'How to be Idle' by Tom Hodgkinson

[eric claptop]

This a nice little introduction to the book

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Saturday in the bookshop

If he thinks he's going to get any idling done there, he's obviously never worked in a bookshop on a Saturday.

[Clinton Morgan]

I should put this in 'Things That Fuck You Off' but I was watching 'Grumpy Old Women' and to watch them all complain about people who work in shops made me feel fucked off. " They sit there bored." Of course they're fucking bored, they're young and capable of so much more in life. Shop work should be made compulsory, like national service.

[smoker]

return of 3 day week forecast

[xjem]

Ive been a lurker on here for years and rarely post a thing, but this has made me leap..( somewhat lazily ) from the shadows and proclaim you all as my brothers hehe....I dont work, havent worked for about a year and even then it was in Argos warehouse for a few weeks before christmas, till i walked out , I completely agree with these opinions about work and have never EVER seen anyone else express them...

I am the only one now in our "group" of friends who is chronically unemployed, my mate was the same for years until he got married a few months ago and his misses is preggers, now he is forced to work a job he hates because basiclaly he is trapped in it, he has told me that if he was still single he'd have walked by now, but he cant.  We see the world differently and i know that the wifes in our group have a tolerant, but slightly hostile view of me when one of them is a teacher, and another an accountant. My now working mate is dying to quit but he cant because they now have a mortgage and he is quite literally trapped!  I have to admit I am not spending much of my time doin anythin great, I too play a  bit of guitar, read on here ( the net ) and yeah, i watch way too much tv, but i have also thought deeply over the years about my life and what would happen if i could be one of those people, you know who probably hate their jobs too, but just accept it and get on with it day in day out, and i choose my life anyday, on the rare occasion me or my mate were working in the past, it would be the one who was working, who was envious of the one that wasnt,lol, everyone else seems to be the opposite, anyway i could go on all day but enough already, surely trisha is on.

[smoker]

so how do you live, where does your money come from?

[xjem]

Signin on, all you need to do is apply for about 2 jobs a fortnight, knowing that you arent qualified or you wait a week before appplying and hope its gone already etc, then write a jobsearch sayin i called in such and such a shop and asked if they had work, I looked in newspapers, asked friends etc.....

[smoker]

i'm not having a pop or anything, but don't you ever feel a twinge of guilt about living off the taxes other people pay with their hard work?

[slim]

return of 3 day week forecast

I read that this morning. Another example of shining capitalism. Never mind the old people who'll be dropping dead because they can't heat their homes, so long as we keep our businesses ticking over for three measly, economy-stalling days a week. Gahhhhh.

[Clinton Morgan]

Taken from
http://money.guardian.co.uk/workweekly/story/0,,1645620,00.html

Idle thoughts

Ikea wants us all to stop working so hard - and surprise, surprise, it reckons shopping for furniture is the secret to enjoying more free time. Come off it, says Tom Hodgkinson

Saturday November 19, 2005
The Guardian


I'm sure that many of you will have seen those new Ikea ads. Against an elegant photo of a couple browsing the bookstalls by the Seine or an ecstatically happy young male model frolicking with two kids in the park, we read the line: "Welcome to life outside work."
Ikea says we work too hard. It has produced a website presenting the results of a survey that says we would like to spend less time working and more time browsing or playing. On that we can all probably agree. But with Ikea's proposed solution to this problem, that we should all shop at Ikea, I would beg to differ.

The argument runs that because Ikea is cheap, we won't need to earn so much money, which means, in turn, we won't have to work so hard, which means we'll have more time for having fun.

The most obvious flaw behind this idea is that trips to Ikea exhaust huge amounts of time as well as inordinate amounts of mental and physical energy, leaving couples and families close to death from exhaustion and bickering. Far from being conducive to happy family life, trips to Ikea end at best in furious rows and at worst in divorce.

On one's return from the hellish warehouse, of course, there is the additional task of assembling the blimmin' furniture. It took me an entire weekend of swearing to assemble and install three Ikea kitchen units - and I was lucky enough to have an experienced Ikea-assembler staying with me at the time.

So, far from saving me three and half days of work, as the Ikea online "work hours saved calculator" would suggest, I calculate that the whole operation (time and money added together) cost me 10 days of free time. And that doesn't include the work I had to put in to buy the petrol and the car in the first place.

That's not to mention the other flaw in Ikea's logic: namely, that by spending £1,000 you are somehow saving £1,000. Excuse me, but when you spend £1,000, you have not "saved" £1,000. You have, in actual fact, spent £1,000.

I have a much better idea. If you want to go to the park and open a bottle of wine, then simply forget about the Ikea kitchen - just buy a bottle of wine and go to the park. That will save you £995, and possibly your sanity and marriage into the bargain as well.

[Mr. Analytical]

I'm reminded of the beginning of Fight Club.

