3 ms·

This is why we see so many articles on HN about writing well. It is a skill I want to have!

by Goosey 17y ago

zackattack 17y ago
My friend Jon's response: This is really a stupid article. Attempting to generalize institutional truths from a show that sensationalizes the workings of one individual company is just silly, almost as silly as basing any kind of argument on moronic caricatures of "personality types" like "the sociopath." The show isn't brilliant because it examines the modern corporation, its brilliant because it takes a very generic, very relateable institutional setting and then uses it to examine the characters, which are not abstract caricatures but in fact very complicated and dynamic. "If you leave out the clear marked-for-clueless characters like Dwight and Andy, you are left with the two most interesting characters in the show: the will-he-won’t-he sociopath-in-the-making, Jim, and the strange Toby. Toby is a curious case — intellectually a sociopath, but without the energy or ambition to be an active sociopath." Dwight and Andy are much more interesting characters than just "they're clueless because they like the company"- Dwight especially- and Toby is actually one of the least interesting on the show, hes mostly just there as a foil for Michael. Note as well, that this is sort of a vulgar Marxist argument, "corporations are made of sociopathic exploiters and clueless exploited," except that, unlike Marx, it rests upon the notion that the institution can be explained through the actions of specific individuals or "character types," rather than the complex social structres with which the institution interacts, most importantly the dynamics of a global economy. This is what so absurd, ultimately, about those stupid fucking books in the airport about "packing your parachute" and shit, individual firms might perform better than others based upon managerial skills, but an entire sector or economy over a longer term is going to be determined by much bigger factors than just "can the sociopath find saps to do his grunt work." Continuing with the vulgar Marxism, he points to the idea of 'alienation,' that 'clueless' people like Michael and Dwight have a masochistic relationship to the firm, which he uses to argue that this is why Michael gets promoted, the firm needs idiots in the middle because they are company men despite being idiots. Alienation, in this context, that they want to find their work meaningful but it simply isn't, it exists for some purpose other than the one that they wish to find in it. This is, of course, essentially the absurdity of Michael's character, he is a hyperbolic representation of the alienated reality of working at a corporation insofar as he has no separation between his public and private life. This isn't because "organizations are essentially run by stupid people because only an idiot would believe in an organization instead of rationally maximizing his utility," but because particular organizations- capital - are subject to a logic that is alien to the interests of the people that operate the institution, the profit motive. I think part of the reason for these idiot management books is that they attempt to deal with this basic reality- people have to be managed despite it being ultimately despotic- without being honest about the inequalities that constitute capitalism. How can you get someone to "believe" in a corporation if they aren't part of its decision making process? Anarchy in the market and despotism in the factory. It is asinine to generalize "institutions" in general without recognizing the historical specificity at work. Not only that, but it misses why the Office is such a fantastic show.

This is why we see so many articles on HN about writing well. It is a skill I want to have!

by Goosey 17y ago

This is why we see so many articles on HN about writing well. It is a skill I want to have!

My friend Jon's response: This is really a stupid article. Attempting to generalize institutional truths from a show that sensationalizes the workings of one individual company is just silly, almost as silly as basing any kind of argument on moronic caricatures of "personality types" like "the sociopath." The show isn't brilliant because it examines the modern corporation, its brilliant because it takes a very generic, very relateable institutional setting and then uses it to examine the characters, which are not abstract caricatures but in fact very complicated and dynamic. "If you leave out the clear marked-for-clueless characters like Dwight and Andy, you are left with the two most interesting characters in the show: the will-he-won’t-he sociopath-in-the-making, Jim, and the strange Toby. Toby is a curious case — intellectually a sociopath, but without the energy or ambition to be an active sociopath." Dwight and Andy are much more interesting characters than just "they're clueless because they like the company"- Dwight especially- and Toby is actually one of the least interesting on the show, hes mostly just there as a foil for Michael. Note as well, that this is sort of a vulgar Marxist argument, "corporations are made of sociopathic exploiters and clueless exploited," except that, unlike Marx, it rests upon the notion that the institution can be explained through the actions of specific individuals or "character types," rather than the complex social structres with which the institution interacts, most importantly the dynamics of a global economy. This is what so absurd, ultimately, about those stupid fucking books in the airport about "packing your parachute" and shit, individual firms might perform better than others based upon managerial skills, but an entire sector or economy over a longer term is going to be determined by much bigger factors than just "can the sociopath find saps to do his grunt work." Continuing with the vulgar Marxism, he points to the idea of 'alienation,' that 'clueless' people like Michael and Dwight have a masochistic relationship to the firm, which he uses to argue that this is why Michael gets promoted, the firm needs idiots in the middle because they are company men despite being idiots. Alienation, in this context, that they want to find their work meaningful but it simply isn't, it exists for some purpose other than the one that they wish to find in it. This is, of course, essentially the absurdity of Michael's character, he is a hyperbolic representation of the alienated reality of working at a corporation insofar as he has no separation between his public and private life. This isn't because "organizations are essentially run by stupid people because only an idiot would believe in an organization instead of rationally maximizing his utility," but because particular organizations- capital - are subject to a logic that is alien to the interests of the people that operate the institution, the profit motive. I think part of the reason for these idiot management books is that they attempt to deal with this basic reality- people have to be managed despite it being ultimately despotic- without being honest about the inequalities that constitute capitalism. How can you get someone to "believe" in a corporation if they aren't part of its decision making process? Anarchy in the market and despotism in the factory. It is asinine to generalize "institutions" in general without recognizing the historical specificity at work. Not only that, but it misses why the Office is such a fantastic show.