What is Work Ethic?

When most people think of work ethic they think of how you behave when on the job; your general attitude, your response to co-workers, and your ability to run on schedule.  I believe there is more to the term “work ethic” than meets the eye, one that ties in very closely with perceptions of time and governance. This paper will explore the term “work ethic” within the context of precarious work, focusing on sex workers, bead workers, part time handy men and free-lance artists in Johannesburg. They all have something in common, and it is what Jane Guyer explains as living in punctuated time, what Gustav Peebles refers to as being orientated in the present. The antithesis of what Weber calls the “Protestant Work Ethic”.

What is work ethic?

If one looks at Gustav Peebles paper A Geography of Debauchery it cannot be helped to question the nature of work as an ethical entity with regard to one’s context.  Peebles paper calls into question the nature of hierarchy in relation to present and future orientated work ethics. Where a present orientated work ethic would be one in which a person lives for the moment, money becomes something that is useful now. The thought of future saving, which predominates the ethic of the “future orientated” workers mind is lacking.

Both of these ethics are closely tied to the nature of the state. The former being shunned as an autonomous notion allowing the individual mobility and freedom; it creates a sense of disdain for hierarchy (Peebles 2008; 115). The latter is advocated – I believe because these workers work in favour of the state, while the former does not – how can they contribute to society if they work in cash and can’t be traced for taxes?

 One must ask: in the context of South Africa, where the latter “future orientated” ethic is held in repute, and the former “present orientated ethic” is held in disregard by certain laws – is there really a choice and should present orientated people be held accountable for their actions?   

When is it ethical to orientate yourself in the present?

It is not new news that South Africa, like many economies in the world, suffers from a high unemployment rate. In light of this entrepreneurship is a valued ideal – and is necessary in order for more jobs to be created; but contradictory to this ideal are the laws which govern this post-colonial state.

On almost every street corner in Johannesburg informal trade is rife, and where there is informal trade there is also regulation. Bead workers, prostitutes, free-lance handy men, and various other precarious street entrepreneurs suffer under these regulations. Separate bead merchants lose up to R6000 a month’s worth of product due to police confiscation; under laws such as “no selling within 5 meters of an intersection”, even though it becomes clear that the police doing the arresting aren’t quite sure of the laws that they are upholding.

In the middle class freelance musicians and artists struggle under various regulations when it comes to finding housing; as it becomes impossible to apply for a rental property without letters of employment, steady income, or pay slips. Most musicians work on a cash basis – there are no invoices or contracts in this informal economy.

Sex workers – while they may have networks in place that deal with security – also find issues when it comes to working, as our informant Snowy elaborates: she had to go to a wedding over Easter weekend, and wanted to buy a new pair of shoes. She was unable to go out to work because of the high density of policing during the holiday period. Many other sex workers spend evenings in prison holding sells for plying their trade along Oxford Road.

From these examples it becomes clear that the laws of South Africa do not favour those that live in a present orientated space; making precarious work situations in an already flooded job market a more difficult task then necessary. While these types of workers have the freedom of their own time, they are still bound by laws which mar their ability to produce income.

It must be asked: is this ethical? Should present orientated workers be made examples of – as unwanted “parasites” for using their abilities in an informal market? In a country where tax money is openly known to be used for corrupt means, where entrepreneurship is encouraged and then shunned when it takes place in the streets. The answer is, and can only be that it is unethical to punish these people for trying to make a living within a constitution that flaunts freedom of dignity, and the right to work.

The world has shifted from the Protestant Work Ethic; of working hard now in order to enjoy the future – which perhaps in its time was viable because it was supported by the economy that produced it; the ethic matched the times. But the times have shifted, working for the future is impossible for some – where there are no jobs to support such an ethic - new rules must be made. A new work ethic has emerged, one in which people live in the present, have lost a sense of near future, and look ahead to the far future. This is what Jane Guyer refers to as punctuated time in her article Prophecy and the near Future: Thoughts on the Macroeconomic. (Guyer 2007; 409) It is only logical that a new economy must follow, and the laws which govern the old economy must move towards accommodating the crisis – a clear indication of this crisis being the increase in “ritual murder” and the trade of body parts as an attempt to alleviate the lack of employment through new magic.  (Comaroff and Comaroff; 1998)

What is an ethic?