[humanleech]

A lot of insight on this thread. As a mentally ill person I receive about £170 a week plus housing benefit. This may well sicken you, but there it is. I feel a bit guilty when I go to my lcal deli, who provide a brilliant service but it'll take them at least three years to start making a profit, which I suppose is why the vast majority of small businesses fail within the first year, or just give up under the pressure of working 60 hours a week with the prospect of not making ends meet for the foreseeable future.
They're blighted by the vicious food chain dominated by supermarkets and agribusiness and are having a lot of the joy taken out of work which should be enjoyable and interesting.

So even 'being your own boss' isn't really being your boss at all.

[Evil Knevil]

So even 'being your own boss' isn't really being your boss at all. Bloody ridiculous.

No-one is ever their own boss under capitalism.  Even the boss (bourgeosis) is now chained to the techno-logical forms of domination that make us into slaves.

[Mr. Analytical]

No-one is ever their own boss under capitalism.  Even the boss (bourgeosis) is now chained to the techno-logical forms of domination that make us into slaves.

 ...and the jews and the giant lizards.

[Ciarán2]

I think we are a society of guilty consumers.

I got to thinking this after being approached by the 15th charity worker of the day, who wanted me to sign up for Concern. So I said "No", as I now always do, and I felt guilty. And I went and bought a record.

Something interesting happens when you're approached by a charity worker. You have to decide. Do I walk by? Do I stop to talk? Do I treat them politely or gruffly? Do I explain my reasons for not signing up? A heck of a lot of things go on.

But I don't think for a moment that charity workers set out to cause guilt. They are doing something for a good cause and they themselves want their commission. Fair enough.

But I agree that there is a two-pronged attack going on at an ideological level. We must consume to be happy. Own a car or a house. Buy the right kind of trainers. Buy records and clothes.

We must also feel guilty, to fuel this consumption. We must recognise that there are starving people around the world, people living under oppressive regimes and we must recognise that it is to some degree our fault. It's a wonderfully vicious circle.

Anyway, I'm going to get Tom Hodgkinson's book. It sounds interesting.

[humanleech]

So even 'being your own boss' isn't really being your boss at all. Bloody ridiculous.

No-one is ever their own boss under capitalism.  Even the boss (bourgeosis) is now chained to the techno-logical forms of domination that make us into slaves.

Yes, I agree. I don't know why I put 'bloody ridiculous' there, it goes without saying.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

But I agree that there is a two-pronged attack going on at an ideological level. We must consume to be happy. Own a car or a house. Buy the right kind of trainers. Buy records and clothes.

Do you think like that? I'm not sure I do. If I want stuff (red wine, Seinfeld DVDs, 'How to be Idle' by Tom Hodgkinson), it's because I want it for what it is. Isn't it? I bought a coat yesterday, and I got an ultra-cheap one from the dodgy shop around the corner. Adverts? I blank them out. They're white noise.

So...am I fooling myself?

[humanleech]

I think we are a society of guilty consumers.

But I don't think for a moment that charity workers set out to cause guilt. They are doing something for a good cause and they themselves want their commission. Fair enough.

But I agree that there is a two-pronged attack going on at an ideological level. We must consume to be happy. Own a car or a house. Buy the right kind of trainers. Buy records and clothes.

We must also feel guilty, to fuel this consumption. We must recognise that there are starving people around the world, people living under oppressive regimes and we must recognise that it is to some degree our fault. It's a wonderfully vicious circle.

Collecting for charity made me feel slightly ill because it brought me face to face with people who are trying to compensate for their guilt at the 'pleasures' they've bought just down the High Street, which are probably illusory anyway, and will just leave them wanting more. Starvation of pleasure goes with starvation of children. Seeing that in their eyes is too much. so I don't do it any more. Just as you say, guilt is part of the process.

[Ciarán2]

But I agree that there is a two-pronged attack going on at an ideological level. We must consume to be happy. Own a car or a house. Buy the right kind of trainers. Buy records and clothes.

Do you think like that? I'm not sure I do. If I want stuff (red wine, Seinfeld DVDs, 'How to be Idle' by Tom Hodgkinson), it's because I want it for what it is. Isn't it? I bought a coat yesterday, and I got an ultra-cheap one from the dodgy shop around the corner. Adverts? I blank them out. They're white noise.

So...am I fooling myself?

I think it is impossible to entirely blank adverts out. You already recognise that you are blanking something out. What are you blanking out? And why are you doing it? Adverts don't just operate on the obvious level where Daz or whatever tries to convince you that their washing powder is the most effective. All adverts necessarily promote ideology. So Daz adverts also contribute to the notion that our clothes must be clean, must be "whiter than white"? You might do better to actively pay attention to adverts, ironically. Next ad-break you see, look beyond the obvious message and look at all of the assumptions going on. Notice the way sexual relationships are portrayed, how families are depicted, how class issues are tackled (or left untackled). It's not just that such and such a bank is better than such and such another bank, the message is that banks per se are benevolent.

