Back to Index
The Symposium (the poor shoemaker).
N: what do you want, lads?
M: bottle of becks
G: Pint of Guinness.
N: No problem. Go and grab that table. (to barmaid) Pint of Stella, pint of Guinness, bottle of Becks, please.
M: So, Gaz, how�s work?
G: Shit.
M: Bad week?
G: The chef�s a dickhead. We get a party of ten in and he�s like �ooohhhh�, going into one. It was half nine, and I�m pissed off, and the chef�s freaking out. I tell you, I carry them. Dickheads.
N: Becks for the homo, Guinness, Stella
M: You are a receiver. Like the barmaid?
G: She needs cock.
N: She�d get cock.
M: Not from you.
N: You�d cry and ask to be just friends.
M: As if.
G: You are gay.
N: Out of ten?
M: 7.
G: 7.
N: 8.
M: 8?
G: Only because he thinks she�d take it up the ass.
N: And it is an ass worth fucking.
M: 7 - she�s got a face like a man�s arse.
G: Which is why he�s given her an 8.
N: You�re as funny as you are intelligent. How was work?
G: Shit.
M: Don�t get him started.
N: Let me guess, chef�s a dickhead, you carry them?
G: Like I was just saying. It just pisses me off having to work.
N: That�s not the problem.
M: Just because you�re in a noble profession.
N: Don�t take the piss. Teaching rules. You get to perv at all the sixth formers all the time.
M: Any you�d give a good going.
N: None that would interest you. They�re all female. Anyway, work isn�t the problem.
G: Oh but it is.
N: Oh but it isn�t, my little friend.
G: Nothing little about me.
N: You just keep telling yourself that. Work isn�t the problem, it�s your job.
G. Explain.
N: You like work, it keeps you active, engaged, whatever. You like the idea of your work, you like working with food, with creating, but your job tries to curb this desire in the name of efficiency.
M: Been giving it much thought?
N: Yes. Crisis of confidence.
M: Jason told you it didn�t matter, it happens to every man.
N: You�d know. Anyway, stop projecting for a minute, and listen. I was thinking about what I teach.
G: English, dickhead. Mickey Mouse subject.
N: Spoken like a true illiterate. I mean, why am I teaching them?
G: So that they can do well in their exams and get jobs.
N: So that they can get jobs they hate and go to pubs on a Friday night and complain?
M: That�s the way it goes.
G: You teach skills, knowledge, whatever. Bad jokes as I imagine.
N: Gaz, me and you did Spanish, yeah? I got a B, which is a good grade, but I can�t remember a fucking thing.
G: Holla. Que tal?
N: Buenos Dias. Latigo me pene.
G: That took us an entire lesson to look up and work out.
N: How dedicated we were. My point is that is about all I can remember, so why bother. Or were we being taught something else? Is the only point of sixteen years of education a number of letters, by which we determine who succeeds and who fails?
G: I don�t know. All I know is I fucked about and failed.
M: Dickhead.
N: You didn�t fail.
G: I don�t remember school being all that great. Like you say, I don�t remember learning all that much, all that much I could tell you now.
N: This being my crisis of confidence. I like my job, I like the whole idea of education, but I don�t want it to be just about grades. I want it to be about knowledge, skills, whatever.
G: But it�s your job to get the best out of them. You motivate them by grades, they go after the grades, they do well.
N: This ignores the kids who can�t get the grades.
M: Fuck them.
N: That�s how most teachers loose their job. My point is, I want the kids to do well firstly, worry about the grades secondly. You see, this links to a whole mess of crap I�ve been thinking about. It started when I was reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It�s so good. In the beginning, the guy sees these people on their way to work, and I was thinking, wow, this guy must feel so much better, so superior to these people. But that conflicts with the whole tone of the book. He doesn�t feel superior. Another bit is in The Wasteland, �I had not thought that death had undone so many�. This is said, again, about people on their way to work, looking like death, probably looking like you do in the morning, Gaz.
G: Point?
N: There�s an �I� and a �Many�. How come Eliot doesn�t feel superior to these �Many�?
M: I�m off to see my mate, back in a bit.
N: OK
G: OK. Nay, what are you getting at?
N: I�m getting at this. When people create a truly great thing, the happiness is not derived from a sense of superiority, but from a feeling of pride.
G: So the Zen guy feels pride, not superior?
N: Yes. And the �I� is not superior to �the many�.
G: What�s this got to do with school?
N: I think grades have got to do with a feeling of superiority, where as good work has got to do with pride. I want to teach the kids to realise that work I set, essays, whatever, is a chance to do the best they can do, a chance to be proud of something. But too often I use grades as a threat - �do this or you�ll get bad grades�, this appeals to a sense of superiority, or a sense of inferiority.
G: Not everybody likes Shakespeare. Not everybody�s going to feel superior reading Shakespeare.
N: take pride.
G: Whatever. It�s just not like that for everybody. I hated it, doesn�t mean anything.
N: True.
G: Anyway, what do you mean pride. What�s the difference to feeling better than somebody, isn�t it the same thing?
