Showing posts with label Agrarian Lament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agrarian Lament. Show all posts

Friday, June 25, 2021

Blog Mirror: The Agrarian's Lament: An Agrarian Rage

An Agrarian Rage


One of the blogs we follow here is The South Roane Agrarian which is posted by an agrarian farmer in Tennessee.  It's the best agrarian blog around [1]

Absent Landscapes

It ain't easy being an agrarian in the modern world, or a distributist either.  As an orthodox Roman Catholic, agrarian, distributist whose was once a geologist but who practices law out in the world, I can assure that may daily existence is a sort of existential crisis.

The reason for that is pretty simple.  You can't really reconcile them, and the world, very easily.

Indeed, being a distributist in economic mindset puts you at odds with a lot of the American economic mindset to start with.  Very few people understand what Distributism even is.  Deeply conservative in nature, if you take a tour through Reddit's Distributism subreddit you'll find it populated by what are pimply faced teenagers fascinated with socialism and monarchy, which have utterly nothing to do with Distributism whatsoever.  It's not even worth bothering with (and the fact that its moderated by one guy is, well, anti distributist.  So that leaves you with the half dozen or so people on the continent who grasp and like the Chestertonian species of small, but very real, free marketism to start with.  Most Americans now days figure the world is instead divided between Capitalism and Socialism, with the former not grasping the role of corporations in capitalism and the former not even understanding what socialism is, and that its a big giant massive failure (yeah, yeah, I know, some socialist will come by and say "oh, that's because real socialism of the Prudhommeistic, anarchist, monarchist fluffy bunny type has never been tried. . . "). 

And being an Agrarian works the same way.  People smile and think, how charming, and then wonder on. Maybe they'll tell you that the buy free range squab at the farmers market or something if they're inclined to talk at all.  Maybe they think that your into "homesteading", a that term is used in the modern world, which is vaguely.

And we can't even begin to explain how much the remainder puts you outside the world.  Apostolic succession. . . the real (and yes, it's real) influence of evolution in our mental makeup, the broken but fixed nature of our biological makeup.  Pretty much 95% of contemporary Americans have any sort of grasp of that stuff at all, and depending upon who you are talking to, and why, people are going to assume that you are some sort of flaming left wing radical, or some sort of flaming right wing radical.

Indeed, I guess that latter point is pretty good evidence of being generally on track.

Anyhow, there isn't day that goes by that I don't think of what it would be like to step out of a low ceilinged log cabin and looking out at a range homestead (using that word in the old sense) knowing darned well that at my age that's never ever going to happen.  Nope.  Never.  I have cattle, to be sure, but I'm almost 60 years old and the thought that someday I'll raise my family by that means alone is too late to be realized.  Both of my children are in their 20s. When I die, and people ask them what I did, it'll be "he was a lawyer".  Same with my friends. Same with everyone I know.

Most days I just keep all of this to myself as I have no choice.  I'm like my father that way.  To this day I'll occasionally hear "he was a great dentist", which is what his profession was.  I oddly never think of him that way.  He was an outdoorsman, a Wyomingite, and he put in a garden that was so large that it was effectively a subsistence farm.  Dentist?  Yes, but I'm more likely to think of him fishing than I am that way.  It's not like I hung around at his office admiring that constantly.  Indeed, in an era when dentist didn't make gobs of money, what I mostly remember about his work is the extraordinarily long hours he put in.

Same with me.  Practicing law has became so time consuming, it's really about all I do for the most part.  I have no big garden this year.  I'm getting one day per week off due to what I have going on.  Tomorrow they're gathering cattle.  I'm not.  I'll be in the office practicing law.

Bitter screed, I don't mean it to be.  Like the Hyman Roth character in Godfather II, I could say that "this is the life we chose", but I don't think that's really terribly accurate for most adults.  It is in part, but like T. E. Lawrence's character in David Lean's depiction of the man, we "can't want what we want".  Circumstances play a big part in that.