When you choose to shop in a charity shop and buy a cheap coat or when you buy a Seinfeld DVD, consider all of the factors which influence this decision. Of course, you like the coat and DVD. And you might feel its more ethical to buy from a charity shop (and it does show that you have good taste in this sense). But you're still reacting against something. Not that there are just 2 choices. You are entering into a discourse, you align yourself to a particular strategy. You are forced, through ideology, to make a decision and take a position.

[Sam]

Adverts don't just operate on the obvious level where Daz or whatever tries to convince you that their washing powder is the most effective. All adverts necessarily promote ideology. So Daz adverts also contribute to the notion that our clothes must be clean, must be "whiter than white"? You might do better to actively pay attention to adverts, ironically. Next ad-break you see, look beyond the obvious message and look at all of the assumptions going on. Notice the way sexual relationships are portrayed, how families are depicted, how class issues are tackled (or left untackled). It's not just that such and such a bank is better than such and such another bank, the message is that banks per se are benevolent.

That's quite indepth. Have you read Barthes? I love his essay on soap powders and detergents in "Mythologies". A great selection of essays, and most of them very witty and playful too.

[23 Daves]

I find it's when you don't pay attention to adverts or let them slip by that they have their greatest effect.  I've caught myself buying products purely and simply because they've been heavily advertised, almost without thinking about it.  The last item?  Why, a tube of "King of Shaves" sensitive skin shaving cream, which until it was advertised heavily on XFM I didn't even notice existed.  And I have to tell you, it's not really that much better than the usual (cheaper) stuff I'd otherwise buy.

Chocolate adverts or adverts for drinks will sometimes find me walking towards the fridge as well, or "reminding" me that I'm a bit thirsty.  I'm glad I still have enough sense about me to catch myself doing it, but I'd be deluding myself to say that adverts left on in the background were ineffective.

As further proof, I used to have a literature lecturer at university who would deliberately crowbar references to products into his lectures, then watch people's behaviour at snack break.  He claimed that if he managed to mention Mars or Mars slogans slyly a couple of times, he'd notice 25% more people coming back into the room with the product afterwards.  He'd then mock the students and tell them that they clearly weren't as switched on as they thought they were.

Coke also ask "sly" references to be slipped in about the product at sponsored events.  I remember attending an NME pop quiz in the nineties where they tried to get Terry Staunton to use the word "refreshing" as many times as possible - to his credit, he ripped the piss out of them for it (Cue: You wouldn't get the NME doing that now Pt 250).

[Ciarán2]

I have read "Mythologies", I didn't really have it in mind when I posted believe it or not, but I know what you mean. He talks about how washing powder companies used to emphasise the amount of suds produced by their product, when of course there in sonthing in this to suggest that suds aid the cleaning process. Yes, it is a good collection of essays. He's got a great one on the Eiffel Tower too where he says that it is so enormously phallic that the only place in Paris where you can escape its gaze is in the tower itself. But anyway...don't want to derail this too much.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I think I've always watched adverts critically, though - I've always thought 'Ah, they're trying to sell that kind of lifestyle to me' etc. You don't need special spin-subtracting vision to do that, though, so I'm always confused when people claim advertising is a form of brainwashing. If you're taken in, it's your look-out. Isn't it?

'This isn't just a roast chicken. It's a tasteless, overpriced mass-produced sack of water, touched up with paint in order to look good for the camera. Oh, and we're also trying to create a subconscious association with sex, even though ultimately the ad's about fetishising a commodity. Plus the strains of Fleetwood Mac's Albatross in the background are supposed to conjure up an image of...freedom, or some such shit. Buy chickens!'

The irony is, I couldn't tell you which supermarket those 'This isn't just a roast chicken' ads are for.

I honestly can't think of any sinister reasons why I want the Series 5 Seinfeld DVD. Other than the fact that I love the show, and I'm interested in the extras for their own sake. I genuinely can't. Have I been tricked into liking it?

[Ciarán2]

I think I've always watched adverts critically, though - I've always though 'Ah, they're trying to sell that kind of lifestyle to me' etc. You don't special spin-subtracting vision to do that, though, so I'm always confused when people claim advertising is a form of brainwashing. If you're taken in, it's your look-out. isn't it?

Well everybody is always taken in. What does it mean to be taken in by an advert? From your comments, I get the impression that for you this would be to buy the product? So what other choice do you have? You can buy a different product. So which one? What criteria can you fall back on to make this choice? You may have heard of the brand, it fits a certain price range. Maybe you always dogmatically go for the cheaper one. Whichever decision you make must depend upon an engagement - critical or otherwise - with advertising.

