ENGL 200 D: Reading Literature: Literature in the Marketplace

John Locke and Stephen Duck both write on the topic of labor and how much entitlement a laborer has based on his work.  In Locke’s opinion whoever works the land is entitled to whatever it produces because of that labor, any man can work as much land as he wants as long as no space or produce is wasted. If a man takes more than he can handle and some goes to waste it is considered depriving someone else the chance of successfully working the land and it can be taken away. The world Duck lives in not only disagrees with but is completely backwards from Locke’s theories. He works the master’s land and if he were to take any of the produce that he worked for without permission it would be considered stealing. His labor produces the value, but none of it belongs to him, while the landowner doesn’t work for it at all and gets all of the profit before dealing out wages.

If the philosopher and the poet were to have a conversation I think that Locke would try to inform Duck of his rights as a hard working man. That he should be working his own land, that all he has to do is move further out to where there is wild land, ripe for the working for any free man. Duck would probably think this sounds nice but understands that he needs other people to make a living, he needs the other people to work the land with him and despite that his family has most likely worked on this spot for generations. Even though he doesn’t own this land, he might feel a connection to it. To which Locke would say something along the lines of “Nonsense!” there is a whole world out there ready to be tilled and planted. Why not try America? They have endless amounts of workable land out there!

In the end, Locke and Duck never would agree on what a laboer is entitled to. Because though Locke’s philosophies sound nice and utopic, Duck works in the real world, or at least what he thinks his reality has to be. His labor does not entitle him to the fruits of the fields he works, and this is the cycle in which he will live his life.

Stephen Duck, the 18th century day laborer and poet gave people outside the laboring class an insider’s look into the world of agricultural workers in his time. His poem “The Thresher’s Labor” primarily focuses on the constant, backbreaking, and repetitive work that is necessary to grow food. Modern employees or “associates” as many corporations choose to call their underlings could learn a few things from Duck. He tells the story of a lowly day laborer, a story that many employees would find eerily and perhaps uncomfortably familiar. Duck’s story mirrors that of many modern day workers that feel trapped in the cycle of their work 5 days a week 9am-5pm. Same thing day in and day out, he sums up this feeling at the end of his poem lines 280-283 “Now growing Labours still succeed the past, and growing always new, must always last”.

Duck’s account of labor differs from most modern positions that there is no hope for promotion or pay raise for him, he works for a wage and that is pretty much all he will ever earn. Thankfully here in the 21st century most jobs have an opportunity to move up or gain more, but when looking at the similarities between working then and working now, is looking forward to raises and promotions employees really just trying to make themselves feel better about their jobs? Even Duck did this by comparing himself to a wide variety of heroic and godly characters from Greek and Roman mythology. Lines 40-41 “Down one, one up, so well they keep the Time, TheCyclops Hammers could not truer chime;”

It would be unfair to say that worker’s conditions haven’t improved in three hundred years, they most definitely have at least in most first world countries. But I think that the mindset is still very similar; many modern day workers feel trapped in their roles in society. Only now instead of working under a hot sun it’s under the buzzing pulse of phosphorescent lights and computer screens. Bodies now ache with carpel tunnel, back and eye strain instead of pulled muscles and sunburn.

If Duck were working for himself instead of an insulting landowner I think his poem would have been very different. Going into business for oneself requires a vision, planning and motivation that is scarcely seen by his laboring class. They work because they have to to survive. The same is true today, one of the best things someone can say about themselves is “I own my own business.”  with the addition “and it’s doing well” is even more valuable. Even though it is essentially the same work, and even more of it being responsible for one’s own livelihood there is a sense of independence and pride that goes along with it.  On his own farm or land Duck would have been doing the same work but he would have been the one assigning value to his own work, which I think would have made him happier.

Duck was born into his working class situation and though modern day Americans are generally encouraged to work hard, get good jobs and move up, many people don’t move anywhere and feel trapped. I think that “The Thresher’s Labor” would be good reading for a lot of employees to get them thinking about what they are spending their lives, time, energy and effort on. Whether it is worth it and how valuable they think their time is.

Major Paper 2 Rough Draft    . This paper is very rough, I’m coming to realize that I may have too many points that I’m trying to talk about at once and have them all relate to each other at the same time. I would really appreciate feedback on the parts I have highlighted in yellow and I apologize for lack of a conclusion but I felt like I needed to figure out more of a direction before I put in an ending. Thanks!

For my second paper I plan on forming an economic profile for Auric Goldfinger. I will primarily focus on Goldfinger as a personification of physical gold and how he uses, is, acts like and perceives gold to show human emotion that comes with gold. Power and power struggle will factor into my paper a great deal, Bond, Pussy Galor, and Oddjob will all factor into that broad idea in order to bring the focus down onto smaller areas of struggle rather than trying to explain the various ins and outs of the general “Power Struggle”. Fear will also have its place, fear of destitution, social inadequacies and control. I plan on using Marx’s “The German Ideology” as a scope through which to analyze this topic. I think it will be the most fruitful, though honestly I think I’ll have to read through Marx and Smith again before I can gain a clear idea on exactly which direction I want to go in.

It will be important in this paper to address public opinion of gold through the eyes of the author and how he uses his villain to cast a certain light on gold vs. governmental bonds. Turning an inanimate object that most people consider harmless if valuable into a murdering criminal mastermind definitely has motives behind it that need to be explored.

“Men can be distinguished from animals by connsciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation.” (150).

