New Capitalism & The Prison Industrial Compllex

Reading Fast Capitalism, I was reminded of Michelle Alexander's book, The New Jim Crow. In it, she argues that the decline of a production based economy and its transformation into a service based economy has helped create a major boon for the Prison Industrial Complex.  Although she does not use the terms old and new capitalism, her argument maps onto Gee et al's notion that the new capitalism will exacerbate wealth inequalities and create a society of a very few haves and many have nots. To Alexander, this means that in the new work order, there will be many black people who are no longer needed for their labor, and thus there is the question of what to do with them. She posits the state decided to create a new industry - the prison industry to warehouse people no longer valuable for their labor. Her book is a genealogy of the concomitant rise of both new capitalism and the prison industry; I highly recommend it.

And Dr. Muth said Literacy wasn’t Infinite…

And Dr. Muth said Literacy wasn’t Infinite…

This week’s literature provides another way to define and think about literacy…
• Page 1 – Literacy definition includes social and cultural

Through the text, I confirmed that social and cultural influences contribute to literacy and interpretations of texts. The cultural and social aspects create a literacy environment that is infinite or constantly evolving and changing.
• Page 3 – Furthermore texts can be read in different ways…
• Page 5 - Events and education change readers literacy skills…
• Page 6 – Learners should be viewed as lifelong trajectories…
• Page 10 - We all have our own discourse…
• Etc.

Last week I asked how can educators account for the above literacy dynamics of readers. This literature attempts to provide the answer.
• Page 13 – Immersion or leaning inside the practice creates a world view…
• Page 15 – The connection between learning and participation in the mature discourse is clear

As I start interviews and immerse myself in the project, as suggested above, I hope to become a better educator and find tools for immersion in other topics.

"Old School" views on Fast Capitalism

From the reading "The New Work Order", a dilemma is brought to attention that I believe is of great importance. This dilemma deals with the workers who were trained in the ideals "old capitalism" and how they may or may not adapt to the new work order. The author paints a picture where these workers have widespread cynicism- believing fast capitalist practices "dupe" the worker into working harder and longer for less reward and with perhaps greater risk.

One of the pillars of fast capitalism is a progressive movement in how production and economic processes are organized. When I think of old school capitalism- companies like GM/Ford etc come to mind. There is an obvious hierarchy among employees and  all of the processes (think assembly line) are centralized- unlike the major motifs of fast capitalism (reduced hierarchy, decentralization, direct contact with customers). Essentially, big corporations (such as GM, Ford) would cease to exist in their current forms and would instead operate more like a local mom and pop company, as a more local and personal type of business erasing the companies long standing history, politics and economics (portrayed in the article as a "mom and pop" shop).

This type of business is the exact opposite of old school, where "standard" products were sold in LARGE quantities to people who wanted to become standardized (once again, think assembly line). The idea behind this was that all Americans desired the same goods and that companies saw standardized consumption as a good thing. Do I think that the old school outlook can continue to exist and deliver results? Absolutely not. I think the text clearly explains that customizing consumer desire > democracy and I believe that's the direction we are trending towards.

Feedback is a gift

When I was presenting my project in class last week, it seemed that my "literacy event" wasn't clear to the class so I thought I would take Dr. Muth's advice and blog about it. I talked to Dr. Muth and Lauren for a few minutes after class last week, after talking to them and doing some research over the weekend I think that I've found something that will work better for my project. Since we receive the same 4-5 questions about the new retirement plan, I'm going to concentrate on why these questions keep coming up over and over again. If the answers to these questions are in the handbook provided by VRS, why are they still repeatedly coming up? Why is this certain information so confusing and hard to understand? I'm hoping that altering the course of my project in this direction will allow me to have abetter experience with this project.

Feedback welcome!

New Capitalism Meets Reality

Reading Gee’s chapters on the “new capitalism” with promises of an “enchanted workplace” could be quite compelling. Except that I already work in the “new capitalism” so it doesn’t feel very new at all. In fact, it's the only work environment that I have known, ranging across several different organizations. I’m also quite sure that I haven’t used the word “enchanted” or “utopia” to describe my job beyond the sugar high induced glow of new hire orientation. There are a lot of promises in his words that can sound tremendously appealing if you haven't experienced that world yet. I do give him credit for having a clear vision about a new world order in the late 1990's. He does describe some aspects very accurately.

“Workers hired from the neck down only had to follow directions and mechanically carry out a rather meaningless piece of the process…” (Gee, p. 26). This statement makes me want to study workers from the post World War II who had production jobs. How did they really feel? Were they empty inside because their jobs didn’t have meaning? Were they secretly wishing for more? What did they want to do instead? What were their dreams? Because I’m quite certain that they didn’t dream of working in cubicles, where they sat on conference calls for 10 hours a day. Did they want to be doctors or lawyers? Did they want to go to college? Or were they like Rosa and felt tremendous satisfaction in the job they were able to do? Did they feel happy to pay their bills and feed their families? Were they too tired to want more? My assumption is that there was a mix of both, just as there is in today’s workforce. No sweeping conclusions can be made about any generation’s level of satisfaction with their work. We are each very different people, with our own set of hopes and dreams.

