The Unconquerable Nut

Posted by

Every year corporate CEOs spend literally billions of dollars on human resource consultants and airport bookstore management books trying to capture what I shall call the Unconquerable Nut.  The Unconquerable Nut is that space in every working day made up of all the inefficiency, slackness, boredom, pilfering, resistance, poor morale, day dreaming, prayer, hangovers, anger, laziness, joking around, gossiping, and fear.  In the American Corporation, the Unconquerable Nut is viewed like the mercury in the body of the mighty salmon.  Every single one partakes of the toxin to a greater of lesser degree, but since every one has at least some of it, no one can taste the poison any more.

Most of the working day of any line manager is spent attacking the Nut.  One thing about the Nut is that the smaller it gets, the harder it gets.  This is a physical law.  One can sometimes change the size of the Nut, at least for a while, but no one can ever kill it.  I have worked in, observed, or read about hundreds of companies and there is only a single case that I know of where someone even came close to conquering the Unconquerable Nut.

And it all started with a dozen missing boxes of frozen chickens.

This is the true story about some chicken rustlers.  I did not experience these events first hand.  Rather, I saw and heard it all from an old high school friend of mine who I shall call Pete.  Pete and I happened to be attending the same great Chicago proletarian university in Chicago; the one circled by expressways.  It was in the early 1970’s.  I was going to college to acquire wisdom.  Pete was going to college to escape his mother’s nagging and dire warnings.  Pete was a strapping six foot tall bronzed jock whose real heart lay in the long interstate bike trips he used to like to take alone, wearing his signature cut down three finger shorts that titillated my mother so much.  His needs were few and he also happened to be very lazy.  So it didn’t take him very long to cast a cold eye on his education and fail to see the point.

He moved out of his mother’s apartment and got a job at a meat wholesaler in Haymarket, down the street from where the famous statue of the massacred policeman used to be.  He started as a dock worker, but even with his low level of personal interest in the company he somehow stood out and he was soon made into a sort of supervisor.  This added about 10 percent to his pay while taking away about 10 percent of the manual work he had to do.  He had enough to live on and he was happy.

I stumbled upon his secret life as a chicken rustler when I started noticing a disturbing improvement in his standard of living.  His rugged bent up Schwinn started to sprout custom Japanese made handbrakes whose shoes alone would have bought him a couple of sets of new tires in the recent past.  His wheels and tires themselves became thinner and lighter and were made from strange alloys not often found in the Midwest.  A tipping point came when I went by his apartment and saw a brand new Radio Shack stereo system so top of the line that it even had one of those little boxes on top of it with the flashing lights that told you that the stereo was even playing those sounds which could not be heard by the human ear.

“Okay, Pete, you hypocrite.  You’re dealing drugs.”  I said.

Pete was well known for his hatred of controlled substances and he swore to god that he wasn’t dealing drugs.  He explained that he had just been saving up his money.  But I had known him since he was still playing with GI Joes and I had never noticed him save up a single penny.  So I pressed him until he coughed up the truth.

“I’m a chicken rustler,” he said.

The company that he worked for was in the business of buying semi-trailer lots of frozen meats that they would then break down into smaller lots and sell “wholesale” to local stores and restaurants.  One could get almost any kind of meat from them, including raccoons purchased for the West Side trade, which Pete told me came with their paws un-skinned so that the customer would know that he wasn’t buying a frozen dog.  But the highest volume meat they sold was chicken; millions of dollars worth a year.

The company was a very busy and bustling place.  It had an open front like most of the other places in Haymarket and between the walk in customers and the clerks and drivers tripping over them trying to get out the place was rather chaotic.

Like any chaotic operation with low paid help, the Unconquerable Nut here was rather large.  One thing that was common was petty pilfering.  Almost everyone did it and it was impossible to police.  Even if management had hired a crew of cheaply paid security guards, it would have been no time at all before the guards themselves got into the action.  So like everything else in the Unconquerable Nut, the pilfering was bundled in with the laziness and inefficiency and added to the wholesale price of the meat.  Since all of the other concerns on the street had an identical Nut, the Nut itself did not give anyone a competitive disadvantage.

But one thing that can upset the flow of operations is if the Nut should suddenly get much larger for some reason.  A larger Nut will then cut into management’s expected tolerable returns forcing the management to take notice.