All of which leads up to this.  South Roane has posted a new entry (his are weekly, as opposed to the vast flood of meaningless stuff I put out on Lex Anteinternet) which is a Cri de Coeur.

Usually when I see a post like this, there's a back story of some sort to it.  Some experience that somebody has had that causes them to put metaphorical pen to paper.  I'm guessing there's one here.  No matter, it's from the heart and its well worth reading.  It sets itself well with this:

I grew up on a dirt road at the end of which was an old-growth wood of many hundreds of acres. It bordered what is called Contraband Bayou. I have written before of this wood and Jean Lafitte, the pirate rumored to have buried his loot among the cypresses. I hunted those woods, fished those waters, was a boy along those banks, in that place. Today, like all the area surrounding, it is concrete pavement illuminated by halogen lights, a Walmart, a Super Target, a casino or two, budget and luxury hotels, homes built on every conceivable patch and lot. It is an absent landscape.

It then goes on with this stout comment:

For those of you still advocating for eternal growth and progress, I pose these questions: What is your secret to finding beauty in what we have achieved? Does your heart flutter at more shopping opportunities and a new strip mall? Are the woods and bayous and rivers an obstacle to your betterment? Do you see productive agricultural land along the highway as an opportunity for a solar farm of concrete and silicon and metal? When you see a pastured hill or a majestic stand of hardwoods, do you calculate only the fill dirt or the timber that can be sold from it. Is your heart unmoved by the leveled and the dead? If so, then I will tell you that you are the enemy.

The past couple of years I've had the odd experience of driving up a road that I've known my entire life.   The current owners of the land on both sides of the road have been familiar with it only a fraction of the time I have.  It figured two sharp right turns that went around a beautiful hay meadow.  

No longer.

Now the road goes right through it.  For some reason, I'm told, the current owners, who don't depend on agriculture for a living, wanted it straightened out, possibly so it didn't go so close to their house.  

It's a tragedy.

Further down the road WYDOT has taken out an old wooden bridge and put in a new one.  It's completely absurd.  I don't know what the motivation is, but the new one is a massive concrete structure that they had to elevate the road for in order to put it in.  It's a good bridge alright, where no bridge was needed at all.

That bridge goes through a ranch yard that belonged to a family that we knew well.  My father employed one of them for years, and we knew them, as a family, for many years longer.  Decades. They sold it out to some wealthy people who posted the crap out of it.

At least they didn't bust up all their land for "ranchettes", which in this arid climate become weedettes.  Land to fool new arrivals that if they buy a cow they're ranchers, before they go broke, abandon the cow and let the land go to the county.

All that is mild compared to what South Roane is noting, which is the unyielding development mindset. We must develop because we must.  Unoccupied land has no value because its unoccupied, they seem to think.  South Roane is bitter, and declares them to be the enemy.

Whether they are the enemy or not, we have to keep something in mind. We can't develop every square inch of everything and a society that doesn't allow average people to make their living from the land is fundamentally broken. We're already there.

I can't, or at least shouldn't, complain about my life.  My parents were both extremely intelligent people and part of their inheritance to me was a pretty good intellect.  I've made my living from it.  I've really had no choice, however. 

To say that isn't a complaint, but an acceptance of reality.  In McPhee's excellent book La Place De La Concorde Suisse one of the central characters who is followed (the book is about a reconnaissance unit of the Swiss Army during its annual training) is a man who has a science degree related to agriculture.  He'd wanted to be a farmer, but couldn't, the entry cost of becoming a Swiss farmer, like becoming an American one, being far too high to realistically do.  He's not portrayed as bitter, only portrayed as taking a different direction.

Indeed, I know a lot of younger sons and daughters from ranch families who have themselves been faced with the same situation.  There are a lot of lawyers and a fair number of doctors and dentists of my vintage and a little older who fit that definition.  No place to go on the ranch, so they went into a profession, keeping a tie with the ranch in their communities.