N: Not by my definition. OK, let�s say there�s two reasons for pupils getting top grades, pride and superiority. Both motivate someone, but I think happiness is related to pride. Pride is focused on the task itself, pride is for itself, self gratifying and autonomous. Superiority is focused on being better than others. The quality of the product itself takes secondary significance, it just needs to be the best relative to others.
G: Not clear.
N: OK - superiority. If you are the best, you feel superior to all those who tried to do the best but failed.
G: OK.
N: So to feel superior, you need other people attempting the same thing.
G: Yes.
N: And you need some way of defining what makes one thing superior to another.
G: Too abstract.
N: OK - grades. You produce an essay on Macbeth, you get an A. This A is better than somebody else�s B, OK?
G: OK.
N: But your A is dependant on that other getting a grade B, and an objective examining system which defines a success criteria.
G: With you.
N: So a sense of superiority is dependant on competition and objective validation.
G: And this is bad because?
N: At the moment I�m only saying it is different to a sense of pride, not better, not worse. I�ll come to that.
G: OK - so superiority is feeling you�re better than everyone.
N: Yes.
G: But pride? If you�re proud of something isn�t that because you�ve done it better than everyone?
N: No.
G: No?
N: No. You see, all this stuff comes from things I�ve witnessed. First year kids come up to me and ask me to check over their work. I check it over and it�s immaculate. And then they don�t want you to read it to the rest of the class.
G: Shy.
N: Possibly. But it�s not just kids. I did this worksheet on my computer, and it looked dead good. I showed it to everyone in the staff room.
G: Show off.
N: Possibly. But both of these occurrences come from the fact that we�ve created something we�re proud of, we don�t need to compete with anyone over it. And if we show it off, it�s in the same vain as the Zen guy, not for objective validation, not to feel superior. It�s the best we can do, and we know that. So pride isn�t competition based, and therefore needs no objective validation. It�s just like you know it�s that good. You know it yourself, when you�ve done something so good, and you couldn�t have done it any better.
G: I know that feeling. And so did your mother last night.
N: Almost funny, keep trying. But you know what I�m getting at?
G: Yeah, I do. Like, I do love catering, creating a meal that wouldn�t taste any better, cooked to perfection. You�re right, I don�t need telling it�s good. And I don�t compare it.
N: Exactly.
M: (returning) Drinks, boys?
N: Yeah, cheers. Stella.
G: Guinness.
M: OK (leaves).
N: So, like I�ve said before, everybody�s goal is happiness - even suicides. But the conflict is in how to attain happiness, some feel happiness is gained by superiority, some by pride.
G: Can happiness be gained by superiority?
N: No. I don�t care who you are, or what you do, somebody�s always going to do it better. Look at world records, they always get broken. I don�t believe in linear evolution, but I do believe the best is always getting redefined.
G: I suppose. People who do stuff to be better than you usually are dickheads.
N: Too true. Seen Big Blue?
G: Yeah, the film with Leon in.
N: Yeah. Well in that there�s two guys, one who represents happiness through superiority, one who represents happiness through pride. The one who needs to feel superior always gets into competitions, the one who feels pride is happy to do it for the task in itself, not comparing himself to anyone else. Of course, the competitive guy�s insatiable drive leads to his own death. It�s like competition has a death drive implicit in it. But that�s another conversation.
G: So how do you find happiness?
N: Find what the best thing you can do is, and do it. Problem is, people�s potential to do the best is channelled into social practise.
G: This is what you meant when you said I liked my work but not my job.
N: Exactly.
G: What�s the problem?
M: (enters) Drinks, boys. (leaves).
N: The problem is between having an egotistical or proud approach to work, and weather your job allows you to be proud of your work. With the kids I teach, the egotistical ones go for the grades, the proud ones go for the knowledge. In society, the egotist does the job for the money. You can already see the problem, can�t you?
G: If you work for the money, your priority is not the quality of the work.
N: I agree. The egotist must also do the work better than others, otherwise they are not worth the money. This is the basis of competition. Competition is the fundamental drive of capitalism.
G: So egotism and capitalism are related?
N: Both are forms of competition. And both believe this is necessary to achieve happiness. But as we�ve said, it�s not.
G: The proud?
N: The proud do the job for satisfaction, not external reward or validation. Now which drive produces the better quality?
G: The proud. They do it for the work, rather than wages. Knowledge rather than grades.
N: exactly. The proud produce the best that can be produced. This is the ideal communist state.
G: OK then, how come we live in a capitalist society and not a communist one? Communism failed. All those Russians really wanted was Levis.
N: Communism failed, so when I talk about it as the ideal manifestation of a society based on pride, I am talking in the abstract.
G: Go on then.
N: Right. Society originates when individuals enter a group situation, and share the responsibilities. How is the sharing decided?
G: The most powerful does the least.