And this is what happened here.  Some worker who was not bright enough to respect the accepted dimensions of the Unconquerable Nut had moved beyond the acceptable pilfering of a case or two of chickens in the trunk of his car for the occasional barbecue into the organized stealing of ten or fifteen cases a day.  And worse, he was getting away with it.

Senior Management found themselves forced to put down their newspapers and coffee and start walking around in the cutting rooms, the sales floor, the freezers and coolers, the dock, and even the dispatcher’s office.  The ensuing collapse of morale only made the Nut larger and in the meantime no one could figure out how the chickens were leaving the premises.

Now in the heart of any distribution operation there sits a (relatively) well paid dispatcher.  A really good dispatcher is like having an ancient gunnery sergeant in a Marine platoon.  He knows his people better than they know themselves.  And his people work as well and smoothly as he wants them to, not for the good of the company but because he wants them to and they know they’d better.  In a big distribution operation, only a fool messes with the dispatcher.

But some fool seemed to be messing with him now.  And all of this management heat was pissing on his parade in a big way.  Plus, he was very indignant that something big was going on in the company that he didn’t know about.

The dispatcher went by the nickname of Popeye, because he devoted all of his spare time working on his pecs and biceps and only his pecs and biceps and he had massive arm muscles that started at his shoulders and seemed to go down all the way to his wrists.  This deluxe equipment was attached to a short body with spindly legs.  Popeye was well trusted by management, in part because he was an excellent dispatcher and in part because they were sure that he never pilfered any chickens since he was more or less locked in the dispatch office all day.  And they were right.  When Popeye needed a couple of boxes of chickens he would get Pete to pilfer them for him.  Thus a bond grew between the two men.  But even though Popeye was in the inner circle, the management still put in a pimply faced son-in-law of the owner in the office with him as a subtle hint that they expected Popeye to solve the mystery.

Once Popeye put his mind to it he solved it easily.  He was bemused to discover that the culprit was Leroy the clean up boy.  Leroy was esteemed by the senior management because they thought that he was mildly retarded and could both be paid less and also contribute to their reputation as a company that cared about the handicapped.

Any company that deals with large volumes of meat is going to have tons of indescribably disgusting garbage, and no one knew this better than Leroy.  He would come in the morning and pull the empty dumpsters in from the alley.  He would then line the bottom of one with cardboard and put in ten or fifteen cases of frozen chickens and insulate these with more paper and cardboard.  Then he would layer some rotten meat cuttings and other trash on the top of this so that no one would want to get close to it.  Before he left for the day, he would wheel the dumpster out into the alley along with the others and then come back at midnight and collect his stash.

So Popeye had his man.  And to underscore to senior management that it was he, Popeye, who had made the discovery, he quickly plotted a dramatic unmasking.  He would sit in a darkened car with the owner and a couple of the dock workers so they could hit Leroy with the high beams and enjoy the look on his face as he saw the light.

Most men would have stopped here, with a little management victory and a pat on the back and a quick return to the natural order of things.  But Popeye was not like most men.  He smelled an opportunity here.  So he kept his mouth shut for another week while he thought about it.

Leroy’s big mistake in Popeye’s mind, cunning though Leroy was, was to steal so much that he had noticeably increased the size of the Unconquerable Nut.  Popeye of course would never have used a scientific term like Unconquerable Nut, but he did know that there was a great deal of waste and inefficiency that was tolerated, not just in his company but in every company he had ever worked for.  How could Leroy have avoided his mistake?  He would have to only steal enough that it would still keep him within the boundaries of the Nut.  But Leroy was not in a position to know what those boundaries were.  Popeye, on the other hand, was.  So if he were to start an operation like Leroy’s, how would he do it?

Pete told me later that Popeye first thought about what he would have to work with if he could just gain control of the pre-Leroy pilfering.  Maybe 30 boxes of chickens were going out the back door a week before Leroy kicked it up to something closer to 100 and set off the alarms.  Popeye estimated that probably 50 boxes could actually go out without being missed.  He had no doubt that he himself could stop the petty pilfering altogether.  He knew who was doing it and a couple of high profile busts, especially in the current environment, would scare the hell out of everyone else.  Also, if he was the one who stopped the stealing himself, he would gain more trust with the management.  If he got control of the 30 boxes that were going out on average now and kicked it up 20 more, he would have a stockroom of 50 boxes a week to play with.