I fit that category to an extent myself, although its a double remote connection in a way.  My grandfather owned a packing house in his county which also had farm ground.  It owned cattle, had a brand, and raised potatoes.  They also owned a "creamery" which is the equivalent to a dairy.  My father, as the oldest son in the family, one of two boys (he had two sisters as well) would have stepped into the business.  My grandfather's death ended that.  It was all sold.  He was still a teenager.

That left him with no choice but to find other employment, which he did.  But he never lost his interest in things associated with the outdoors, which his early life clearly involved.  I've touched a little on that already.

I graduated high school, like my father, at age 17.  At that time what I really wanted to do was to be a rancher, but I knew it was unrealistic.  I looked into what I could, even looking at the options to homestead, in the old fashioned sense, in the Canadian far north.  I decided to become a Game Warden, but concerns about being employed kept me from that.  Instead, I went into geology, but when I came out, there were no jobs.  Law followed.

Early in my legal career my father and I had an opportunity to buy a small ranch.  A real one, but a small one.  Had we done it, I would have kept my job for some time, and he his, but ultimately, we would have done that. Then he died.

My mother would have supported me going on with my father's plan, but I didn't know that and I didn't bring it up to her. She'd been ill for a very long time, and as she was in her 60s, my thought is that she'd need every bit of saved money to carry on.  She was just 65 at the time and in fact did live many more years.  As each passing year went by, the cost of ranch land went up and up.

Now, I am married, as it were, into a ranch family and we do have cattle. That marriage has nothing to do with the above, other than how we met, a story which varies depending upon whose version of it you believe.  At any rate, people who travel in common circles will commonly meet each other.  I know other "power couples" who are married lawyers or married professionals, but we aren't.  We're married rural people.

But as a rural person I've watched the houses spring up outside of Denver or Dallas, or any larger city you can name.  And I have heard again and again the cries for progress.  But what is that?

The name "progress" implies a progression towards something. And we're always progressing towards something.  On the day I'm writing this (it usually takes me several days to write a "thoughtful" entry like one), a column of U.S. battle ships was progressing a century ago towards somewhere, the sailors on board not realizing that the very ships they were on were progressing towards obsolesce.  Also on this day, the Wehrmacht was progressing towards Moscow and the Volga, in a progression that would lead to mass rape, murder and ultimately the Red Army in Berlin.  And both of those were human planned progressions.

In our own benighted day and age the left wing of one of our two political parties, as we unfortunately only seem to have two that every get anywhere (although in reality, of course, there are several, and at least a grand total of five substantial ones) labels itself as "progressive" and is referred to in the press that way.  This would suggest that they're progressing towards something, but what the end goal is, is never stated.  You really can't label yourself as a progressive unless you have a plan to progress to a point, and that point has to actually be a final destination.  There is no such thing as perpetual progress.

There's no such thing as perpetual growth either.  Things that grow without bounds suffer. They grow too big, too fat, or too something, and die.  

It's noteworthy that Solzhenitsyn famously noted that there is no progress.  He tended to drive westerners nuts, as once he left/was ejected from, the Soviet Union the common assumption is that he was going to say "Wow!  Free market economics, K-marts and consumer goods with no restraint, sign me up baby!".  He didn't.  Instead, he went on to be just as big of critic of the West as he had been of the Communist East.

Solzhenitsyn was deeply intellectual and deeply conservative in an existential sense.  He tended to say shocking things. Doing that got him tossed out of Russia and doing that caused him to be criticized in the US.  But in a very real sense, he was right.  There is progress in various ways, but existentially, we progress very little and perhaps not at all.  Indeed, the more removed we are from our natures, and our natures are pretty feral and agrarian, the more unhappy as a society we become.

Not matter what your current view of history may be, one thing that can't be ignored about the US is that it was settled in part because people could do here what they no longer could in their homelands, and that was to own, their own.  And what often was, for many, was their own farm.  Now that dream is dead for most Americans.  We're no more able to own a farm than our ancestors were who stepped off the boat from Westphalia or Cork.

