Progressive Workplaces Are Part of the Problem

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 16:24


In the print edition of the latest Harper's, Terry Eagleton describes the radical, liberating thought behind the "art for art's sake" movement of the 19th century:

Art was play, not labor, and it held out a promise of emancipation to the wage slaves of the first industrial capitalist nation in history. The work of art obeyed no law but its own and could therefore be seen as a model of human autonomy. It had no reason or purpose beyond its own self-delight; and in a utilitarian age that judged things in terms of their practical functions, this glorious uselessness carried some subversive implications.

From William Blake to Oscar Wilde, art was an image of what men and women could become in changed political conditions. They, too, could be gloriously pointless; in fact, this was the whole point of human existence, which the gray-bearded champions of the work ethic had never understood. Human beings resembled works of art in being ends in themselves. Art of art's sake was not a retreat from politics; it was a politics all its own.

This article really hit home for me back on Sunday night, as I was returning from my first days of non-holiday related vacation since, well, since Open Left was founded two years ago. Why is it that progressive activists, who still seek to transform society in many of the same liberating ways sought by Blake, Wollstonescraft, Shelley or Wilde, are willing to live such utterly shitty existences to bring about said change? That is, why are our lives entirely dedicated to bringing about progressive political change, instead of actually experiencing the liberating progressive lifestyles we seek?

A lot of you know exactly what I am talking about. Working conditions for most people who make a living in progressive politics completely suck. Weekends don't exist. Vacations don't exist. 60+ hour workweeks are common, if not the norm. You don't make enough money to save up for a house, much less pay off student debt or save for retirement. Job security doesn't exist. For many, health care doesn't exist. Someone is always willing to work harder than you feel like you can possibly manage. Whether you are a blogger, a staffer for PIRG, working for Grassroots Campaigns, an SEIU organizer, or a campaign staffer, you have basically no life outside of work. And, even if you did, you couldn't afford that life anyway.

In September of 2007, one weekend I went to the Jersey Shore with a few friends in progressive politics. During the trip, someone said "oh--so this is what a vacation is like!" Sadly, someone else responded, "no--this is what a weekend is like." It was funny because it was so painful.

I'm not saying that people in progressive politics have it worse than people in any other profession. Certainly, there are many worse jobs someone could have than being a professional political activist, and undoubtedly there are tens of millions of Americans facing similar, or worse, problems of work exhaustion despite continued financial difficulty. What I am saying is that progressive political professionals are doing a pretty lousy job of demonstrating a better way to live. If we are working to make the country more like our organizations, then we seriously must be stopped. We are not ourselves living the progressive ideal, or really anything close to it.

I can't help but shake the feeling that the lifestyle created by the low-pay, few benefits and long-hours of progressive political organizations is actually part of the problem in our society, not the solution. We are operating like base cogs in an enormous utilitarian machine, not living up to the ideal that human beings are ends unto themselves and should be given ample time to live as such. It makes me think of David's great recent post "Existential Question: What The F%$@! Are We Doing?" Josh Marshall also had a must-read recent post relevant to this subject, and President Obama gave a good response when asked if he ever regretted running for President. Even so, there seems to be a big contradiction between what progressive activists are trying to achieve, and how we are actually living. Our lifestyles and workplaces seem to be part of the problem we are trying to fix. If haven't even liberated ourselves, how can we help liberate anyone else?

Chris Bowers :: Progressive Workplaces Are Part of the Problem

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Good post. (4.00 / 2)
Take more real weekends.  Progressive change is your job, and your avocation, but you need to be fully human and not let it make you one-dimensional.  

Follow you own advice.  Have some fun!  


Jealous (4.00 / 6)
While I trust all this is true, I have to share something.  I find myself very jealous of you guys and anyone else who managed to make a living, however poor, doing what they truly enjoy and/or believe in.  That goes for musicians on one hand to people like you on the other.

The vast majority of us just work because we have to.  While it may be fun at times, it can often feels like a wasted life.

Now, I know enough to realize this isn't actually true.  The fact you are doing something you believe in isn't nearly as cool and rewarding as it appears from the outside.  And one's life can never be defined by only what one does for a paycheck.

Still, there are times....


I don't know about the PIRGs and the union organizers, but for the blogging peoples, (4.00 / 2)
I still think we need to find ways to spread the labor around to more people.  The entire progressive blogosphere rests on the shoulders of about 70 people.  That's too much and too important of work to fall on so few.  That's why I argued back in January for trying to find modes of organization and interaction that allow one or two orders of magnitude more people to contribute significantly.