N: I�m not discussing reality, but ideals. It would be decided on what could be done the best by a particular person, which, by definition, is that in which they take pride. A social agreement allows this. For example, I am only free to do what I love, to teach, if somebody builds a house for me. Otherwise I�d be too busy building my house. Because of this, I would live in a shit house and the builder�s children would be ignorant savages. I can only teach because somebody makes me shoes. Ideally, who do I want to make my shoes?
G: The person who is best at making shoes.
N: Exactly. And who is this?
G: The one that takes pride in shoemaking.
N: Yes. And because I don�t have to spend my time making shoes, I can dedicate my time to being a good teacher, and the best quality is ensured.
G: But you spend most of your time down here, drinking.
N: Can you please just talk in the abstract for two goddamn minutes
G: Continue.
N: This form of society is based on trust. I trust the person making my shoes is as proud of shoemaking as I am of teaching. It is a society based on pride, not egotism. Because of this, the best quality would be had by all. We would wear the shoes knowing the best person has does his best in producing the shoes.
G: Utopia. A society based on pride, trust. Production is also based on this. I have a few problems. Firstly, if we could choose what we wanted to do at the beginning I would be a footballer. Loads of money.
N: In this society, you don�t get paid. Everything is provided for you. wages are a basic form of objective validation. Your job is great, you are important, here is 80,000 a year. Your job is shit, you are shit, here is 8,000.
G: I don�t get much more than that.
N: Exactly. And, you wouldn�t be a footballer. You�d try it for a bit, but realise you weren�t that good. You are not that good because it is not that thing in which you take pride. The people who take pride in it would do it for free. It�s the difference between Liverpool under Evans and Liverpool under Houllier.
G: So Liverpool are all pride? What does that make Man U?
N: The single biggest symbol of all that is evil and morally vacuous in the world.
G: Extreme.
N: Anyway, this utopia, you don�t work for wages, you work for internal validation.
G: Outstanding. Why don�t we then?
N: Human nature. I said the utopia is based on trust. People don�t trust.
G: What�s the problem? We would walk around in our perfect would not trusting, that�s not enough to stop us being happy.
N: No. Another part of human nature is to want the best, to desire perfection. People need to ensure they get the best shoes, and they don�t trust enough to believe people will do it simply for satisfaction. Fear for not attaining the best product leads to competition. If we have five people producing shoes, firstly, the competition will force them to perform, secondly �the best� is relative to that which is inferior. Therefore we depend on inferior products. This is capitalism, the belief that competition will bring out the best in people. Competition is based on objective validation and needs objective reward - wages. Capitalism forces the best. But this best is only relative, and produced out of fear. This leads to another problem, where do the excess, the inferior products go? You�ve one pair of good shoes and four pairs of bad shoes. Who gets the best shoes?
G: The best.
N: Exactly. But if you�ve got �the best�, an elite, a superior, you�ve got a hierarchy. Skills are then fitted around this hierarchy, which seem perfectly natural, because production is based on objective validation, wages, and these wages vary - give the best shoemaker the highest wage. In tern, only the richest shoemakers afford the best shoes. Society foregoes internal validation and satisfaction for wages and grades. Creation is objectively validated and modified accordingly. Pride is unimportant.
G: Why do people agree to be the inferior shoemaker?
N: They don�t agree. This is my problem with schools. Grading plays directly into capitalism. Firstly it rewards superiority, not pride. Secondly it internalises competition, thirdly it created losers. Losers aren�t born, they only loose in relation to the game they are forced to play.
G: Who are the losers?
N: Those who don�t get Shakespeare. What is the point of teaching a potentially excellent biologist or mechanic Shakespeare, if they don�t get it or don�t like it? It just makes them feel inferior to those who do.
G: You�ve got me.
N: You produce the bad shoemaker, all complete with an inferiority complex. Kids aren�t directed to fulfil their potential because society needs bad shoemakers to ensure the good shoes are produced out of fear and competition. Problem is, these shoes good shoes need only be better than bad shoes, not necessarily the best possible shoes. This links with my problem when we shop.
G: You are a bitch when we shop.
N: I know. I can spend �100 on books and films, because I know they represent pride. I know the writer did the best they could. Clothes shopping is different. I can�t spend money in Top Man, River Island or Burton easily, because I don�t feel it represents the best. I don�t feel somebody put pride into the mass production of the clothes. If that�s the case, why should I take pride in the part I play in society? Apathy is a by product of a competitive society based on a sense of superiority at the expense of pride.
G: How do you fix it?
N: We must overcome social fear. We must believe that people will work simply for satisfaction, not for reward. People should be guided toward what it is they could do the best. This would take the place of an education system that is the provider of the bad shoemaker. Also hierarchy must be abandoned. This would easily follow from the abandonment of wages. People�s sense of superiority would be replaced in two stages. They should realise they can only do what they do because somebody makes their shoes. They also realise that people can take a collective pride in achievement. Because we work together in social agreement, the guy who finds a cure for cancer only does it because somebody makes his shoes, which saves him the necessary time to find the cure. But I�m talking abstracts.
G: Fine. Lovely. Can we get pissed now? I�ve had a fucking awful week at work.