As new magic is forcing its way into society via the cracks of crisis which threaten to crumble the economy so too must a new set of rules to accommodate a new ethic. The term ethic becomes problematic here, in a society where one’s identity is governed by one’s work as well as one’s social relations it follows that one’s ethic follows from one’s job. This is a dubious statement, but seemingly true. More so than this one’s job can fall out of alignment with the laws of a country – as seen in the situation of precarious workers. In this case one can see how a work ethic related to a specific job may seem immoral in accordance to the governing law. But it is not – for the laws are contradictory; they encourage the right to live; but enforce a certain means of life – a future orientated life. If ethics boils down to one’s perception of time and work, then the field of ethics demands a shift in perspective.

Theories of ethics deal with the underlying rational of how an ethical agent should behave. Bentham and Mill’s theory of utility says we should strive to create pleasure and remove pain.  Ethical egoism states that we act out of self-interest. Deontological theories state we must act in accordance with rules. The common lack in these theories is they do not take into account context, particularly perceptions of the relation of individuals to work. This may seem a rash judgement, shouldn’t each individual moral judgement be judged in accordance to the context in which that judgement takes place? A young girl is drowning in a pond, how should one react in that specific situation according to a theory of ethics? This is obviously correct. But by context I mean the context of the times, and it is the case that we live in a time of crisis – South Africa, the post colony with a high unemployment rate and contradictory laws which disable people to survive. The question is should a theory of ethics not spring out of this context – predominately dominated by work circumstances, not out of the under lying urge of the agent? In this context, one in which identity and social interaction was defined by work – and the ethics, or in this case the rules that governed it are no longer applicable to a vast majority who now live with a different perception of the relation of time and work – then it is not the agents of present orientated time that are acting unethically but the system. This does of course imply that everyone has the basic right to live and survive – which is making a huge statement of ethics in itself. But I think it is one that everyone could agree with. But above and beyond that the ethics of the system need to shift to accommodate this one basic right in accordance with the shift in peoples relations to work, and these relations of not been caused by the people but the systems that govern their means of existence. Which were up until now an exploitation of labour in order to produce surplus capital (Marx; 1978); a situation which produced a future orientated space. But now with the lack of employers, as those who used the industrial revolution to their advantage have moved onto the next phase of derivation and invested in “the market” labourers are no longer needed (Benjamin and LiPuma; 2002). Technology has taken over, and survival is taking on the face of the precarious worker.

It seems as if society is in flux – the near future is uncertain – the far future even more so. Today is all one can really know, and if this is the case…. Well, the only thing I can really do is leave that to your imagination, or perhaps point you in the direction of the revolution that is taking place globally.

References

·         Comaroff, Jean and John L. Comaroff. 1999. “Occult Economies and the Violence of Abstraction: Notes from the South African postcolony.” American Ethnologist 26(2):279-303

·         Guyer, Jane. 2007. “Prochecy and the near Future: Thoughts on Macroeconomic, Evangelical, and Punctuated Time.” American Ethnologist 34(3):409-21.

·         Lee, Benjamin and Edward LiPuma. 2002. “Cultures of Circulation: The Imaginations of Modernity.” Public Culture 14(1):191-213

·         Marx, Karl. 1978 [1867] Capital Vol. 1. Selections reproduced in Robert Tucker (ed.) The Marx-Engels Reader [302-438]. New York and London: Norton.

·         Peebles, Gustav. 2008. “A geography of Debauchery: State Building and the Mobilization of Labour versus Leisure on a European Border.” Focaal-European Journal of Anthropolgy 51(1):113-31

·         Weber, Max. 1992 [1904-5]. The Protestant ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism [selections pp. 1-80 & 102-125]. London & New York: Norton

The R Word

Brett Murray painted a picture, well plagiarized a picture in a way that some found amusing, and others well not so amusing. It even stirred enough emotion up in the country for the dreaded "R" word to start getting thrown around. Besides the fact that the picture is meant to judge our corrupt government via it's figurehead Jacob Zuma, it has dredged up the unspoken behemoth of racism on a national level. Facebook feeds going crazy level. Citizens debating avidly level. I find it quite awesome to be honest, people really engaging with each other, but it has to be brought back down to ground, and buried. What needs to be buried is the "R" word. And I turn to Morgan Freeman to explain why.