But could he expand on this?  He thought about where there might be more systematic waste.  He knew that the shop tossed out an additional hundred cases or so of meat a month due to “spoilage”.  A big operation like his company should have easily turned over all of its stock quickly.  But he knew that the stockroom workers were overworked and also rather careless and lazy.  So they didn’t necessarily pull out the old stock in the freezers to the front before they put the new shipments in.  Meat would unnecessarily go out of code.  If he were to recruit a good stock room worker to eliminate this spoilage (while still reporting the same level of spoilage) he would have another 25 cases a week under his control.

But was that enough for all of the work involved?  Would the up side be offset by the headaches of having to find a way to sell these 75 cases?  Would the costs plus the inherent risks outweigh the gains?

Popeye met with his pal Pete (whom he had decided to take into his confidence) and Pete came up with an interesting solution.

The drivers that drove the big frozen chicken trucks up from Dixie were all contractors.  The trailers always arrived locked and the truckers did not have the key, because with contractors it was well known that the roads could become very bumpy and things could easily fall out of the truck.  A staff member at Popeye’s company (in this case, it happened to usually be Pete) would unlock the trailer and then weigh some randomly selected cases to check for “shrinkage”.  The average weight of these cases would then be multiplied by the total number of cases in the truck to calculate the net weight of the shipment, which was the net weight that the company had to pay the chicken factory for.  Pete explained that this random checking was not all that accurate.  For one thing, he always rounded the ounces down to the nearest pound, since it made his calculations easier.  For another thing, there was usually a one to four percent spread between the stated weight of the meat in the truck and the actual weight that Pete calculated after he did his test.  Pete had never seen the chicken factories contest the weight that he calculated.

So what if they systematically increased the shrinkage calculation to an average of one percent of each shipment?  They could make it fall within the one to four percent window by, say, inflating the shrinkage when the actual shrinkage was low, and maybe not inflating it at all when the actual shrinkage weight was high.  This would in effect transfer one percent of the entire month’s chicken shipment to Popeye’s control with no one noticing.  Of course, Pete would have to keep a very meticulous inventory to make sure that they didn’t make the same mistake that Leroy had made.  But Popeye’s stockpile, if he were to add in the 75 cases he had already identified, would now grow to something like 600 cases a week.  Even if they sold these cases at 10 dollars a piece (a very low price) the operation would net over $300 thousand tax free 1970’s dollars a year.

Believing that he had solved his working capital problem, Popeye now turned his attention to his human capital.  There was no way that he and Pete were going to load up their car trunks with 600 cases of frozen chickens a week, even if they could find a way to get them out of the warehouse in the first place.  But he could dispatch them out with the regular orders if he could find reliable drivers.  He felt that he would need three and they would have to become part of the chicken rustler gang, since it would be very dangerous in the long run to send the chickens out on a one off basis with the other drivers randomly.  He would get each driver to deliver about 200 cases a week, an amount that would not be noticed by anyone.  To show that he was fair, he would split the proceeds of each shipment into thirds, with the driver, Pete, and himself each getting one share.  What could be more fair than that?  Of course, if the driver were to dig a little, they might notice that Pete and Popeye were getting a third of all of the income from the operation while each driver was only getting one-ninth.  So he would have to make sure that he found drivers who could drive well but not dig well.

Having worked out all of his capital problems, Popeye now had to work out the distribution issue.  He would focus his distribution on the West Side ghetto to those little barred window stores where all the stock clerks wore side arms.  He knew that places like this were always looking for a discount.  The safest route would be to sell only to already established customers,  But he had to do so in a way where his discounted sales didn’t cut into the company’s established volume with these people.  If his mother company’s sales were to go down because of his shadow company’s activities, the Unconquerable Nut would in effect grow larger (because it would be a larger percentage of the whole) and it might be noticed.  So the customers would have to be limited in the amount of Popeye’s chickens that they were allowed to have so they didn’t reduce the size of their regular order.

Popeye saw that there were now only two details to be taken care of before Opening Day.  First, like all entrepreneurs, Popeye had no idea how successful he would be at attracting customers out of the gate.  He needed a “cushion” of stock; of frozen chickens that he could draw on in the first week.  This he would get by suggesting to the owner that he personally do a meticulous inventory of all the stock the morning after they busted Leroy.  This inventory would “find” that Leroy had stolen 200 more cases than originally thought.