And that, in and of itself, makes the American Dream more than a little bit of a lie.  There isn't perpetual progress if you can't progress towards the most basic of occupations.  We're told, of course, that progress moved us off the land and into the city for great jobs and the like, but we know better when we go to the big box stores.  

A land in which you must live in a big city, and you can't simply be a farmer, or even really want to be, is more than a little sad.  It's unjust.

Footnotes

1.  Not that there are very many.  There are a few, but quality wise, South Roane's is far and away above the rest.

The same is true, I'd note, for Distributist blogs.  There's a few, but so far none of them really measure up, and Reddit's Distributist subreddit is a mess.  At least, however, its more active than the Agrarian subreddit, which is barely making a pulse.

What this says, I'm not sure of.  Off the radar in general society perhaps.

Sunday, June 13, 2021

The Agrarian Lament: A lamentation. The modern world

 

A lamentation. The modern world.*



Every once in a while, when I go to post, I know exactly what I want to cover, and even know in my mind what I have covered, and yet have no idea exactly how to start it.


This isn't the way this usually works.  I.e., I normally form a concept, but I can see and imagine the words I'll write.  This, however is the full concept with no words, which makes it difficult to start writing.

Maybe that's because, as they say, in some ways, this is "the whole enchilada".  Of course, by now, as I rarely type these out in one single day, that sense has dulled, but I post none the less.

So, where to start.

And what got this started?**

I think what did was being out of the office for a day, just a day, for my daughter's surgery, and knowing that I had to go back the following morning in spite of all that was on my mind at the time.  I.e., as a professional occupying one of the country's "good jobs", I had just one day in which to try to be some help.  And, not to my surprise I'm afraid, a surgery that was supposed to be in and out, with rapid recovery, isn't going as well as hoped for in regard to a quick return to normality. [1]. Things will ultimately be fine, and I was really skeptical of the "back up on your feet quickly" stuff I'd been told, but I'm disappointed, worried, and stressed anyhow.

And maybe it was the news that Else Stefanik, House Minority Leader, powerful woman, and 36 years old, is pregnant.  There's something mind bending about the youthful Stefanik who, while I shouldn't say I will anyhow, is cute, being not only a charming looking power broker, but a central figure in a struggle inside the Republican Party whose central questions is whether or not the GOP is going to continue to endorse Donald Trump's lies about the January 6 assault on the capitol or not.  Stefanik is, of course, backing the fable.

Or maybe it was this post:

Kay (momma of two)
@jacelala
People at work are discussing why no one should get married until they’re at least 25 and I’m over here with 2 children at 21 Face with tears of joyFlushed face

This is the second time that "Kay (momma of two)" has shown up in comments here, or rather on Lex Anteinternet.  The first time I'd actually replied to a tweet she'd posted.  That tweet ached with her open desire to be home with her children, rather than working.  I set it out again here:

Kay (momma of two)
@jacelala
I don’t want to work. I want to be home with my baby and I can’t afford it. I hate that. I hate it so much.

The tweet above relates to this topic really.  And so does powerful Elise Stefanik's being with child, while in Congress.  And so does my heading off to work on the morning I started posting this, the day after my daughter's surgery. [2]

Or maybe it was all of the above combined.

All of which relates to agrarianism, truly.

And the fact that the modern industrial world (don't give me that "post industrial crap", this is the modern world, computerization is just one more facet of the Industrial Revolution bucko), fails miserably in existential ways.

Put another way, we're at war with nature and the nature we're at war with is our own nature, at least partially (and probably only partially).

While if you look around and listen to people it's not obvious, this isn't how we evolved to live.  Politicians argue about jobs, good jobs, getting jobs for everyone, and how to achieve it all the time.  Educators, in various fields, counsel their students that various endeavors and activities will help them get a "good job". [3]

And they should.