Morgan Freeman on Racism

It's time to move forward, we are the new generation and we have the power to change things. I believe censorship is necessary in this case. There are some things we should not be free to express, and this is one of those things - it hinders our humanity. 

So, I am saying good bye to that word, and all the other words of difference. So that we can judge people on their virtues and vices and not their colour of skin.

Peace

The James Bond Dilemma - The Ethics of Anthropology and the Structure of the University

In beginning to think about the terms of this project I have met a dilemma, my research group is a social circle in which I participate regularly and have become assimilated in over the past years. But I find in myself a moral disgust at the thought of using people, whether they be my friends or strangers, as my research object as it makes me question my perception of the nature of anthropology. And the role the anthropologist plays as a research gatherer but also a human being within a network of other humans. It feels like a deceptive practice.

As an ethical agent I believe it is necessary to discuss the ethic to ones self. Within my self I have found a deep contradiction in my thought about how I should operate as an agent in the field. For I feel my mind has come to think as the role of an anthropologist as similar to that of a secret agent. But this is only if the agent does not proclaim his involvement in the field of anthropology. If he does proclaim that he is an agent of anthropology he does two things. Announces that he is there to study, compromising the research group. Or in not announcing himself begs the anthropologist to question for the sake of knowledge weather he should act as himself, but think like an anthropologist; which compromises his moral integrity for he then comes to think of all he sees as something of interest or not to his research. When one is working as an insider, an already assimilated member of a group this evokes a strange moral dilemma, as the line between friend and research object becomes muddy.

The slot has not become a problem, as Trouillot argues (Trouillot; 1991). How anthropologists view their field through their history has become a meta-layer of analysis in itself, and thus has been removed from the under layer of the anthropologists thought, and brought it to the fore front of consciousness; into a space that the concepts that colonialism has embedded in our structures can be analysed. We have come to terms with the fact that the loss of “the other” has an implication for the field. But we have moved past it in terms of analysis of the fact that we are individual agents in a network and we can only perceive as much as we perceive, in the frame work that has been built, questioned, and realigned. It is perhaps because of our built perceptions that we like to think of our relation of ourselves to the world in terms of a field site, as we would in terms of our normal dealings with reality. If you walked into a venue, you would instantly refer to yourself as being at that specific venue. And this makes the idea of a field site seem less colonial. The fact is that we think in terms of spacial location, and our relation to other people in terms of locating nouns, even if you were not an anthropologist. Unless one wants to question how we perceive time as linear and spatial, and the dialogue which has developed around these perceptions, then the idea of a field site and the concepts of meaning that surround that do not hold much water in terms of what the problem with anthropology is.

  It is not the trope of “the savage” that is the problem; it is the act of voyeurism which should repel the anthropologist in an ethical dilemma. Not: is it right to study “the other” in terms of a colonial project, for this language is embedded into every part of society, it is an unavoidable part of our landscape, which as it is being realised is being adjusted. But is it right to study other people, as a course of ethics, in the manner that we do. Even if you self-proclaim yourself as an anthropologist in the field it begs the question of whether it is right or wrong to have such a job description. All anthropology seems to be doing is watching and “hanging” with vivid theoretical imagination to justify its being there. Meta – layer built up upon meta-layer. This has not only complicated the world and our perception of it, but has made us lose sight of the true ethic behind anthropology. It is no longer for the project of colonialism. And if it is no longer a product of colonialism what should it be a project of? The project of anthropology seems un-utilitarian; it does not benefit a large amount of people. It seems to have become a project of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and more to the benefit of the individual anthropologist in terms of his quest for excellence within the field of anthropology. But here in lies the flaw in the university structure in which the anthropologist is taught. For it seems like it is not the project of the university to seek the greater good, but the greater knowledge, but even more so now, the greater capital. It has become the project of the individual to seek the greater good, not the institutions which surround him. But the in order for the greater good to be attained, in this case the benefit of people who are not a part of well off society but who are engulfed by it, but have not been assimilated, the project of the university, and the project behind the structures of society as a whole. This is not said as an act of idealism. In the simple act of watching myself as an anthropology student I find the heart of the dilemma faced in the structure we find ourselves in. The anthropologists must find a way to be justified in its (I had a momentary collapse of “he”/”she” dichotomies) studies, the only justifying factor of any action of an ethical nature should be in a nature which benefits people within your given time and space, as an individual that you are. By merely being an anthropologist within a space with no project other than writing a paper involving the deepness of theoretical knowledge that we have evolved, we cannot be justified in our studying of others.