The second detail concerned whether Popeye could do anything to increase the overall efficiency of the mother company’s operation to give him more slack within the Nut.  If the overall productivity of the mother company grew, it would make the Nut look smaller in proportion and give Popeye more wiggle room with which to deal with contingencies that might arise.  So for the drivers, the stock clerks and the dock workers, Popeye would institute a rather draconian regimen of self-policing.  Nobody knows the Unconquerable Nut like those inside of it. Popeye knew all of their tricks for avoiding total efficiency and he (along with Pete and his three drivers) could stop or counteract a great deal of this.  The only place he himself could not control was the meat cutting room.  Here, he arranged for the second in command to bust the manager of the room for pilfering the week that Popeye sprung the trap that started his quiet little machine.  The fee that the second in command had to pay him for this promotion was to use all means to make sure that the cuts of meat were as large and as heavy as possible in order to increase the total income from them.  In other words, no more wastage of any sort.  Productivity had to increase here too.

The week that Popeye sprang the trap and opened for business was one of joy for the senior managers.  How they laughed and laughed when the high beams of the owner’s Lincoln caught Leroy red handed at the dumpster.  They were laughing so hard, they almost couldn’t find the strength to get out of the car and beat the crap out of him.  In the same week, the head meat cutter, a driver, and two dock workers were also caught stealing and were summarily fired.  Popeye and Pete’s subsequent down-to-the-bare-metal inventory took an entire weekend, during which they developed a new case rotation system that eliminated all spoilage (a development they kept to themselves).

Business boomed and the owners of the mother firm suddenly saw productivity and their profits go up.  The three drivers became model workers and stimulated their peers to become almost model workers as well.  Pete kept the dock workers and stock clerks in line and the company for the first time in its 100 year history a fully effective inventory system, even if the owners didn’t know it.  The five chicken rustlers had no more sick or mental health days, since each driver was more or less doubling his salary and Popeye and Pete were each pulling in a cool hundred grand a year.  Popeye installed a mistress in her own paid-for apartment a couple of blocks away from the warehouse.  This apartment was furnished with the best furniture that Aronson’s (“Home of the Credit Connection”) could provide, all paid for in cash.    Popeye also paid cash for two new cars.  The first was for a brand new Lincoln Mark IV (this was 1975) that he would park two blocks away from work and then switch to the second car which was a 1960 Buick Bel Air that he would then drive to work and park in the lot.  And Pete invested in some stereo equipment for the deaf, which I have already mentioned.

Despite the fact that my Catholic sensibilities were truly shocked at the diabolical beauty of this evil machine, I looked with further awe as the chicken rustler operation milked dry the possibilities of selling to the mother company’s current customers and started to develop their own customer base.  Some of these new customers they would pull back into the mother company’s own book of business, thereby expanding sales for all.  But some of the customers were exclusive to the chicken rustling operation.  To make sure that these customers did not become even accidentally known to his own managers, Popeye started to store the stock for them in the freezers of his other established customers to whom he paid a fee.  He thus turned some of his own customers into sub-contractors to deal with a storage problem.

Now one reason why the Unconquerable Nut is unconquerable is that it is the stage of worker’s resistance to the rules.  Like any prosperous capitalist operation, Popeye’s would develop its own unique labor problems and it was one of these that brought the whole company crashing down.  One of the drivers finally began to question the way the income was split.  He felt that each of the five chicken rustlers should get one-fifth, that is, twenty percent of the whole.  Popeye told him that the reason that the driver did not get that much, which incidentally would mean an 80 percent raise for the driver, was that each driver did not share in the work of the loads of the other drivers.  The driver replied that while that might be true, each rustler shared in 100 percent of the risk.  Word were exchanged.  Threats were made.  The driver convinced himself, perhaps from watching too much television, that if he went to the senior managers and busted the whole operation, they would treat him as State’s Evidence and give him a reward while firing everyone else.  So he went directly to the owner’s office and told the whole story and was fired on the spot.  A few minutes later, Popeye and Pete were fired and the other two drivers were fired when they reported in.

The only upshot to this was that Pete gave a mutual friend of ours who also happened to work at the place (Pete got him the job) but who was not involved in the scam in any way, his inventory and routing records, giving the friend a complete picture of the whole operation.  This friend was able to take this information, unravel the scam, but keep in place some of the efficiencies, which increased the owner’s margin.  His reward for this was to be promoted and the last I heard, after all of these years, he still works there.

