[독자서평] A Craftsman-like Conclusion

자료: http://alexcutlernooskool.blogspot.com/2008/11/craftsman-like-conclusion.html

I want to thank for this useful review of the book, Richard Sennett's Craftsman by the reader above.

***

The range of Richard Sennett's intellectual curiosity and knowledge is breathtaking. This sprawling, simultaneously macroscopic and microscopic examination of the "enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake," is basically his rumination on the critical importance of honoring and dignifying society's workers, and the very real sociopolitical dangers implicit in failing to do so.

The narrative is sort of a loose dialectic with his former teacher, Hannah Arendt, book-ended by his observations that it is the exaltation of intellect over labor that leads to irresponsible science (like development of the atom bomb) and unchecked political power. Rather, all human beings -- Animal laborens as well as Homo faber -- have the capacity to understand their circumstances and make wise, informed decisions, and thus to govern themselves -- though working 'craftsmen' (in the broadest possible context) in particular because of the deliberative and reflective nature of the craft process, one in which success requires grappling with difficulty, ambiguity, and resistance (as evidenced by the estimate that it takes roughly 10,000 hours to develop any kind of expertise): "People can learn about themselves through the things they make . . . [M]aterial culture matters."

Archaic and Classical Greek philosophy and mythology, open platform Linux communities, CAD, medieval guilds and gold assaying, Renaissance 'originality' and Cellini's sex life, violins, Adam Smith and David Hume, Zen Buddhism, Diderot's Encyclopedia ("only the rich can afford to be stupid"), Voltaire, Rousseau and the Enlightenment, robots and replicants, Ruskin's Lamps of Architecture, brickmaking and stucco, culinary instructions for cooking chicken, the technology of dissection and screwdrivers, Christopher Wren and urban planning, "Frankenstein," Hobbes on the nature of imagination ("nothing but decaying sense"), John Dewey (who "believed in . . . learning one's limits"), social Darwinism, cell walls and membranes as metaphor for ecological boundaries and borders, scientific squabbling over HIV, Japanese television, Wittgenstein's house-building obsession, psychoanalysis, childhood play, Calvinism, standardized testing -- just some of the subject matter Sennett uses to make and illustrate his arguments. I'm exhausted.

There are many recurring broad themes in the book, especially the concepts of salutary failure and material consciousness/ awareness, all supporting his principal argument for the reunification of Head and Hand, the connection between which has been unwinding since Aristotle favored the architect over the artisan, the medieval workshop of personal sacrifice and obedience gave way to Renaissance authorship and celebrity, and the contemporary self-absorbed 'look-at-me' culture elevated individual over collective achievement. Because the hand influences the mind, to ignore or demean its part in the human experience is to perpetuate the division and lack of 'wholeness' in society.

I'm very interested in Sennett's discussion of vocation (life 'adding up' to the personal conviction that one is 'meant' to do a particular thing, that it's not just a "random series of disconnected events") versus career. He doesn't seem to take a definitive position on it, but makes the deterministic point that organizations and institutions that recognize the existence of an intrinsic vocational drive are likely to engender greater loyalty and productivity. A bit cynical for me, given my grandiose (though mostly secular) view on the profoundly important role that 'purpose' plays in our life's work, whatever it is. I'm more sympathetic to his argument that motivation (read, "relentless" and "obsessive") is more important than talent/ ability in the craft equation.

Sennett identifies himself as a member of the 'pragmatism' school of philosophy -- "making . . . sense of concrete experience" and the quality of that experience -- and likens many of his craftsmanship themes to Dewey's "socialist" writings a century earlier ("Work which remains permeated with the play attitude is art."). Dewey, John Ruskin, William Morris were all socialists. For Sennett, "[g]ood craftsmanship implies socialism," that is, workers having shared, collective experiences.

In the book's most compelling summation argument, he maintains that human relationships generally can benefit immeasurably from the craft process: "Material challenges . . . are instructive in understanding the resistances people harbor to one another or the uncertain boundaries between people." Socialism or not, this is a brand of idealism that seems to be finding a new footing in our culture, a recognition that "modern democracy demands too little" of its citizens, and that if we pay attention to the details -- and to each other -- and work deliberatively, patiently, collectively, then we can find responsible solutions to the profound problems facing our society.

A final point about 'ethics' and craftsmanship. Central to pragmatism (and Sennett's thesis) is the effort to end the means-to-an-end approach to modern work. The process matters; taking pride and/or enjoyment from the work is itself justification for doing it. However, the fact that workers may be freed from the ends-means relationship does not imply that they should not be asking searching questions about what they are doing throughout the process. On the contrary, pragmatism demands it, and craftsmen are the ones most likely to have cultivated the skills to make these inquiries before and during the process. As Sennett points out, we don't have a crystal ball to foresee all the material and ethical consequences of our individual or societal decisions, but it is only through the practice of craft that we can train ourselves to look forward and imagine the myriad possible effects of our work.

If any part of Sennett's work resonates with me, it is his excoriation of ends-justify-the-means. Most of history's darkest periods may be ascribed to such short-sighted, selfish cynicism. It's a sort of collective sociopathy, infecting whole cultures and civilizations. Perhaps the oversimplified bromide of 'personal responsibility' contains more wisdom than we realize, and that broad shifts in consciousness really can have their genesis in individuals. Bottom line, integrity is all we really have . . .