Folk the Park and the Neoliberal South Africa

(This is a slight introduction to the research I will be immersing myself into for the next few months, its still a bit disjointed, and incomplete, but I shall be building on it over the next year in preparation for my dissertation.)

Folk the Park, a guerrilla folk festival held at either Emmarentia Dam or Zoo Lake, is a seemingly political activity with no political agenda. It is now looking forward to its fifth event and is attended by over 200 people, a large majority of those in organisation, attendance and performance are punks.  I plan to study how the punks occupy the space of Folk the Park. In terms of their dress, performance, and interaction in order to better understand Levi Straus’s idea that “Images cannot be ideas but they can ... co-exist with ideas in signs and, if ideas are not yet present, they can keep their future place open for them and make its contours apparent negatively.” (Strauss 1962; 13)  I would like to explore what ideas could be extrapolated; Folk the Park being a sign, and because of its context with in Johannesburg, a post-apartheid city – in just existing it creates a space for meaningful ideas. I shall juxtapose this with a study of how previous events in South African music have been seen to have meaning, or ideas attached to them.  

Folk the Park is seemingly political in relation to law. The law in Johannesburg stating that to have more than 15 people in a public space constitutes a protest, a law which has its roots in the Riotous Assembly and Suppression of Communist Amendment Act, Act no 15 of 1954. But one could go further back to the first take-over of land in the 1600’s with the reclaiming of the commons, when land became property that could be owned. The disjuncture comes in when we look at the fact that all Folk the Park stands for is a free platform for bands to play their music and jam with other musicians, within a public space. 

Folk the Park is not a new concept, in the 1950’s The Kwela Jam Sessions were held at the Zoo Lake. They started coming under government attention when white kids from the suburbs became interested in them. This is an example of another instance in history which underlies a seemingly political activity with no agenda. But in having the situation meaning has occurred. There are multiple instances of this in South African music history. Another example would National Wake – a multi-racial punk band who existed between 1979 and 1982. While they believed themselves to have no agenda, their existing created meaning within the context of Apartheid.

In using Folk the Park I hope to attain an understanding of the meaning or ideas that this festival creates in today’s context in relation to a past of South African music which also embodied the ideal of seeming like protest but had no underlying agenda, and the meaning those instances created in a South African context.

In doing this I hope to explore the relationship of the nature of ideas to the study of anthropology and is theoretical framework. For if anthropology is but a study which transposes ideas (theories) upon subjects what is its role as a science? Or how does it question the nature of science, being a largely deductive discipline.

In order to understand the meaning that such an event as Folk the Park would have in the greater scheme of things is no simple task, for a history of South Africa, and Johannesburg is to some extent necessary. The cross pollination of Colonial frames into Africa is something that has to be detailed.

Let us start in the micro. A conversation turned rant had with a friend, a self-labelled punk, who regularly attends and performs at Folk the Park, Mike B. This conversation took place at The Bohemian, a live music venue in Richmond, Johannesburg. “What can an upper middle class kid in South Africa do? I know I have money behind me, and my parents expect me to be the same as them, get a job, make more money. I don’t want to fucking make money. What’s the point about singing about anarchy here. What difference does it make? We’re a minority. I’m just going to sing about beer and getting drunk. Fuck singing about politics.”

He stops, calms about and apologises. “Sorry. I’m frustrated.”

The frustration that Mike feels is a common sentiment amongst the group of Jozi punks with which I hang out regularly. Caught in a post-apartheid, neoliberal, capitalist system. Most of them do have money behind them, but they see the nature of inequality and hate the fact that they do. Money is the evil, gained off of the backs of exploitation during apartheid.