What I have been trying to say with these essays about the used car lot and the chicken rustlers and such is this.  While I have focused on the criminal possibilities of the Unconquerable Nut, the Nut in fact contains all that is good with us as well.  The Nut is actually the human part of our working life.  When we talk about the human world, we always say that it has to include both the good and the bad.  In capitalism, the world outside of the nut is the world of efficiency.  Efficiency is the real and, I believe, the only value in a capitalist enterprise.  While the working definition of efficiency changes constantly, efficiency as a moral concept is so durable that it effectively makes capitalism a competing moral system to Christianity, which has its own durable concepts.

While there is no doubt that the used car guys were scum bags and the chicken rustlers were thieves, the reason they were all able to prosper in their day was that they were entirely successful given the formal moral order of capitalism.  The used car guys provided a legal service to responsible adults in a regulated free market.  The chicken rustlers increased the volume, efficiency and profitability of the mother company and were rewarded by a satisfied management.

The thing is, what separates our ethics from capitalist ethics is that the capitalist ones can be faked.  Capitalism firms always reach into the Unconquerable Nut to try to get people to love their jobs, love their customers, love their bosses.  Loving your job, your customers and your boss is a good, Christian thing.  But the moral order of the company wants you to do it to raise your efficiency, decrease the size of the Nut, and then advertise to the customers how sincere everyone is.

If you are getting a knee jerk impression here that I hate capitalism, you would be wrong.  I hate it when people deify capitalism and think that it is some kind of neutral economic system overlain with people who are either good people or bad people.  Capitalism is about efficiency and efficiency is, to be clear, really about robots.  The company that preaches its love of its workforce will nonetheless pull the plug the very second it needs to.

Finally, I will also admit that I think that faking it is not such a bad thing, necessarily.  All of us would rather deal with a clerk who appears to like us and be interested in us (using their management approved customer service techniques) than one who acts pissed off with us because they are having a bad day.  Any good rule is good enough if it simply creates compliance.  But the dirty little secret of rules is that compliance is the best we can expect with them.  A truly ethical life requires something more, something that cannot be faked.

Labor Day 4/4

Tags:

Send to a Friend

X
E-mail this Printer friendly

Comments

  1. Oh, damn, unagidon. You couldn’t just write a story that would do Damon Runyon proud. You had to go and make me think. Hmmm.

  2. Great story!

    I would say that capitalism is primarily about ownership rather than efficiency. Pete and Popeye grew the business they thought they owned. (That they actually didn’t was a small technicality to them until they got busted.) The thing that broke it open was a fight over ownership – the drivers thought they “owned” more than Pete and Popeye thought they “owned.”

    Most of the problems with capitalism come down to a disconnect between the people who own it and the people who run it. Fleabag managers not only screw employees they screw shareholders. One of these years, I hope to see the exercise of free speech between employees and shareholders; right now when you join a corporation you leave your right to free speech at the door.

  3. Unagidon, if you were a pastor or bishop you could have related other stories. Like what does the pastor do with the Christmas Collection and what are considered the plum parishes. And how pastors are able to go around the world several times a year and visit other choice vacation spots. How some still support their families, natural and acquired. And how the preferential option for the poor neatly fits into all that. What details you could give us…..

  4. Thanks – great parable. Think of the last 10 years in the corporate world – “right sizings”; “downsizings”; changing job definitions so positions can be legally dismissed, etc.

    This is the world we live in – the modern day parable that could be titled: The Parable on Stress.

  5. Bill Mazzella asks; ” And how pastors are able to go around the world several times a year and visit other choice vacation spots.” answer = mandatory celibacy????… (:

  6. “Leroy was esteemed by the senior management because they thought that he was mildly retarded and could both be paid less and also contribute to their reputation as a company that cared about the handicapped.” — I had to read that sentence several times over to savor it.

    The big picture is great, the small details are great, it’s just a joy to read. I am proud to be one of the first ones to have read it.

    But now I really need to know: who is unagidon? Maybe in real life he is a famous writer already, but who could that be?

  7. “Capitalism is about efficiency and efficiency is, to be clear, really about robots. The company that preaches its love of its workforce will nonetheless pull the plug the very second it needs to.”

    Is the hierarchy any different? It was alwasy preached by the status quo that it was a sin to criticize the clergy since the clergy by their very nature are other Christs or Alter Christus. Until you toast conscience first then you are toast since you have gone beyond the manageable nut. Yes there is CRS and Catholic Charities but those poor will not make it to the Alfred E Smith Dinner table. The Catholic seminaries are places which teach mediocrity because once you elect to act out your charism you are thrown out or excommunicated.

    I supposed it can be argued that Catholic Universities are places of mediocrity. But that is another story.