That said, there's also the problem that the current ad revenue of the entire progressive blogosphere probably only can support about 30 people.  Which is why you have to work so damn hard, which I assume is at least partly so that you can get enough traffic to eat.  I don't know how much financial pressure contributes to the overall result of too much pressure and 60-hour-lives, but I imagine it doesn't help any.  


Not Enough Money (4.00 / 1)
Much of the problem is that adversaries of progressives -- right-wingers, unethical corporations, the super-rich -- have vastly more money than we do. I would guess they spend somewhere around 100 to 1,000 times as much money on conservative causes. So right-wing groups can afford to pay buffoons to spout nonsense and also pay very sophisticated researchers, pundits, and publicists to provide top-notch work. And, whatever they produce -- no matter how bad -- will be trotted out endlessly on Fox News and the corporate media.

We have to work 60-hours/week and do really good work just to get a mention in a corporate newspaper. And as texas dem says, the progressive blogosphere can probably only support 30 people.

I don't know the answer to this. If the income and wealth distributions were less skewed, there would probably be more money for progressives. But whatever,  I think we should not beat ourselves up for the poor situation we have to grapple with.


[ Parent ]
It depends (4.00 / 5)
When I was doing grassroots canvassing/organizing, the pay and hours were defitinely not ideal.  While I was there I inquired as to whether or not there had ever been attempts to unionize the staff.  Apparently there had been, but it had ended with some pay/benefit concessions by management but no contract.  I don't regret the time I spent there, but my experience drove me to find a job in progressive politics that could pay me a decent salary with benefits.

While I can't speak for SEIU (I now work for AFSCME), I can say that in my experience, the labor movement is a place where progressives can find rewarding work with decent, I would say generous, pay and benefits.  The hours are long, but I personally have no issue with that, as our staff union has fought for good leave/vacation policies.  Our health benefits are top notch and our pension system is solid.  Organizers here get 20 year retirement.  All of this is due to having an active and engaged staff union.

If activists are looking to transform their organizations, an unionized workplace is the key.


Yep on SEIU (0.00 / 0)
Good article, Chris, but I don't know where you get your information on SEIU organizers from. They are paid relatively well and get a full spectrum of benefits. In fact, many (at least DC) progressive organizations offer pretty good benefits. I myself haven't paid a healthcare premium over $20 in at least two years.  

[ Parent ]
Incrementalism (4.00 / 1)
Some people put in long hours for money or positions of power or tenure or other such rewards.  The reward you seek is seeing political change.

Sometimes I think that some on the left advocate incrementalist strategies because it is the only way to stay sane.  If you hang your hopes on big, culture-changing victories, then you are open to despair and ultimately killing yourself out of frustration.  Okay, maybe that's a bit of an over-dramatic picture, but there's something to be said for breaking down progress into smaller steps and having little victories that you can celebrate along the way to help you live with yourself.

There's a difference between DLC-style incrementalist, better-than-nothing BS and having a thought-out multi-step plan that you follow on a schedule.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


I think they do it because they are happy (4.00 / 1)
And happy people don't want large dramatic change in their life.

Software engineering on the east coast actually has the same problem though.  Managers occasionally don't understand that for creative professions 80 hour work weeks guarantee poor quality and burnout.  Dilbert being the canonical example.  Meanwhile the 40 hour a week companies are running circles around them.

One good blog to look at is http://blogcabin.37signals.com... .  They advocate a 4 day a week workweek as a way of keeping the talented software engineers and in my opinion they are right to do so.  

People who worked for progressive organizations are ill suited to the demands of a creative profession like blogging.  They try to work themselves to death and they are only guaranteeing their own eventual failure.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....


[ Parent ]
Blogging is an open-ended commitment (4.00 / 3)
We're in a state of mind of political war, so political blogging amounts to an open-ended metaphorical war often lacking in clear goalposts.  That's a very mentally fatiguing course to follow.

One might think that political blogging as an end unto itself is probably a dead end, but political blogging is viable as a step towards getting a public service job or a book contract or a journalism gig.  The next step in political blogging is it being seen as a stepping stone towards political candidacy.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Yes and then.... (4.00 / 1)
You can work 80 hours a week somewhere else.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

[ Parent ]
Acceptable versus Excuse (4.00 / 1)
There is a ton of difference between acceptable incrementalism, where you try to do as much as possible, versus using incrementalism as an excuse to do as little as possible.  It can be hard to tell the difference and I suspect the practitioners themselves often forget why they are doing what they are, but the difference remains.

[ Parent ]
It numbs the pain. (0.00 / 0)
We are operating like base cogs in an enormous utilitarian machine, .......


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

Amen, Brother... (4.00 / 2)
Having worked volunteer internships with non-profit organizations, and now married to a wonderful woman who worked several years for women's rights organizations, I can attest from first hand experience what a grinding life it is to work for progressive causes.  Long hours, low pay, shitty working conditions, etc.

