’s a status proxy test, I agree.
The danger is that, as Welmer rightly points out, we’ve become reductionist when it comes to how we view *men*. Women are not boxed in — they are never monolithically viewed in terms of what they *do*, but also in terms of their children and family life. Now some women do not like that because of the implications it has for women who choose to live more one-dimensional lives, but at the same time they are not as hemmed in as men are.
Men *used* to be viewed less monolithically — the roles of husband, father, leader and so on were celebrated — whereas today the role of husband has lost its meaning, the role of father has lost its power and substance, and the role of leader is considered to be sexist, and so what we are left with is the role of worker bee. Great effort has been made to tear down or deconstruct all of the roles of men other than worker bee, and so we kind of play into that ourselves when we overly identify with our work selves, to the detriment of anything else.
Welmer is right here — we need to resist that, and work towards self-definitions and expressions of them that are not worker-bee-centric. Indeed, this will be resisted, because for all of the hatred against men and misandry in the culture, generally society wants the productivity of millions of male worker bees. To the extent that we move our identity away from that, it will be seen as a threat.
8 Lukobe // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:51 am
Of course, a lot of women these days have no children, and their only family lives are with their husbands…
9 novaseeker // Jun 9, 2009 at 11:50 am
That may be, but the role of mothers has not been destroyed. In fact, I would say that the current image of the contemporary American hero is the single mother.
Leave a Comment