  8. Dear Jeanne,

    I agree that capitalism is primarily about ownership. But ownership sets the mutual rights of capital and labor to define efficiency. The concept of ownership is fluid and changes slowly. Efficiency (or productivity, execution, or whatever people are calling it at the moment) changes quickly. If I were a Marxist, I would say that it forms the primary daily battleground between capital and labor. But I am not a Marxist so I will say as a “senior manager” that it forms about 90% of what we think about when we think about our labor force.

  9. Bill said: “Is the hierarchy any different? It was alwasy preached by the status quo that it was a sin to criticize the clergy since the clergy by their very nature are other Christs or Alter Christus. Until you toast conscience first then you are toast since you have gone beyond the manageable nut.”

    I’ll have to say a big “maybe” to this, but this maybe may contain why it looks this way to so many reasonable people.

    If one in fact thinks that the whole of Christianity (or at least its spirit) is contained in compendiums of rules like the second half of the Catechism, then yes, there will be a premium on obedience and who is more obedient than a robot. But if one thinks that grace and the power of the Holy Spirit is a major part of the picture, the picture changes. The rules then can be seen to be stepping stones and reflections (dim reflections because radically incomplete) of Divine Love.

    If one has some kind of conversion experience it’s not that one does not need the rules but that one follows them in a different way with a different spirit. The best analogy that I can make regarding faith in this sense is learning a foreign language. You absolutely need the rules to learn the language. But as long as the rules as such are in your mind, you are a long way from fluency. Once you are fluent, you live the rules without thinking about them. Or so it seems to me. Faith and language come from the heart. Robots don’t have this kind of heart.

  10. Jesus said many will not enter and they will prevent others from entering. Catholic seminaries preach conformity over the spirit and obedience over conscience. Conscience may be in the textbooks but obedience is the sine qua non requirement. Further the leaders are not exactly exemplars of the gospel. What is stressed is the creed over behavior. subservience over service, domination over setting the captives free. There are no glad tidings for the poor while the oppressed stay oppressed and Romero gets robotic recognition. This is why you have nine papal visits to the US and only one for Haiti.

  11. Sorry, but capitalism occurs as soon as two people agree to trade something, whether it’s stock options or baseball cards. Currency just helps to oil the wheels of the transaction.

    Take all those trades, add ‘em all up, and you have an economy.

    Given that people are the ones doing the trading, sin enters in, and people get greedy, dishonest, wasted, make mistakes, and so on. I guess that’s one (but only one) aspect of Unagidon’s Unconquerable Nut. People will be that way whether it’s capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other ism.

  12. Bill, Rigid conformity to the letter rather than the spirit of the law has always been a temptation and a problem. On the other hand, defining the spirit of the law is a very hard thing to do, because one’s first impulse is to take that definition and start legislating it.

    If I can take the Catechism, the front part seems to me to be a discussion (and I do mean a discussion) about the spirit of the law. This discussion, and not the “laws” themselves at the end of the book is what I think is really wanted here. The problem is, if one calls the first part a “discussion” and the second part “radically incomplete”, people start thinking that one is saying the both parts are arbitrary. I guess the core of the question to me, that is the core of the mystery, is how can one have laws that are changeable (for we certainly have seen them change), but are not arbitrary?

    I suppose (if I can misread by paraphrasing Alasdair Macintyre here) the obedience that you are worried about is a stage, and a necessary stage of faith that one has to go through, a sort of leap of faith that these rules that seem so restrictive, arbitrary, and cruel are actually about something else that one will eventually find on the other side with grace.

  13. Jim, the capitalist system under which we live seems to us to be so natural that we all seem to think that it is generated by the simplest natural economic transaction. So without getting into a debate on the definition of capitalism, I will say that even if I accept your definition, selling 40 hours a week of your supposedly undivided attention to someone who is paying for it with someone else’s money, but who nonetheless gets all the rights to use your time, in order to sell things for which the buyer of your time has to create mostly from scratch can produce a daily environment that we need to understand very well. We all sin, of course, but we don’t quite get to sin the way we want. We are in a maze that is a certain shape and the maze itself leads us to certain places.

  14. Unagidon, your words can be described as “fishing for straws.” It is a wild guess answer that has been given by those who are afraid to confront the magisterium. I
    don’t think you are afraid of the magisterium. But you are buying its apologists.