We are now both fortunate enough to work for unions, with decent pay, good working conditions, and a flexible enough work schedule to raise our two kids the way we want.  I do not think that would be possible if we both worked for progressive non-profit organizations.

I know you've raised a similar point before about the disparity in how the right-wing and the left-wing movements operate, especially in the field of non-profits and "think tanks".  Long term funding vs. project oriented funding.  Paid vs. volunteer internships.  Single issue focus vs. movement oriented focus.  

All this is to say that I agree - we have to live the life we want for others, and there has to be a dramatic shift in how the progressive movement operates.  The current net effect is a structural deficit (to borrow a phrase) in overall political success between conservative and progressive philosophies.  We handicap ourselves by failing to create an environments that attracts top talent who may come from modest means or otherwise are unwilling to put up with the awful working conditions in too many progressive orgs.


You make a good point about single issue focus (4.00 / 1)
So much of the institutional power on the left is wrapped up in single issue organizations. The narrow focus of the groups, IMO, affects the attitude of the management, and I suspect there is sometimes an "end justifies the means" attitude toward personnel decisions, like wages and working conditions. I have to admit this is second hard, since I have never worked for a single issue group.

Going on about single-issue groups: I feel like they are one of the main reasons we don't really have a left wing in the USA. Anyone who thinks of blogs like this as left wing lacks historical context.


[ Parent ]
how much of the rat race wage slavery (4.00 / 5)
is because of unaffordable housing, health care, and transportation? The corporations have set up society to bleed us dry making necessities privatized regulated and sky high expensive and feed us nonstop advertising to tell us we want it. People look back on the 50's as the good old days- true or not, it really was easier to live decently on less work hours.

for a case that illustrates Chris's point (0.00 / 0)
read this diary by MyDD user JDF.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

infrastructure... (4.00 / 1)
...it all comes back to infrastructure.

The need to constantly re-invent the wheel is an infinite circle, at the end of which, most of us don't leave anything behind, forcing the next guy to come along and re-invent the wheel all over again.  It wouldn't be so bad, except many of us are inventing wheels with eight sides and/or made out of wet tissue paper - not efficient or durable.

On the other hand...some of "us" are like me...workaholics who love campaigning - I can sleep when the campaign ends and I have no job.  Which is really a big problem, that again draws back to infrastructure.

We have a number of obstacles, one being the draw of private sector $$ and stability, another being the lack of "off season" employment that allows for re transition back in to campaigning when the season fires up again.  There are many more obstacles...more infrastructure.  The GOP invested hundreds of millions in infrastructure from the 70's onward, created "think tanks" that employed their bright young future players, moved them around the country to get wider perspectives, provide mechanisms for transferred learning...and they did all this before the googles.  Why are we struggling so hard to catch up?


Take a Number (4.00 / 1)
Not just political activists, but innumerable types of individuals who are working for some sort of good cause are overworked, underfunded, or both. I hope to roll out a new web site, DemocracyABC.org, in the coming weeks. (Pay no attention to the legacy restaurant site that's there right now.) DemocracyABC.org will be focussed on developing solutions to systemic problems that make democracy work so poorly in the United States. It's not going to favor progressive solutions, per se, but rather populist solutions, by (hopefully) taking power out of the hands of plutocrats and their lackeys, and shifting it towards us "little people". Of course, when this happens, and the country is already at a progressive place on a particular issue (such as single payer health care), it will become a reality, instead of something for a lot of politicians to either ignore, or else dangle in front of us, and then pull away when the lobbyists start throwing their cash around.

Here is a sneak preview of Zones A, B, and C:

"Fixing What's Broken with Democracy"

Zone A: Defeating Lobbyists' Corrupting Power
* Ostracism - So not just you, but your politically lazy neighbors know when your Senator or Representative stinks, and how to get rid of them
* Change-Congress.org
* Funding Good Candidates Before They Announce

Zone B: Funding Non-Corporatist-Driven Political Organizations
* Civic Based Tithing

Zone C: Fixing the Media by Developing a Superior Substitute to the Current Propaganda System
* "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
* Subscriber directed investigative reporting

A sister web site, DemocracyABC.net, will be a Sharepoint web site where people who want to help develop and implement the solutions which are described on DemocracyABC.com, can collaborate.

Hopefully, I will get a bunch of collaborators from OpenLeft, who will donate their time. With any luck, we will, besides attaining other goals, get enough $$ flowing to organizations like OpenLeft, that you guys taking healthy vacations will become normal. :-)

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


Good question (0.00 / 0)
and honestly, I have no idea what the answer is.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

I'd take issue with much of Eagleton's argumentation there, but none (0.00 / 0)
with yours. Take the weekend off- Paul's are spectacularly trustworthy hands.

