Do You Know Where Your Next Paycheck is Coming From?
by Thad Williamson
Tikkun, Jan/Feb'98

Page 1 of 3

People sometimes assume that a politics seeking to address the deep hunger for meaning in American culture must be opposed to demands for economic security. But that's not the case. The politics of meaning movement has critiqued liberal and progressive voices for focusing only on economic issues. We certainly recognize that economic security is a fundamental precondition of a good society.

People can't build loving relationships and strong communities when they don't have economic security. When people are forced to move from place to place to find work, they don't have a chance to put down roots and develop the special connections which evolve when neighbors who know each other share a particular place for a long time.

Today, it is increasingly obvious that American capitalism cannot provide and does not even value such economic security. What was once common sense among conservatives as well as progressives is now a mere echo in conventional political discourse. Even former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, widely regarded as the most liberal influence in Clinton's first term inner circle, speaks regularly of adjusting to a society in which everyone must be prepared to change career paths multiple times. And that message has certainly reached American workers. In a recent Harris poll, 94 percent of salaried employees agreed that "it is their responsibility to do all they can to hone existing skills, develop new ones, and enhance their careers."

The suddenly fashionable idea that economic security can and should be casually tossed out the window of history needs to be challenged in a principled way by the politics of meaning movement. To be sure, a steady paycheck to each and all is not enough. It is equally important to address people's thirst for work that utilizes their talents and provides a sense that what they do matters, and to think through ways in which economic life could reinforce and strengthen, not undermine, the notion of community. Moreover, it needs to be acknowledged that in the context of a society that does not provide either security or a sense of meaning, many people will choose to give up security in order to do something which is uniquely important to them or which makes a particular social contribution. Still others are willing to forego economic security simply to avoid being part of the corporate-track rat race.

But these individual solutions won't create a healthy, meaning-oriented society. Indeed, the frequently forwarded "solution" to job insecurity, that middle class folks should learn to be more competitive and cutthroat, is a recipe for the continued unraveling of community. Without economic security, human beings will continue to be treated as little more than a bundle of skills. The middle class as we know it may well disappear, as Charles Derber argues in his accompanying article. To reverse this trend, the fundamental question must shift from "What's going to happen to me?" to "What's going to happen to us?"

1 . 2 . 3