  15. Bill, I entirely agree with your thoughts about the poison of the command to rigid conformity. Your (partial) list of all of the good things this causes to be excluded from our religious lives is true. But I think that if conformity in this sense is the problem (and it is) then substituting any other rules will in the end simply reproduce the problem. The key to the mystery of how we deal with a corruption of the rules which are nonetheless valuable rules is called conversion; a word that we can’t really even define. But it sound to me that you yourself may know exactly what it means. So all I can say to you is to keep fighting; keep kicking as hard as you can. But remember that people who may not have yet been converted and who actually are of good and honest heart probably are going to cling to this leaky lifeboat that we both hate.

  16. Bill and Unagidon – what you are talking about has been written: The Stages of Faith by Fowler.

    Excellent book that posits 8 stages that an individual matures on their journey of faith. The 2nd and 3rd stages equate best to folks who need a structure of rules and punishment in order to live ethically. This stage is usually associated with children upto the age of 16-18. During high school/college, individuals begin to integrate and internalize morality and ethics and they choose to live according to those internalized moral goals.

    Stages 6-8 begin to move someone beyond strutures such as denominational churches; rules of religion, etc. so that a faithful person can hold true to their ethics, morality even in highly situational, diverse, and arbitrary periods. Example – you grow to love the person without having to overly identify that person by their work, religion, status, etc. and see their goodness. It elevates relationship and the ability to pour oneself out and transcends political, religious, and social constraints or barriers.

  17. Unagidon, yes, the system is a certain shape, and the pathways lead in certain well-worn ways. It could be shaped differently, or the pathways could lead somewhere else – but it isn’t and they don’t. It’s the environment into which we’re born and into which we’re called to spend our productive lives. One might as well say that the air we breathe and the ground we walk on is a sinful construct. And indeed that really is part of Christian teaching – when Adam and Eve sinned, sin seeped into the very ground and polluted the air and marred the stars and planets.

    We have the brains and technology to reshape the earth, but that doesn’t detoxify the sin from it. We can rearrange the marketplace, among other ways by imposing rules and regulations of greater or lesser prudence, but human experience so far is that no human-imposed arrangements – solutions – have been able to quench the dysfunctional behaviors that spring from the Unquenchable Nut (or whatever you call it :-)), and most human-constructed systems simply intensify those dysfunctions.

    You’re also right that the social environments called the workplace and the marketplace constrains our ability to sin as we would like, but that is true of any social environment, whether it is the marketplace or marriage or family or the Dan Ryan Expressway. The rights of others always impinge on our absolute freedom.

  18. I agree with you Jim, but I don’t think it follows that the structure of the sinful environment we inhabit is therefore irrelevant. Capitalism in particular claims to be a moral order. It claims that its transactions, both in the market and between labor and management are, perhaps not intrinsically fair, but as fair as can be accomplished under the current circumstances in the market. The whole system of rewards and punishments under capitalism are claimed by capitalism to be fair in the same sense. People who claim to be good Christians actually build their entire lives and the lives of their children around these things and it is a fact that we as a nation support and expand capitalism by force of arms. So what this thing is exactly is very important indeed.

    Regarding the content of the “Unconquerable Nut”, I think I say that the Nut contains not only dysfunctional behaviors but ALL behaviors that do not contribute to maximum (i.e. 100 percent) efficiency. Now I think that it is the case that capitalism defines ALL of the behaviors within the Nut as dysfunctional because they define all of the behaviors outside of the Nut as functional. We look inside of the Nut and define some behaviors as functional and some as non-functional as we appeal to value systems that are extraneous to the capitalist value system.

    Regarding the term Unconquerable Nut, I wanted to produce a term that had the same sort of scientific weight as any formal economic category, as a sort of ode to the science of economics and a tribute to how much I value their categories.

  19. Bill, thank you for your comment. I will check it out.

  20. Bill deH, –

    At what stage does Fowler put the people whose whole project seems to be to criticize other people’s morals, politics, etc., etc.? That seems to me to be a particular type, one which has found its voice on the internet. Though its practitioners claim otherwise, it’s an essentially destructive project because it sees little or no good in other people.

    Fowler sounds like Kohlberg to me. Do you know if either of them give much attention to the failures of maturation at the various levels? It seems to me there are types of failures as well as types of moral success. My criterion for failure would be that the hang-ups at each level (failure) results in a sort of habitual destructiveness, not growth. For instance, at the tribe level of morality, failure to grow leads to at least attempted destruction of other tribes. Failure to think for one’s self at a higher level results in narrow minds which indulge in name calling and book burning and and over=simplified view of language.