The economy is, in fact, and obviously, incredibly important.  And finding employment, and good employment at that, is not a matter to be taken lightly.  Worrying about your kids finding employment that will support them, and a potential future family, is a central concern of parents from children's mid teenage years up until they find it, if they do, and forever, if they don't.

Money won't buy happiness, to be sure, but poverty is its own misery, and there really aren't very many carefree, sane, unemployed.

Be that as it may, at no time whatsoever does a person's DNA really fully suit them for most modern jobs, at least to their full extent and nature.  Oh, there are exceptions to be sure in some lines of work, although decreasingly so, but for the most part this is true.  And many people's DNA does suit them at least partially, or even mostly, for their occupations.  Nonetheless, some people widely admired for their success in the world or for being standard-bearers for modern life are living lives deeply disordered in regard to their natural inclinations.  Those smiling faces likely have genes active in their brains that scream at them at night, if not in the day.  Some have compressed their personalities into molds in order to suit their roles as well, leaving them something akin to wounded people.

Or maybe its just me.  Maybe I'm just a lot more feral than a lot of other people.  Or more introspective.


At this point I'm never going to get over that as part of my nature either.  I'm not going to end up being one of those people who are really enamored with the concept that success means moving into a super large house in a hot zone after a career of making loads of money.  It ain't going to happen.  Indeed, in being honest with myself, while I'm outwardly successful by conventional measures, I'm not by my own measure, and I'm never going to be.  Not even close, and not in any way whatsoever that I use as a yardstick.  Not personally, professionally, or morally. [4]

There never was a time in the world, at least since the fall, in which it was perfect.  It's vitally important to remember this.  People who look back into the past and state "I wish I'd lived back in . . . and everything would be perfect" are fooling themselves in varying measures.  And that can be a dangerous way to think.  You are born into the world, and its conditions, that you are born into.  Lamenting that fact won't change it.

And it is not possible in any sense for a Utopia to be created.  Indeed, the amount of human misery caused by Utopian movements, whether they be 20th Century Communism or 21st Century woke progressivism, is epic.  We're not going to be able to recreate the world in a perfect image, ever.  Indeed, movement progressivism is ironically so locked into the spirt of its own times that it always looks to some degree foolish retrospectively.

But we can acknowledge something that's critical. We can't recreate the world to suit our personal natures, nor can we really recreate our natures. What we can do, however, is acknowledge that our natures are meant to be in a certain natural world, and that's where we are most happy. We know this for a fact.


We are a large brained, very smart, mammal that's capable of more intellectual diversity than any other creature.  Culture and invention are natural to us, so that's part of our nature.  We have to keep that in mind as well.  Given that, we can't say that we'd all be better if we living in the year (Fill In Blank Here).  At any one time there are always different cultures and inventiveness.

At the same time, however, it's also the case that at our root, we're an aboriginal agrarian people.  We're meant to live in nature, and we're evolved to it.  We aren't happy if we aren't in it.

Our departure from that is part of our messed up state to start with.  Most humans for most of our existence lived in some sort of association with nature, whether as hunter gatherers or farmers.  When we began to rise beyond that is when our lack of equality in things really started.  Misguided Reddit Catholic romantics, for example, who imagine things being prefect in the Middle Ages fail to realize that already by that time, in most places, the rise of and concentration of wealth had deprived the average person from his true ancestral connection with the land.  Once you couldn't hunt unless you were a poacher or had license from a liege, and once you started farming somebody else's land, you were well into the modern world and an unnatural situation.


Indeed, it's worth noting that even for those who didn't make their living from the land, a close association with the land, or nature, was the norm for a long time.  John Adams, who was as farmer, was also a lawyer, and wrote on the joys of riding the circuit, which literally involved riding a circuit on horseback.  Urban policemen walked outdoors all day long, unless they rode a horse outdoors all day long. Deliverymen drove wagons pulled by teams.  Much of this occurred until very, very recently.

Now it doesn't.

