In Defense of Good Work: Jobs, Violence, and the Ethical Dimension

Without work, all life goes rotten, but when work is soulless, life stifles and dies.--Albert Camus ON JANUARY 29, 2002, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH DELIVERED STATE OF THE Union Address to Congress. One of his key messages was the importance of employment creation: "When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs" (Bush, 2002). Throughout his address, he used the concept of a "good job" without ever defining it. Given his actions as president, it appears that a "good job" is simply a synonym for a "job." Such an interpretation would be consistent with macroeconomic theory, which considers the creation of new employment, any employment, to be a healthy economic sign. More jobs mean less unemployment, which in turn assumes that there will be a more dignified living for a larger percentage of the population. As long as jobs are created, regardless of the product or service delivered, or the consequences to individuals, communities, or ecosystems, the economy and the society as a whole are viewed as progressing. In recent decades, many authors have sought to reclaim the nobility of work and its sense of social responsibility (e. g., Terkel, 1975; Roszak, 1979; Schumacher, 1979; Bellah et al., 1985; Martin, 2000; Gardner et al., 2001). They differ in their analyses of the roles of the economic system, new forms of technology, and a consumerist society in degrading work to a profiteering and numbing enterprise, but they all agree that work devoid of an enlarged sense of ethics is a mediocre activity at best. This article continues this critical view by supporting the concept of quality of work, as opposed to quantity in the abstract. Although I accept the importance of full employment, it must be analyzed hand in hand with the type of work that is done. Is it work that ennobles the individual, seeks to improve community living, and protects the integrity of rivers, mountains, and deserts? Or is it work that deadens the soul, destroys community life, and poisons the environment? This article will not focus on the more conventional "professional ethics," a series of principles of conduct that all members of a profession should abide by (e.g., be competent, display prudence, avoid carelessness, protect the welfare of clients). Although these principles are commendable, work is not just about following the highest standards of one's profession, or even about a living wage and better working conditions. Work is also about self-discovery and discovery of the universe. Work, when it is dignified and interesting, is about losing oneself in the task at hand and realizing that people's identity exists within the chore itself and beyond it in a wider world. Good work is ultimately a morally infused endeavor directed toward the social good. This article encompasses three sections: the first explores the notion that professional ethics are important, but are insufficient for bringing forth the wider "reverence for life" necessary for dealing with the current social and environmental malaise (Schweitzer, 1955). The second section critiques the belief that in the name of self-interest, technique, or efficiency, any production process or its end result is acceptable. The third section focuses on the difficult choices poor people face when deciding between self-preservation and self-actualization. Professional Competence Versus Ethical Mysticism An acquaintance of mine, whom I will call John, works for Lockheed Martin, the world's largest military contractor. A highly competent aerospace engineer, he graduated from a prestigious university. He designs, develops, and tests components for various military and civilian products. As an African American from a working-class background, he is proud to be the first in his family to graduate from college. Thanks to his salary, he helps to support his parents and he bought a large, comfortable house in the suburbs. …