  21. “human experience so far is that no human-imposed arrangements – solutions – have been able to quench the dysfunctional behaviors that spring from the Unquenchable Nut (or whatever you call it :”

    Jim P. , and unagidon –

    As I remember unagidon’s examples of the behavior at work that management wants to eliminate included things like gossiping and other forms of goofing off. To me these are not intrinsically dysfunctional. In fact, they should be part of human leisure, a topic that is given little attention in our old mad rush to make money for money’s sake.

  22. Ann – no expert on Fowler but criticizing is a maturation step – there are various ways to criticize – some responsible; some internal, external, some that make no sense.

    Fowler would explain that this maturation step is manifested differently at each stage – thus, a rules (2nd stage) individual will criticize anything that is outside of his/her rule structure; you would expect that someone will eventually outgrow that stage. The convential stage is number three.

    Example of what can happen when you are challenged to transition:

    “Factors contributing to the breakdown of Stage 3 and to readiness for transition may include: serious clashes or contradictions between valued authority sources; marked changes, by officially sanctioned leaders, or policies or practices previously deemed sacred and unbreachable (for example, in the Catholic church changing the mass from Latin to the vernacular, or no longer requiring abstinence from meat on Friday); the encounter with experiences or perspectives that lead to critical reflection on how one’s beliefs and values have formed and changed, and on how “relative” they are to one’s particular group or background. Frequently the experience of “leaving home”–emotionally or physically, or both–precipitates the kind of examination of self, background, and lifeguiding values that gives rise to stage transition at this point.”

    The point – across a population, you will find most people at stage 3-5. Per Fowler, very few people can interiorize and live stage 6. Unfortunately, you do see some internet, blog, talk media folks who have never moved beyond their adolescent stage 2-3 mentality or get paid to verbally express that stage of development in an adult world. The danger is – you can choose to lock yourself into a specific stage.

    Link to description of the stages: http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm

  23. “As I remember unagidon’s examples of the behavior at work that management wants to eliminate included things like gossiping and other forms of goofing off. To me these are not intrinsically dysfunctional.”

    Ann – quite right. Unagidon (as I understand it) doesn’t see all of the unconquerable nut as being dysfunctional (except for efficiency experts!)

  24. Thanks a bunch for the Fowler summary, Bill. Loads and loads of wisdom there. This particularly impressed me:

    “A factor initiating transition to Stage 3 is the implicit clash or contradictions in stories that leads to reflection on meanings. The transition to formal operational thought makes such reflection possible and necessary. Previous literalism breaks down; new “cognitive conceit” (Elkind) leads to disillusionment with previous teachers and teachings. ‘”

    This is what happens to many, even most, young people when they go off to college and their beliefs are challenged. But the Church makes no effort to help them deal with the contradictions in Church teachings, whether the contradictions in the magisterium from age to age, ora those intrinsic to the mysteries which are admittedly beyond reason.

    I find his notion of Stage 4, which requires an emphasis on individual thinking when moving from a relativist stage to an appreciation of absolute values particularly interesting. I fear Ratzinger would part company with this, given his emphasis on group-thinking. Fowler (according to the summary) does admit the need for both group-thinking and individual initiative. Still, how to resolve Newman on conscience and Ratzinger’s priority of group-think. That whole area needs a lot of attention.

    I think his Stage 5 sort of falls apart. According to the summary, “Its danger lies in the direction of a paralyzing passivity or inaction, giving rise to complacency or cynical withdrawal, due to its paradoxical understanding of truth”. This seems to be an acceptance that truth is necessarily paradoxical, which to me just gives up on the whole project of a rational life. I notice that Stage 6 is not concerned with being rational at all.

    Adapting to contradictions is a problem not only for religious people these days, it’s also a problem for scientists. Physics is full of contradictions. I saw recently that Nicholas Rescher, a fine philosopher/logician, recently wrote a book on how secular folks, including scientists, might deal with seemingly intractable contradictions. The theological epistemology I keep saying we need would also have to deal with this problems. I fear that young folks mostly just give up on the problem, and this is a main reason they’re leaving “religion” for a spirituality that is unconcerned with contradictions. Enter Zen again.

  25. To see the artificiality and strangeness of our notions about work, time and wages, I suggest watching any Warner Brothers cartoon about Ralph the Wolf and Sam the Sheepdog.

    Checkout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_and_Sheepdog

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment

Free e-newsletter

More Information