As this evolution occurred, people were severed first from their ownership of the land, or their right to use it, and then later from their families and the natural world. This didn't happen in clean steps, or all at once, or even everywhere at once.  Indeed, in some instances people instinctively sought to reverse the trend and were successful for awhile in doing that.


The severance of ownership of the land from the person working it has already been mentioned, and was a major step in this progression. [5]. The Industrial Revolution was a giant leap in it.

The Industrial Revolution, which we're still in, in spite of the concept of it being complete, at first operated to take men out of their homes, where they had primarily worked with and in the presence of their families, and place them in a separate place of work.  Relatively early on it began to do that to poorer women as well.  By the mid 19th Century it was so successful in this transition that in Europe most men worked outside of their family homes for somebody else, and even those independent of third party employment worked "in town".

This was so successful that it enculturated the concept of men's work being outside the home, and work that was outside the home as being men's work.  In reality other factors governed that, including the traditional role of men in the family necessitating it and the fact that a lot of early outside the home work consisted of backbreaking labor.  Additionally, as we've dealt with in numerous other threads, the division of labor necessitated that women's work be primarily domestic before the advent of domestic machinery lessened that need.  


Looked at that way, the entire "women's liberation" movement of the 1970s wasn't so much a liberation of women as a means of redirecting their employment outside the home now that it was no longer required there as much as it had been previously. That wasn't liberation at all, but the propaganda associated with it made it seem so.  If you accepted that men's careers had unique intrinsic value that was superior to any any domestic role, and that this was defined primarily if not exclusively by cash, then it must be the case that allowing women to enter into that world was liberating them from some captivity that precluded them from doing that.


Of course, the liberation turned into a requirement over time. The reality of it is that men and women are captive of the industrial economic system, irrespective of what other value their occupations have, and there are numerous other values.   The majority of women now work outside the home, which is supposed to be a sign of social advancement, but at the same time we now know that most families can't get by on one income.  Hence the reality of:

Kay (momma of two)
@jacelala
I don’t want to work. I want to be home with my baby and I can’t afford it. I hate that. I hate it so much.

The female worker has no choice.  Neither does the male. They have to work, and that work will be invariably outside the home, and indoors, for most.  People talk about choosing careers, and they do (or hopefully they do, but the choice to have a career is one that is necessitated by the need for everyone to serve the economy.  Individuals of course have to live in the economy that exists.

We're so acclimated to this that we don't even begin to grasp how profoundly unnatural it is.  In any but an industrial society (and again, we are one, no matter what "post" thesis a person might wish to insert into this), the family and work would not be separated.  Farmers worked, and still do, making them a rare exception, around their families.  People who worked trades typically worked them from their home.  When we read, for example, of St. Joseph being a carpenter, and Jesus learning the trade, that work and that education was done at home.  Even many professionals worked from their homes, or if not at least not far from them.[6].

Disrupting this has disrupted us from our natural order and its pretty easy to see it.  Children are dropped off in their formative years with people whose values and views their parents may not share.  At one time parents dropped their kids off at school and then recovered them at the end of the school day, thinking that separation was long.  Now it starts earlier and lasts longer and is regarded as a natural part of life for many, maybe most.  Men used to spend eight hours, or longer, every day from their family in a nearly all male environment, which had its own vices, but starting mid 20th Century they started spending many of those hours with women who were not their spouses.[7]. The term "office wife" has arisen to describe platonic relationship that end up having a marriage like behavioral aspect to the, which is alarming enough, but in reality the office affair is massively widespread and nearly any office of any substantial size is going to have one at some point in time.  If Kipling's men in barracks didn't grow into "plaster saints", men and women working outside the home for hours upon hours every day aren't going to universally either.