The story of South Africa from 1994 is not a new one. Nelson Mandela was elected as the countries president, and the nation’s ideology was meant to shift to one that embraced a non-racial South Africa. (Tomlinson, et al; 2003) But looking back to 1979 and footage from a National Wake show held on Rocky Street in Yoeville, the project of apartheid only seems to have thickened. The footage shows a muli-racial crowd dancing to the multi-racial band National Wake.  In an interview with Ivan Kadey, rhythm guitarist and only surviving member of the band, he explained that the streets in apartheid were never segregated. 

It seems that now, in the wake of Apartheid even though the laws the held class, and racial divisions in check have been removed. A culture of fear in the growing disparity between the high rates of poverty and unemployment, lack of housing has taken on the new face of segregation. The symbol of this fear being high walls, an influx of security companies – privately owned and the growing number of boomed off areas, that have become common in the upper-class suburbs to the north of the city. As Louw suggest the adding of these security measures “encodes class relation and residential segregation (rass/class/ethnicity) more permanently in the built environment.” (Louw; 387)

The dismantling of apartheid gave way not to a mutli-racial South Africa, but a neo-liberal South Africa. The essence of this era’s “economic fundamentals” are based in the necessity of attracting foreign capital, redistributing income, expanding the economy, balancing local government budgets, and counter-acting the AIDS epidemic. But the problems now faced but the country and its citizens that need to be solved in order to achieve a just system, do not seem to be aligned with the outcomes of neo-liberalism. (Tomlinson et al; 2003)

More-over it seems as if South Africa is still part of a colonial project, or a project of the “West”. While it may be argued that the West has become an integrated part of globalized culture, the disparities between the so called “first” and “third” worlds still remains evident. Johannesburg being a prime example in the micro of this macro picture; having both the traits of a first world economy– in its thriving business hub of Sandton, and the third world - present in the decaying city centre.

The hope portrayed for the beginning of the new South Africa by advertising agencies and consultants had been that foreign investment and tourists would flood to the city of Johannesburg. But the perception of the city as dangerous and the economy unstable stuck. And neither tourists nor investment came willingly. Even as South Africa made the transition to a neoliberal agenda of privatization, a down-sized government, open-markets and wage restraints as were the international “best practices” – the Johannesburg city centre still has not restructured itself to be attractive to the international capitalist market. The city was deserted by the affluent white working class communities who retreated to the suburbs and to form their new economic centre in Sandton, as the city became the home to an influx of Africans from around the continent. This created a new hub of street traders, prostitutes and drug trading (Tomlinson et al, 2003).

Following its independence from the British colony South Africa was given the chance to remold itself. But the nature inherent in the structures of built society dictates a specific system of order - one that was inherited from the colonies. And Johannesburg as a city has not been able to break free from the ever looming presence of the Western World. We are still driven by its ideals, even though the majority of the population is in poverty, and with the introduction of privatised water and electricity the constitution promised in 1994 has been breached. What with Suez installing pre-paid water meters in Soweto in 2003, which led to massive water disconnections. (Bond; 122)

Around the world various groups and organisations have been standing up against the injustices of neo-liberalism, in South Africa the Anti- Privitisation Forum is at the fore-front. Their aim: to liberate electricity and water from expensive and unreliable meters. As well as to win access to basic lifeline electricity and water. (Bond; 124)

And within all of this turmoil, there is a group of middle class white kids inhabiting a park and playing music. For seemingly no end other than to play music. But on the inside there is more going on. As Mike’s rant shows, there are feelings of angst, guilt, frustration building up, of hopelessness of being an elite minority, of wanting a better world, in light of the poverty faced every day. And it is these ideas which I will explore within the context which I have so briefly outlined.

The Anti-Punk Propaganda Machine

In Richard Sennett’s article “The New Capitalism” he states that “the new capitalism is impoverishing the value of work. Becoming more flexible and short-term, work is ceasing to serve as a point of reference for defining durable personal purposes and a sense of self-worth; sociologically, work serves ever less as a forum for stable, sociable relations.” He goes onto say that because people are losing a sense of belonging related to work  that they are increasingly committing themselves more to be related to geographic places such as cities, nations and localities. While this may be true, there is another option of belonging that I would like to explore. And it comes down to music, and subculture, in specific punk rock.