I have often wished I had all my apartments in Philly back to give free apartments (0.00 / 0)
to some people here.  

A lovely book on this topic (4.00 / 1)
Waiting for the Weekend. Or Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class.

And Fowles talks about this in The Aristos  as a deprivation of classes without money that constricts their potential, their development and well being in life.


Great Post (4.00 / 2)
Jerome and Kos wrote about this in Crashing the Gates.  I wish I knew the answer why progressive activists don't demand better treatment at work.  

I left political/policy work because I burned out on the hours, low pay, little timeoff, etc.  I loved the work but I haven't regretted my decision for a moment.  I could never have had a family with the hours and stress of those jobs and I wouldn't trade my daughter for anything.


the sin of money (0.00 / 0)
i think you've talked about this aspect before. it's true that the other side just plain has more money and likely always will - that's who they work for, after all. but i think that there is also some kind of idealized picture at work on the left, that it's somehow more virtuous to be poor and overworked. the righteous shall eschew the things of this world and devote their whole lives to fighting the good fight, living on truth and honor and bird crumbs dropped in their mouths by sparrows.

so it's interesting to me to read the comments from people here that working for unions was pretty good. it makes sense that an organization built largely around making sure that people get paid a decent wage wouldn't have a problem with paying people a decent wage. but sense is not so common, so it's nice to see.

compare that to the numerous stories of all kinds of non-profits fighting off unionization. yes, they're broke, but if more money suddenly showed up, where would it go? there is a choice being made, spread out among the donors and the people running the organizations and the people working there. "a better life for people - well, not you, those other people."

we need more space for uncommercial life, somehow. maybe by making it a part-time pursuit of more people as suggested above. i don't know. but i think you raise a really good subject that's worth following.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


Good post. (0.00 / 0)
We work hard and for less because we are working for our ideals. That means sacrifice.  If a progressive doesn't bleed his/her cause, then s/he is not serious.

Most of the organizations we work for are notoriously anti-union (including the unions).  Then there is the issue of funding.

The conflict between work and family forced me to give up my job as a union rep.  I'm getting ready to go back to work and it will be in a job that is 9-5 and apolitical.  I'm fried.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November


One problem (4.00 / 1)
I've worked my entire professional life, practically, for nonprofit and cause related organizations, mostly liberal, and have found that they uniformly resist traditional business models that could help them operate more efficiently and raise more cash. There is also a resistance in many of these organizations to market and "sell" to the broadest scope of their potential constituencies, including advertisers and sponsors. Entrepreneurship is frequently viewed as "selling out" even when the mission of the organization is not being essentially violated. Chris, I'm not addressing your situation per se, because I don't know it. But what are you doing to more aggressively raise higher revenues that could support more staff and help you take more time off for expansive thinking and humanistic experiences?

Could you give details? (0.00 / 0)
Preferably in the form of your own diary post? I wrote my not-so-famous proposal "Putting the NY Times Out of Business", a few years back, partly because I was aware of worthy political blogs such as bradblog.com, which seemed to be suffering due to lack of $$.  

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


[ Parent ]
Hmmm, a diary post (0.00 / 0)
I'm often reluctant to go on at lengths about business-related matters on a blog that is mostly about policy, grassroots organizing and advocacy. I'm assuming it will generate a ho-hum response. But actually, shouldn't this spur me to think of a provocative and creative way to write about it? Thanks for your reply.

[ Parent ]
Interesting Point (0.00 / 0)
I have never worked inside liberal non-profits but worked with a lot of them in my former life.  There is this "money is evil" attitude at some.  It is a sort of pride to be operating on shoe string.  

[ Parent ]
Why not just work a bit less? (0.00 / 0)
I mean that as an honest question.  Who requires you (Bowers, or Sirota) to work on weekends?  Does the marginal loss of readership then really outweigh the gains of time and sanity?  I know a number of other bloggers post very lightly if at all on weekends, so why can't you?  (And I suspect a number of the weekend posts are written during the week and posted while they are away -- which is fine.)  These aren't rhetorical questions, I'm really wondering.  I know it's not up to someone working at, say, PIRG (famously horrible hours), but I would think that a blogger could make the choice to trade a little time for money at the margin without catastrophic damage.  It would be a strange coincidence that the minimum income needed to feed yourself precisely equaled the total number of free hours you have a week.  Or are you going progressively deeper into debt, and just trying to slow the descent?  (Again, this is only about blogging; I know in most non-profit jobs one can't choose one's hours, and those hours tend to be abusive -- I've done it, no question there!)

Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search