This gets back, I suppose, to Elise Stefanik, age 36, and House minority leader.  She's presently pregnant with  her first child, which is to be celebrated.  But that child is going to be born into the reality of her mother being a Republican power broker in a time of enormous stress.  It's certainly not impossible to be a female leader and a mother, Empress Maria Theresa of Austria was, by all accounts, a force to be reckoned with (Frederick the Great called her the "greatest man I ever met), and she had sixteen children.  Indeed, she wasn't above using her status as a mother to shame her government into supporting her in time of war, once bringing her large brood into an assembly debating war and demanding to know if it was going to save her and her children. But somehow her role as a mother wasn't inconsistent her status as Empress.  Will the young child of the House Minority Leader receive the full attention that a child is really entitled to.  Maybe.  If the child doesn't, however, that would certainly be the American norm.

Indeed, paternal neglect has long been a feature of modern life.  The rebellious teenager is practically a trope, it's so common, but the role of the absent father in that is rarely noted.  It's interesting to note, in that context, how often the sons of really famous hard driven men don't do well.  There are exceptions to be sure, such as Theodore Roosevelt's for example, but then TR is an example of a many who largely lived without the problems noted here and who did in fact actively live with his family and children, even when President.

At any rate, institutionalizing this further, so that we can squeeze the last ounce of human productivity out of workers, it is a feature of the proposed infrastructure bill, or at least it was.  Free child care was a Democratic wish. Conceived of by progressives as aid to working women, what it really amounts to is subsidized aid to industry so that no excuse remains for women with children to stay home.  No excuse for men has existed for over a century.  It's interesting in that in the same era in which the concept of a Universal Basic Income, and "free" university education has been debated and discussed, and in which some advanced societies are trying to figure out how to encourage women to have more children, the one thing we get pretty far with is a subsidization of industry in this fashion so that more women "can", i.e., "must" go to work.[8].   There's no equivalent subsidy that would allow one member of a family, male or female, to be assisted in not going to work outside their homes.

All of which relates to the fact that people who are receiving COVID 19 benefits aren't gong to back to work in the numbers expected.  Why would they?  It may not be that they're' receiving more staying home, just that they're staying enough not to have to rush back to work.  And by doing that, maybe there just being more human.  Ironically, those payments may be the assistance, albeit temporary, that allowed them to do that.

Indeed, many people during COVID 19 who remained employed worked from home.  This has now become such a part of work in some areas of employment (it never was for me) that I typically assume if I'm calling a professional that they're probably at home.  This is becoming less true now, but only to a slight degree.  Indeed, it was already the case that in certain occupations this trend was developing anyhow with it being notable in heavily computerized industries.

Indeed, here it must be noted that even though I barely worked from home during the pandemic, that says more about me than anything else. While I may be noting all of these problems, at this point in my life I can probably legitimately be accused of being a "workaholic" and I never really adjusted to the new work at  home world.  Like an old lawyer of our firm, dead before I started working there, who used his Dictaphone when it was introduced for one day, I may be incapable of adjusting to a different world.[9].

So, what's the way out of here toward a better balance of things?  Well, there is one, but it'll take a long time to get out.  At the present time, with the world developed and developing as it is, all we can really do is to create that world for ourselves, if we can, and hold on to the idea, if we can't.  And most of us can't, at least not completely.  Quite a few can, partially.

Footnotes

*This is one of two posts I wrote, more or less at the same time, in which I was pretty angry about something but which I won't detail here.  It's vaguely alluded to in the other post, which was completed before this one, but which will go to press, so to speak, after it.

I note that as writing while angry, like going to the grocery store when hungry, going into a bar while thirsty, or operating heavy machinery while taking narcotics, isn't necessarily a really good idea.  Sometimes you say stuff you don't mean, really.

**See footnote above.

1.  This post might frankly be also partially inspired by an event which lead me to draft a post on Empathy that will go up the morning of June 14, on Lex Anteinternet.  Suffice it to say, at the time that I am writing this I'm completely disgusted, and disillusioned, by the conduct of a certain specific person.  So much so that next time I'm in a certain venue where there's an audio association with that individual, I'll have a really hard time not reacting to it.