Since its conception in the 80’s punk rock and its cultural form have been berated in the public eyes, seen as hooligans of a dangerous nature, set out to destroy your public property and your nation. The  propaganda against punk rock worked to some extent, the movement was described as either meaningless, with no ideology behind its fashion, or contradictory to its ideology of anti-capitalism. The truth of the matter is that punk created a new ethic which had the power to displace corporate and commercial ideals. 

That ethic was the spirit of DIY, do it yourself. Instead of adhering to the popular culture portrayed on MTV by musical conglomerates such as Sony and BMG who would never sign or give exposure to bands who were not of a commercial nature, the punk culture of the 80’s created a new social order of belonging.  They created their own labels, sticking to low-fi recording techniques, they created their own infrustracture of advertising and public relations using fanzines, commonly known as ‘zines’. Which did not need large budgets for printing as they were mostly black and white print. They spoke out against the middle and working class life style of consumption, and maybe even more profoundly were one of the first social movements which had an understanding of the need for something to belong to and identify with that was not centred on work ethic, but on a lifestyle that was centred around this new ethic of DIY. It is something that resonates in the underlying ideal of entrepreneurship which is so valued in South African economic growth today, except it was based outside of capitalism - as the end goal was not profit, but cultural expansion, the growth of an ethic and identification system not based in work as it is interpreted today, as Marx describes it in all its exploitative glory.  

Today punk has transformed into a global network. At the beginning of 2012 65 Indonesian punk youths from Aceh were detained, their hair shaved off, were stripped of their body piercings, and sent for religious rehabilitation to put them back on the correct moral path – they were seen as a threat to the Islamic value system. This event did two things, firstly it showed the extremist attitude against punk rock, and secondly it highlighted the fact that the global network of punk has expanded since the 80’s and has it in their means to fight against such social injustices as a group, who identify with each other more strongly than they do with their nationality, religion or place of work.

Spatial Time

There is something deeper to be said about the notion of “instant gratification” and punctuated time when looking into the industry of sex work and pornography. And it is evident in all the players. The prostitutes, their clients and a young group of anthropology students who sought, in a short instance, to find out more about how prostitutes spend their time on Oxford Road in Rosebank, Johannesburg. 

Report

This report will outline the events of the evening of Saturday the 31^st of March 2012, when said anthropology students set out to become voyeurs of the ladies of the night. As an anthropologist I could not help but study my peers as we embarked on this mission together. It would skew my findings if I did not.

We met at R’s house at 8pm, N was already there, she had been dropped off by her father. He was unaware of the plans for the night, although he was aware that she was there to do a project. I had gotten a ride with L. We convened in the kitchen and drank (rum for those still suffering the ills of the previous night, and coca-a-cola for those who were not of the drinking ilk) as we waited for the last member of tonight’s scouting crew to join us, A. The conversation revolved around sex, play parties and feminism.

A full hour late A arrives. We set off – walking towards Oxford Road, which is a few blocks away. The mood is jovial, conversation between N, A and I is focused on our research proposals. L and R are a short way ahead. They have stopped on the next corner, interrupting two prostitutes at work.

Error one: The prostitutes become hostile as R explains they are waiting for us, and gestures down the road. One of the ladies tells them to get out of their office. This momentary action has caused us to come under suspicion. We learn that travelling in a group is not a wise decision. For two reasons: firstly, it is not inconspicuous. Secondly, it is distracting.

We walk across the road, and lurk in some shadows. Discussing whether to walk on, split up or stay where we are, the decision is made to stay in a group. While we sit, smoking in the shadows. At 9.30pm a cop car rolls by, the ladies send off a whistle down the road, we assume this is to warn fellow prostitutes down the road that a van is approaching (but this is mere speculation). At 9.40 a silver combi pulls up to the corner that the ladies are standing on. They both approach the vehicle. After a brief discussion, one of the girls gets into the combi. The other is left on the corner.

The conversation in the group turns to how long the transaction will take from here on. R wanders how men can just rock up in the mood so quickly, he speculates it will take a while. I counteract him, saying 10 minutes maximum. R does not believe this is possible. The rest of the group join in. A concern comes up of how the ladies clean themselves after each transaction. Although they each have large bags, their contents are not known to us.