Gee’s writing reminds me of Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X is based on the premise that building a team of specialists will create a workforce who learns faster and will do a more efficient job than a team of generalists. Lewin developed Theory Y as a reaction to Theory X, giving workers a voice in the process, which is very similar to Gee’s “new capitalism”. Lewin focused not only on productivity but was the first to understand job satisfaction. Gee takes it one step further and refers to them as “knowledge workers” who have choices and inputs into the process.

It’s fair to say that many of us have evolved into Theory Y in today’s workplace. But are we happier? Gee makes promises of utopia and finding meaning in our work in his text. How many of you find meaning in your work (besides Greg)? It seems like we have evolved right past the point of job satisfaction. Now that we have the ability to become self-actualized, can we find happiness? Or will we constantly be searching for more? Searching for the next mountain to climb. The next goal post. The next challenge to overcome.

Have we outsmarted ourselves? Shawn Achor still thinks happiness is possible – link to his TEDtalk is below. I hope it’s 12 minutes that will give you a reason to smile and to give you some hope.

http://www.ted.com/talks/shawn_achor_the_happy_secret_to_better_work.html

Start 'em young

I thoroughly enjoyed the chapters we read for this week about the new capitalism. I am not a fan of capitalism anyway, but this reading helped me explore it from a different angle. When we rely on the workplace for literacy and learning, it creates a serious dependence on the capitalism structure. I think that it is very dangerous to tie all of these things together. What about people who raise children or who have disabilities that prevent them from learning? They are missing out on the benefits of being in the workplace. Basically, what the new capitalism does is attach a worker to their workplace with Discourse. It says “you are your job” and “you are what you own.” This is so alienating. What was even more disturbing was on page 31, when they talked about how this change was taking place earlier, in school. Start ‘em young so that the buy in to the capitalist discourse occurs before their time on the job.

I am beginning to see organizational discourse as a structure and how it requires employee buy in, which often blurs the line between an employee's public and private lives. There is so much that is wrapped up in this capitalist discourse—pushing business programs in college so that students have a “practical” background aka early indoctrination into the discourse. I could even link this to other things, like companies scaring their employees into staying in their jobs because it was better than teaching the organization’s own discourse to new employees.

While I was reading the chapters, I began to jot notes down about my own project. I would like to examine the how the levels of the discourse of the Travel Authorization Form create tension in the organization—such a huge part of these two chapters. How does my project change around a newfound focus on the background of the learners and their own personal buy in to the organization? I can probably find different skill levels in my department. How can I change the questions based on different levels of literacy AKA indoctrination into the dominant discourse, which is pretty much what a TAF is. What would be hard for an outsider to learn? I am looking forward to exploring these ideas through my interviews and research!

Gif from Community episode "Art of the Discourse" from here.

New Discourses

As I read the first chapter of The New Work Order, I couldn’t help but think of my own workplace. Last class I briefly mentioned my agency is in the process of rebranding its key messaging, which includes mission, vision and core values or, as Gee calls it, a new Discourse. The readings certainly provided a new and more critical way to view this process, but how my agency has gone about the process has been closely aligned with what Champy cites as necessary to “mobilize the business…up down and sideways so that everyone is in the know”(20). To illustrate my point, our new core values were created by inviting a cross-section of staff, part-time direct care workers to meso layer supervisors, to participate in various focus groups. Staff were prompted with a series of questions about working at the agency, and their answers were recorded and analyzed for reoccurring themes (similar to qualitative coding). The themes were then wordsmithed into five concise statements, staying true to only using words articulated in the focus groups. They were then presented to the executive team who enthusiastically gave their stamp of approval. The new values will be rolled out mid-March and include a video about how the values came to be so all staff have the opportunity to know why, how and who crafted them.

 I can see advantages and disadvantages of new capitalism, and I think it’s from experiencing very different situational workplace contexts. Had I read these chapters two years ago when I was teaching for the county, concepts like empowered worker and enchanted workplace would have added to my brewing resentment. As a teacher I rarely felt in-the-know, especially when we were told we had to take on new initiatives without any explanation of their purpose. I remember the new superintendent coming in and making so many changes that left teachers mumbling schools were the new corporate businesses of the world. In the teaching context I never felt authority was redistributed throughout, although I did find some improvement upon entering Adult Ed.

 Regardless, maybe I’m missing something. Is it impossible strike a balance between old and new capitalism? Gee reads like it’s one or the other but I can’t imagine a world that doesn't have some kind of competing values…or change?

Discourse Analysis - Part II

This week my generative term is “discourse analysis.”  The reading, The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the New Capitalism, states “a Discourse is composed of ways of talking, listening, reading, writing, acting, interacting, believing, valuing, and using tools and objects, in particular settings and at specific times, so as to display or to recognize a particular social identity.” (Gee, p 10). 