2.  Which might mean that I'm one of those people who can't tear myself away from work under any circumstances, a character defect rather than an indicia of the state of the world.

I'll note, unconnected with the sentence immediately above, I had on the day I returned to work, after one day off, a remote contact with a lawyer in another matter which made me pretty angry, and which is addressed in the top note above.  I'm still angry about it.

I don't have an Irish Temper, in spite of being nearly 100% descendant of Irish blood.  I tend to think that's misunderstood anyhow.  I'm extremely slow to anger.  But once I get angry, I remain angry.  People who cross a certain threshold of expectation with me, and its a pretty high threshold as I really don't expect much of people, have pretty much broken my tolerance for them permanently.  This is a vice on my part, not a virtue.

3.  When my son was in high school, an English teacher used to try to recruit students to debate with the claim that it would help you potentially become a lawyer.  I now actually know, for the first time, a kid who intends to become a lawyer who is in debate, or "forensics" as it is sometimes bizarrely inaccurately referred to.

I once did a minor survey of lawyers I immediately knew to see if any of them had been in speech and debate, or anything of the kind, the result was a resounding "no".  Indeed, the closest I could find is that one lawyer had been a university English major, which he majored in with the express intent of becoming a lawyer.  Otherwise, nope, nobody had been in debate.

As noted in my upcoming post on Empathy, I've become very cynical about some things and this spills over to this, but the type of debate and whatnot that is taught in that academic endeavor strikes me as being of little practical value for anyone is a legal pursuit, save for it does get you used to speaking in public, I guess.  Having said that, generally people who are attracted to the law because of the claim "I like to argue" should stop and think, as that makes them assholes, and the law has enough assholes as it is.

4. But then, perhaps nobody who is introspective thinks they are.  And a lawyer should be introspective.

5.  While not to sound like the 1619 Project, slavery was also part and parcel of this.  Serfdom and slavery, aspects of the same unnatural deprivation of a person from their own freedom, is critically tied to the advancement of a society based, in some ways, on wealth.

6. As late as the 1970s I accompanied my father to a trip to a lawyer's home for some reason.  I don't recall what the reason was, and it wasn't a lawyer that was my father's lawyer. But my father knew him.  He was a retired judge, I recall, and I was surprised that his office was in his home, with it having a separate entrance.  I also recall my father telling me that this was illegal, but somehow the lawyer was getting away with it.

Along a similar lines, a plumber my father knew had a huge old house on a major downtown road in town that he inherited.  I don't think the fellow married until he was in his 50s.  Anyhow, his company was on the main floor, he lived in the rest of the house.

7.  One of the byproducts of the all male work environment, and maybe a vice depending upon how you look at it, was a sort of tribal society nature to a lot of work.  Men who worked together bonded in a way that they don't, usually, now. That was a good thing but it also had a distinct element to it that developed where they outright ignored their family.  Men spent all day at work and in some cases even started spending time together before work for breakfast, worked all day, and then hit the bars right after work, not getting home until after several beers, by which time some of them were pretty messed up.  My own father never ever did this, but I was aware that it had been the culture in years prior to my growing up and in actuality still was to some degree.

The degree to which this culture existed varied substantially by region and it was really common in blue collar areas. It might still be a bit.  I've seen this, interestingly enough, in the instance of somebody I somewhat know who descends from that region who has that tendency to extend the work day on into the post work  hours in such a fashion.

8.  I'll forego here discussing in depth a welfare system which has evolved, in numerous different ways, that encourages men to abandon their offspring and which in other areas further subsidizes children in ways that are socially questionable, as that's a different topic, but both of those are features of the modern welfare system.

9.  The lawyer in question wrote out, by hand, his work product.

I actually did that when I was still a student and working where I now work. But upon become a lawyer, I pretty rapidly gave that up and dictated my product. When computers came in, however, I went back to writing them out myself, which is what I find that most lawyers under 60 years of age now do.