The lady that was left on the corner now makes her way down the road towards Corlett Drive. We wander if this is for safety, not wanting to be on the corner alone, or whether our presence has gotten to her, and she is moving to another spot. If it has she does not show a sign of it.

The other lady, who had gone with the silver combi, returns. The transaction has not taken more than ten minutes. R mouths his disbelief.

The lady is alone on the corner. At 10.10pm a man in black walks towards her. They talk, and walk up the road away from Oxford together. L and A set off to follow them. Another cop car drives past shortly after. We did not take down licence plate details. It could have been the same car. At 10.20 the lady who had walked towards Corlett Drive comes back up the street. She walks across the road, stopping midway on the island. She lifts her skirt (already so short that the cheeks of her bottom are sticking out) and flashes passing cars. She then takes some money out of her bag and counts it. She finishes this takes a bottle out of her bag, from where we are sitting it looks like wine, and drinks. She then makes a call. It is a short one, maybe two minutes. With the call finished she proceeds to whistle or yell “hey baby” at passing vehicles.

In this time L and A return, they have lost their targets. By 10.20pm the lady who they had set out to follow returns. She has hitched down her skirt, to below knee length and put on takkis. She looks respectable as she makes her way down Oxford towards town.

The lady on the island makes a phone call while yelling at us that “you will get what you deserve.” We choose this point to leave. The ethics of the situation, which we had been ignoring, now staring us in the face. We head back to R, N is getting picked up soon. We get back to the house and wait for N’s father. R wishes for L and I to stay so that it does not look as if N is hanging around with just R and A (both male). N’s father arrives, and she leaves. We retreat back to the kitchen to discuss.

We talk about the notion of time and living in a culture of instant gratification. Where if one has money ones desires can be fulfilled instantly.

Assessment

The concept of fulfilment has a deeper meaning in relation to time. If we argue that we live in punctuated time, then in this context, of the brief transactions between a sex worker and a client, this assumption would be correct. But this is in relation to a goal; if the purpose is to fulfil ones’ duty as a sex worker, or to obtain sexual gratification, or to study sex workers in periods of time. Then punctuated time becomes a reality, because if you are not fulfilling your task, then time is meaningless – in this context.  

If we look at the above story all that can be perceived from it is moments in time that seem significant to our aim, which is to see how prostitutes spend their time in between and during interactions with clients. The rest of the time becomes irrelevant. But time is nothing without movement in space. Which can also be dissected as time is in our analysis. What is important to this report is that we are on the street, so we do not describe the trees, or the cars driving by that do not stop. It becomes meaningless detail, because we are only reading meaning in relation to a specific goal; although our goal is not mediated by money but by information, which is a form of commodity to some extent.

But in this description it can be seen that firstly it is not just time, but space that can become punctuated. And secondly this perception of punctuation is in relation to a goal, and that the time and space that is not related to the goal at hand is meaningless.

This cannot be true in relation to how we actually perceive things if we want to maintain the idea that people move within time from past to present. That because we share the same space (this planet) that we all exist in the same frame of time. Time, and its meaning, becomes arranged around a subjective goal. Thus each person’s perception of time becomes subjective, as their space is subjective as is their goal. As is their perspective of what meaningless and meaningful time would be.

It seems that our current description of time is objective, that everybody adheres to the same time. But this is impossible because time is nothing without movement in space. And nobody inhabits the same space with others continuously. So at most we can say that time can be objectively spent with others, as in the case of the anthropologists studying the prostitutes in that their goal is the same; but subjective in relation to their previous experience through time and space, and their ulterior goals. But one could not assume that time is linear and we all exist in the same time, for we do not inhabit the same space.

The problem is the notion of moving forward and backwards in time - which creates the illusion that everyone is moving in linear time, from a point in the past to a point in the future and that time is punctuated by events. But in actuality it would seem that we live from meaningful moment to meaningful moment, with meaningless time in between; time that is not spent in relation to a goal. Time need not be conceived as linear but spatial. As our perception of past and future only exist within that space in time, in relation to other spaces in time.

