Take a photo of a barcode or cover
mediaevalmuse 's review for:
Bullshit Jobs: A Theory
by David Graeber
I first heard of this book when it came out, and the premise was instantly intriguing to me, but since I was in grad school, I didn’t have the time to pick it up until recently. Now that I’m bingeing non-fiction, particularly non-fiction about social and economic theory, it seemed like an appropriate time to give it a go.
The first thing that struck me about this book was Graeber’s writing. I really appreciated the way Graeber combined a recognizably academic prose style with clear, poignant language and syntax. By that, I mean Graeber uses a lot of phrases like “I argue” or “my impression is” while citing a lot of studies or philosophers whose work supports his argument. However, Graeber never buries his points in academic jargon or incomprehensible sentences. As a result, Graber is able to talk about complex ideas while remaining accessible to a casual reader. Personally, I prefer this style to a more “pop” or “public” one because it feels like the author is respecting the reader’s intelligence without dipping into pretension.
I also appreciated that Graeber is very clear about the scope of his book, as well as the possible shortcomings. He acknowledges that he is largely working from anecdotal data, which is necessarily limited, but he does present a compelling case for why such data is useful. He also couches most of his arguments in opinion or personal perspective so as not to appear as if he’s stating a universal truth, which I also enjoyed because it leaves open the possibility for more discussion.
Graeber also puts humans (rather than theories) at the center of his work, advocating for workers’ perspectives to be taken seriously, while also acknowledging human needs such as connection, agency, care, etc. He is not afraid to call out the hypocrisy of political agendas (both on the Right and Left), and never suggests that blue collar or service work is somehow “less than” white collar work. If anything, he says the opposite, as desk jobs have the tendency to produce less “benefit” to society (a slippery topic which he explores in chapter 6).
In general, I think the reason why Graeber’s arguments work (at least for me) is that they challenge such deeply-held assumptions about “work,” “value,” and “human nature.” In that sense, this book is less about economics and more about philosophy, which might rub readers the wrong way (especially if they’re too attached to their Economics 101 textbook). Indeed, Graeber is more concerned with exploring social theorists as opposed to hard economics with its formulae and statistics. Those who undervalue such types of study may therefore be inclined to dismiss this book as a socialist dream, but I personally found Graeber to be quite fair and balanced in his assessments of the problems of capitalism and socialism/communism. Moreover, the fact that Graeber offers few solutions to the epidemic of “bullshit jobs” (aside from a discussion of Universal Basic Income in chapter 7) might also frustrate some people, but Graeber himself offers an explanation as to why he doesn’t feel it is beneficial for him to comment on policy - not only is he not a policy expert, but he’s also an anarchist and feels that offering solutions would change the way his book is perceived. Fair enough, even if you disagree.
Overall, I think this book accomplished what it intended to do: spark a conversation, rather than reveal any magical fixes or universal truths about our current system. I think there was a reason Graeber put “a theory” in his title, and if nothing else, the book certainly prompted me to re-evaluate my own assumptions.
The first thing that struck me about this book was Graeber’s writing. I really appreciated the way Graeber combined a recognizably academic prose style with clear, poignant language and syntax. By that, I mean Graeber uses a lot of phrases like “I argue” or “my impression is” while citing a lot of studies or philosophers whose work supports his argument. However, Graeber never buries his points in academic jargon or incomprehensible sentences. As a result, Graber is able to talk about complex ideas while remaining accessible to a casual reader. Personally, I prefer this style to a more “pop” or “public” one because it feels like the author is respecting the reader’s intelligence without dipping into pretension.
I also appreciated that Graeber is very clear about the scope of his book, as well as the possible shortcomings. He acknowledges that he is largely working from anecdotal data, which is necessarily limited, but he does present a compelling case for why such data is useful. He also couches most of his arguments in opinion or personal perspective so as not to appear as if he’s stating a universal truth, which I also enjoyed because it leaves open the possibility for more discussion.
Graeber also puts humans (rather than theories) at the center of his work, advocating for workers’ perspectives to be taken seriously, while also acknowledging human needs such as connection, agency, care, etc. He is not afraid to call out the hypocrisy of political agendas (both on the Right and Left), and never suggests that blue collar or service work is somehow “less than” white collar work. If anything, he says the opposite, as desk jobs have the tendency to produce less “benefit” to society (a slippery topic which he explores in chapter 6).
In general, I think the reason why Graeber’s arguments work (at least for me) is that they challenge such deeply-held assumptions about “work,” “value,” and “human nature.” In that sense, this book is less about economics and more about philosophy, which might rub readers the wrong way (especially if they’re too attached to their Economics 101 textbook). Indeed, Graeber is more concerned with exploring social theorists as opposed to hard economics with its formulae and statistics. Those who undervalue such types of study may therefore be inclined to dismiss this book as a socialist dream, but I personally found Graeber to be quite fair and balanced in his assessments of the problems of capitalism and socialism/communism. Moreover, the fact that Graeber offers few solutions to the epidemic of “bullshit jobs” (aside from a discussion of Universal Basic Income in chapter 7) might also frustrate some people, but Graeber himself offers an explanation as to why he doesn’t feel it is beneficial for him to comment on policy - not only is he not a policy expert, but he’s also an anarchist and feels that offering solutions would change the way his book is perceived. Fair enough, even if you disagree.
Overall, I think this book accomplished what it intended to do: spark a conversation, rather than reveal any magical fixes or universal truths about our current system. I think there was a reason Graeber put “a theory” in his title, and if nothing else, the book certainly prompted me to re-evaluate my own assumptions.