On today’s news its been reported that "more than 100 people died on Saturday and Sunday in a fire at a garment factory outside Dhaka, Bangladesh, in one of the worst industrial tragedies in the country”. The majority of the bodies were severely charred. My first thought when hearing this story was why would anyone work in factory if something as deadly as this was even in the realm of possibilities? But did these people really have a choice in the first place?
Alan Watts, a British philosopher and writer, gave a lecture about the choices he
believes Americans have. He started out by asking college students what
they would do if they could pursue any job “Well, we’d like to be
painters, we’d like to be poets, we’d like to be writers’ but as everybody
knows you can’t earn any money that way!” It’s common for Americans to choose a job based on money alone
not desire or passion. Watts encourages these students to pursue their
dreams and desires. I have concluded that it is
very narrow-minded because this philosophy is attainable mostly for the upper class.
Only people whom already have money can take risks about where they will
invest their time. Watts continues by saying; “Why would we spend our whole life doing something we
don’t like,…You’ll be doing things you don’t like doing
in order to go on living – that is to go on doing things you don’t like doin!” Watts is describing a pattern he has noticed in people who spend their life doing something that they dont really like. He is sayin that it is not worth doing something you dont like to do, just to insure that you will continue to do something that you dont like to do. This
very quote seemed to define for me something we have been talking about in
class: Sweatshop workers.
Sweatshop
workers are not working at these factories because they are passionate about
making clothing for wealthy Westerners. No, instead they are working at
these factories solely to make money in order to survive. Arifa a woman from Bangladesh began
working at the young age of 10 because her father could no longer work. Therefore Arifa was practically forced
to work, twenty years later she reflects on her job; “(Afria) would like to leave her job. The work is
exhausting and hard on her body, causing frequent pain". The labor of her
job is in high demand by Americans who benefit from the products of her labour. Jobs like
Afrias support our comfortable life style in the United States (but that is for
another post). The sad truth is that this, and jobs with equal or more
grueling labor are the only ones available to Arifa. Therefore she has
little to no choice.
Yet,
do Americans really have a choice?
Comparatively speaking some Americans have more choices than others.
The American youth whom are supported financially by parents are able to
make riskier choices. Choices, that could turn out to be a complete failure.
Yet the American youth who are not supported financially by their parents perhaps could not afford to take risks like this. For they have no one to catch
them if they fall. For example if someone whom is lower class decided to
take a risk like the ones Watts recommended, maybe a painter, and failed
miserably they would end up on the street. They are better off working at factory or fast food
restaurant where they are guaranteed a steady income. Therefore, although Watt’s argument is thought provoking and
interesting it is only attainable and realistic to affluent people. In what ways do you agree or disagree with Wattes philosophy? And too what extent do you agree that his philosophy only applies to the affluent?
Above is Alan Watt's lecture I would really recommend taking three minutes out of your busy day too watch it! Its worth it.