Time is thus only noticeable in relation to the achievement of a goal, but the perception of the fulfilment of a goal must take place within a space. Because our perceptions of space are not linear, our perspective of time cannot be linear, and are not because we perceive time not in relation from one moment to the next, but in a mixed acquisition of thoughts about the present, past and future all embodied in different fragmented spaces.

Commodity Driven Economy?

In this paper I have focused on the position of labour in relation to commodities, matter and use-value. And it is in this relationship that we will find what Marx perceives the value of labour to be. I will also highlight the difference between what Marx believes an aimless expenditure of labour would be, and in doing so discuss the disjuncture present in South Africa in a commodity driven economy.

So let us dissect the terms. Firstly: Commodities. Commodities for Marx are constituted as commodities if they have either a) value or b) use value. Use value being the objects propensity to be useful. The qualities that Marx attributes to the use value of commodities are as follows.

11)      They are independent from the labour which produced them

22)      The use value of a commodity is only realised in its consumption

33)      It constitutes the substance of all wealth. Wealth being a societal construct. (What I believe this to mean is that the more useful a commodity is within a given society the more it is worth. For example a can opener in a society with no cans has no value, where as a can opener on an island full of canned food and no rocks would be an object of extreme use-value)

44)      The use value of a commodity is the material depository of exchange value

Now, how does labour relate to commodities? According to Marx if the same amount of work or labour time goes into the making of a product, then those products are of equal value. But value must also be measured in relation to quantity. The value of a commodity decreases as the quantity increases.  But increases as the quality and the amount of labour time that go into the commodity increase.  So we can see that more labour per commodity equals more valuable commodities, and conversely less labour per commodity equals less valuable commodities, in relation to quality and quantity.

In order for labour to create a commodity it must be introduced into productive labour in which it works with earthly matter in order to transform that matter into a commodity.  But in a capitalist society the labourer does not own the means of production necessary to produce commodities and so he must sell his labour power to a capitalist who owns the necessary equipment. In doing this the labourer exchanges his labour for money. The labourer must do this because wealth in a capitalist society is constituted by use-value, which is embodied in commodities.  He cannot purely do the amount of labour necessary to survive because the capitalist must create surplus value off of the commodities which he the labourer creates, but does not own. In order to create this surplus value the capitalist takes the production of commodities and reduces them to the effort of a group of labourers as opposed to a single individual. So if you look at a production line on a film set, take Labyrinth for example in which a mid-evil village is created out of poly euro thane. The set starts with the poly euro thane being set in moulds of brick walls. The moulded slabs which emerged must then be scrubbed, after scrubbing they are coated with coprox, and taken outside to dry. Once dry the base layers of paint are applied, and once again taken out to dry. Once dry they slabs are all taken to the set where they are constructed by the fabricators. After fabrication is complete another round of painting is done in order to accomplish the finished product. Each of these processes requires individuals to do specific tasks in order to create the greater commodity. So instead of producing one actual commodity each the necessary labours are divided. Because of this division and removal of the individual labourer from the commodity, the film set, the capitalist can make surplus value off his commodity because the value of it is related to labour power expended. But this, the labour power, is calculated amongst a group and not an individual. Surplus value is then further increased through extended working hours, and worker productivity.

So we can now see the relation of the value of labour to commodity under a capitalist system. It is clearly an exploitative one, in which the value of the labourer is degraded in the process of making surplus capital. It is a situation in which the labourer has very little control of his work hours and pay rate. But is forced into labour for he has no common land on which to survive with just simple modes of production like sustainable farming.

With this brief introduction to Marx’s theory of labour I would like to draw your attention to the difference between labour and the expenditure of labour power. Labour according to Marx is productive activity with an aim, whereas expenditure of labour power is productive activity without an aim. This baffles me slightly. What sort of expenditure of labour power does not have an aim? My guess is that because we are talking about a capitalist system the aim of the process of labour would be the production of commodity. This, I believe, is a terrible aim, probably worse than the Socratic drive for truth via logic. For this aim shifts the whole structure of society into a commodity driven economy. While it is true that commodities are a necessary part of an economy, the aim of a society should not be to produce commodities, but to ensure that people have the necessary commodities in order to live. As we can see in our South African society we have a surplus of wasted commodities, and a large rate of poverty and unemployment. The question I will pose you is how can this disjuncture be eradicated?