 What I found interesting about this term/concept was the way it was used as an analytical lens to evaluate changes in the workforce from a social cultural approach and more importantly, portend the potential consequences associated with these changes.   In short, the following table reflects my understanding of the authors' emerging demographics of the global workforce: 

Skill–Knowledge Level & Earnings	Percent of Workforce	Gee’s New Discourse (p  26)	Reich’s Categories of Work (p 46)
High	20%	New Bosses (now coaches & leaders)	symbolic-analytic services
Middle	20%	New middle managers (now team leaders)	in-person services
Low	60%	New Workers (now associates or partners or knowledge workers)	routine production services

The authors portend that these new Discourses, and their associated categories of work, will result in a rising highly paid and valued “top fifth” supported by a lowly paid and undervalued bottom four fifths – relegated to this fate due to their “lack of knowledge and education” which results in their inability to “value add[1]” (Gee, p 47).  

I found this same type of dire forecast in book written by Teresa McCarthy, titled Language, Literacy, and Power in Schooling, who used a similar framework to articulate the same concerns as Gee and Reich – but in 2006 --- ten years after The New Work Order book was published.  This incorporation of Gee’s (et al) research in a book published ten years later only reinforced my belief in the power of discourse analysis. 

Skill–Knowledge Level & Earnings	Percent of Workforce	Language, Literacy, and Power in Schooling, McCarty,(2006)
High	20%	symbol analysts
Middle	20%	low level technical workers
Low	60%	service workers

But the Discourse analysis framework also provides hope.  Hope because we can become the catalyst for change – especially those of us who are bi-Discoursal.  In particular, Gee’s states that:

….bi-Discoursal people (people who have or are mastering two contesting or conflicting Discourses) are the ultimate sources of change, (p 14)….and that “The entire history of Discourses is a history of struggle, contestation, and change. Far from always losing, 'non-mainstream' people often win, and sometimes, for better or worse, they become a new 'mainstream', a new center of social power.”

---

[1] Possess the knowledge it takes to innovate, design, efficiently produce, market, and transform products and services, (Gee, p 28)

Caught up In a Discourse

     I realized one of the reasons the readings from two weeks ago caused me so much consternation.  Hypertension may be a better word.  It took this weeks text to help me realize it.  I enjoyed the concept of a Discourse, and it's holistic and encompassing view of literacy, culture, beliefs, world view, etc.  I also saw the potential for conflict between different Discourses.  However, I didn't necessarily agree with all of the authors' positions regarding law school and socioeconomic status.  I realize they were just using this as an example or framework to work from, but their sociopolitical leanings and beliefs were obvious.  That's when I finally understood that I found myself in the middle of an adult educator Discourse!  Adult educators have a shared set of values, beliefs, ways of writing, ways of interpreting writing, culture, etc that are the unwritten rules of their Discourse.  These all come through in their work, whether it be theoretical or researched (in their own ways by their rules!).   So what I had been interpreting as bias and research flaws (coming from a medical Discourse) might just be standard operating procedure for this particular Discourse.  Points of view and tenants that I disagree with may be considered assumed truths in this Discourse.  It was also enlightening to see that after over four years of indoctrination I clearly have not swallowed the cool aid.  No mind control for me.....

The Enchanted Workplace

I am sure that whoever coined the phrase "enchanted workplace" meant for it to signify a wonderful new world full of meaning, opportunity, and promise.  However, for me, the image brings to mind the enchanted castle in the Disney film, Beauty and the Beast, where all of the household servants (personified as household appliances based on their particular duties) are singing and dancing to the song "Be Our Guest."  Held against their will by a spell that was cast on them, they cannot be free until the enchantment is broken. As Gee, Hull, and Lankshear point out in The New Work Order, there is always a dark side to enchantment.  Not only does the enchanted workplace promise meaning and fulfillment, but it is also "easily vulnerable to abuses of power and [to] the elaborate manipulation of people and values" (p. 34).  In order for the enchanted workplace ideal to function in reality, employees need to be willing to make a full commitment to the team and its core values.  Otherwise the enchantment is broken.

The problem is that an organization's core values and mission are not usually written with the employees themselves in mind as the audience. More frequently, the organization is trying to project a certain image to the consumer or client, or they are catering to higher authorities within the organization.  In many cases, the average employee has very limited input in the formation of these organizational pillars.  Thus, it creates a gap between the espoused beliefs of the organization and the realities that actually drive it.  Employees may not be able to connect with the organizational culture and may not understand how their work and behavior tie into it.

Disney is actually a great example of this, and I had to laugh when I saw that they were listed as one of the examples in this article.  As a college student, I spent one summer working in a local Disney Store as a sales clerk/cashier.  Frankly, I used to find it hilarious how hard they tried to indoctrinate all of their employees into the "Wonderful World of Disney."  We were told to refer to our customers as "guests," even when they were not within earshot.  Furthermore, we were not "employees" or "cashiers," but "cast members" called to uphold Disney's magical image.  We did not "take breaks"; instead, we retired to the "green room."  Also, nothing in the store had a price tag.  We were told that it "takes away from the magic."  If a guest really wants to know, then they can ask.  Our participation in the company jargon was halfhearted at best.  We were all keenly aware of the fact that we were working minimum-wage retail jobs, and there's nothing magical about that.  Even the customers would look at us strangely when we welcomed them as "guests."   Or when they looked around and couldn't find any price tags on the toys.  It just seemed impractical.  We were not buying it, so why should they!