'This isn't just a roast chicken. It's a tasteless, overpriced mass-produced sack of water, touched up with paint in order to look good for the camera. Oh, and we're also trying to create a subconscious association with sex, even though ultimately the ad's about fetishising a commodity. Plus the strains of Fleetwood Mac's Albatross in the background are supposed to conjure up an image of...freedom, or some such shit. Buy chickens!'

Yes, that's definitely going on. But to then this...

The irony is, I couldn't tell you which supermarket those 'This isn't just a roast chicken' ads are for.

...isn't necessarily a way out. you almost willfully ignore a part of the message. Yet, you are aware in the first place that the ads exist and you know what to expect from advertising. You're a target audience! Have you noticed how much more ironic adverts have become over the years. There is second-guessing going on. People like you who are critical must also be roped into this culture of consumtion. You turn away from the roast chickens and buy something else. You reject "Nathan Barley" and opt for "Seinfeld". "Seinfeld" is, in a sense, aimed at you.

I honestly can't think of any sinister reasons why I want the Series 5 Seinfeld DVD. Other than the fact that I love the show, and I'm interested in the extras for their own sake. I genuinely can't. Have I been tricked into liking it?

There's nothing sinister in your actions. To some degree you have been tricked into liking it. Its quality speaks to you because you can compare it with other sitcoms you have seen and decide that this one is the one for you. That's what advertising is founded upon.

Edit: I should say I'm tricked too, of course, so I'm not getting at you or anything, in case it sounds that way. I just bought a copy of "Hamlet" because its published by Arden, and for some reason (for several reasons in fact), I believe that this is the edition to have. I have two other copies of it. Even in supposedly "high culture" this kind of thing is going on.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

There's nothing sinister in your actions. To some degree you have been tricked into liking it. Its quality speaks to you because you can compare it with other sitcoms you have seen and decide that this one is the one for you. That's what advertising is founded upon.

That's too much. I always have to tell myself to stop when things like that happen; when you're told that just about every action you take is the result of someone elses influence.

I'm sorry, but if he by absolute chance stumbled upon Seinfeld, and found it funny because of the gags that would make him the target audience, but the target audience is being made to laugh. The underlying message back then wasn't to watch the series and then buy the DVD!

[slim]

I like this thread a lot. I wish some of it hadn't been lost in the last minor board crash.

It's a great book. I'd say more but I'm at lunch.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

The thing is, if I go to the supermarket and buy the cheapest tin of beans, then I might be doing this because I'm rejecting the heavily advertised beans ('Ha, I spurn Heinz with their 20p mark-up!')...but that's not a victory for Heinz is it? I've still won. Unless Heinz make the cheap beans as well.

The cheap beans will be a supermarket own-brand, so I suppose I have to ask myself 'Why am I in this supermarket rather than a different one?'. In my case, I can truthfully say 'Because it's the nearest'.

[Ciarán2]

I'm sorry, but if he by absolute chance stumbled upon Seinfeld, and found it funny because of the gags that would make him the target audience, but the target audience is being made to laugh. The underlying message back then wasn't to watch the series and then buy the DVD!

I'm not saying at all that there is no value in Seinfeld, not on your nelly. I think it's great. There's no need to feel guilty about any of this either. I wonder why you tell yourself to stop thinking a certain way when you feel that you are influenced by others. I find that interesting. It seems to me that that is going on in ELW10's mind too.

So, of course there is somthing objective in Seinfeld which makes you laugh. It has to be a dialectic between its objective quality and your subjective taste. But both of these things are related to other points in a system. There is something about you that finds Seinfeld funny whereas somebody else doesn't. You see something in Seinfeld which appeals to you. Seinfeld is something for you. You identify with the show.  And this isn't nasty at all.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

That's not advertising, though - that's purely the beinggoodness of Seinfeld.

[Ciarán2]

The thing is, if I go to the supermarket and buy the cheapest tin of beans, then I might be doing this because I'm rejecting the heavily advertised beans ('Ha, I spurn Heinz with their 20p mark-up!')...but that's not a victory for Heinz is it? I've still won. Unless Heinz make the cheap beans as well.

The cheap beans will be a supermarket own-brand, so I suppose I have to ask myself 'Why am I in this supermarket rather than a different one?'. In my case, I can truthfully say 'Because it's the nearest'.

Well the cheap brand benefits here. And Beans are sold. And there will always be people of different tastes who will opt for the more familiar brand. So even when you opt against Heinz you opt for a certain brand of beans. Which Heinz in turn competes with in terms of quality, price, design and so on. If everybody bought the cheapest tin forever, fair enough. But even then Heinz would adopt a different strategy.

The point about that supermarket being the nearest one is pertinent too and not just a banality. There are reasons why that supermarket is the nearest one of course. It didn't just happen there. There was a gap for a Tesco (let's say for argument) in that area. Such and such a distance from the next nearest Tesco or Asda.