In this section Marx is discussing the points that mark humans as different from animals. He says that men are different from animals based on our ability to become aware of ourselve and how we work in a larger system. Marx uses the example of religion because it is a system made up of many smaller systems of people all working toward a common goal, whether it be heaven or some other place. People are connected to one another through these various systems.

That idea works in general, but Marx also talks about the very moment when people discover their conciousness and the immidiate choices they make after this discovery. Men become different from animals as soon as “they begin produce their means of subsistence” meaning what we need to survive. Because there will almost be items or services needed to subsist that one cannot do themselves it forces people to become organized and agree upon who will do what to benefit the whole. This ability to organize ourselves and rely upon one another and the fact that we do it conciously and not based on driving insticnt is part of what makes us human.

Major Paper 1 draft – CL

For the first paper I’m planning on answering the question “What makes labor value difficult to establish?” with the answer “Labor value is difficult to establish because though the quality and amount of labor should equal the quality of product, it doesn’t always. The two are not necessarily synonymous.” I plan on using Montague and Duck to argue different aspects of this answer

Montague is a good voice to use for this topic because the main conflict of her piece is a man who thinks that the fruits of his academic labors are good enough to buy a prostitute without paying her. This is essentially a difference in opinion on labor value. His social standing is his value and his peer group highly values it. He thinks he is being cheated because she didn’t do the work he paid her for, she didn’t labor for him. The two people in the poem have completely different views on what labor is and how value is assessed which supports my answer.

Duck will be useful because he is a laborer with obvious issues as to what his labor is worth. He not only gives his landlord the labor he provides during the day but he lives his whole life in servitude to them, his youth his health, even (though I’m not sure Duck specifically talks about it) the production of children is intended to produce more workers for the family. There is at least one section in his poem about how he and the landlord disagree about how hard the laborers have been working. Another is when the women come to work in the fields as well, he values his own labor but not that of the women’s at all even though it is the same work. The part about women I think will have to be an acknowledged as a difference in labor value just because they are women and therefore kind of annoying. That’s a whole different essay about labor value of the sexes that I’ll have to be careful to stay off my soap box.

Stephen Duck, the 18th century day laborer and poet gave people outside the laboring class an insider’s look into the world of agricultural workers in his time. His poem “The Thresher’s Labor” primarily focuses on the repetition of backbreaking, hard, and repetitive work that is necessary to grow food. Modern employees or “associates” as many corporations choose to call their underlings could learn a few things from Duck. He tells the story of a lowly day laborer, a story that many employees would find eerily and perhaps uncomfortably familiar. Duck’s story mirrors that of many modern day workers that feel trapped in the cycle of their work 5 days a week 9am-5pm. Same thing day in and day out, he sums up this feeling at the end of his poem lines 280-283 “Now growing Labours still succeed the past, and growing always new, must always last”.

Duck’s account of labor differs from most modern positions that there is no hope for promotion or pay raise for him, he works for a wage and that is pretty much all he will ever earn. Thankfully here in the 21st century most jobs have an opportunity to move up or gain more, but when looking at the similarities between working then and working now, is looking forward to raises and promotions employees really just trying to make themselves feel better about their jobs? Even Duck did this by comparing himself to a wide variety of heroic and godly characters from Greek and Roman mythology. Lines 40-41 “Down one, one up, so well they keep the Time, The Cyclops Hammers could not truer chime;”

Duck was born into his working class situation and though modern day Americans are generally encouraged to work hard, get good jobs and move up, many people don’t move anywhere and feel trapped. I think that “The Thresher’s Labor” would be good reading for a lot of employees to get them thinking about what they are spending their lives, time, energy and effort on. Whether it is worth it and how valuable they think their time is.

I chose Locke and Duck on the topic of labor and the entitlement of the laborer based on his work. Locke is of the mind that working the land entitles the laborer to the profits gained from the work of their own labor, and when it gets crowded, people can just continue to move out and create more workable land from wild land. Duck lives in a different time period and reality. He works the master’s land and works under the landlord, his life is an endless agricultural cycle and he sees no payoff at the end. He doesn’t own any of the land he works and if he were to take any of the fruits of it home without permission it would be considered stealing from the land’s master. I think that Locke would try to inform Duck of his rights as a hard working man and what he is entitled to. In response Duck would call Locke an oblivious philosopher and thinker whose never done a hard day’s labor in his life and has little or no idea of the realities of the hierarchy of agriculture in Great Britain. Ultimately I don’t think they would agree on what rewards labor entitles a laborer, one thinking the other a high minded pansy and the other thinking the laborer an educated but still simple-minded worker who has no concept of philosophy but, granted is good at rhyming.

I picked words from Lady Mary Wortley’s “The Reasons that Induced Dr. S. to write a Poem called “The Lady’s Dressing Room” To pick words from.

I chose the word “Offering” from the poem used near the beginning, when Betty’s maid tells him that he’ll need to bring money if he intends to enjoy her mistress’ company. The word “offering” stuck out to me because I have always considered an offering to be a gift, something that one doesn’t intend to get recompense from; whereas Dr. S in this story is obviously looking to get something out of this arrangement. I think that by using the word “offering” in what is to very soon become a cut and dry business transaction Wortley is foreshadowing the conflict that is to come by almost making light of this transaction.

The second word I chose is from the same poem, down towards the middle where the narrator momentarily leaves the characters after money has  changed hands and you fully expect the services to continue as planned, as do they “Expects the doctor’s warm embrace.” The word is “mad”  from ” With learning mad, with wisdom blind!” Wortley is getting across that mankind is driven crazy with their own learning and are blind with our own wisdom; meaning that we can’t see the answers to things we think are already discovered. I think the line in which this word is used in particular meant for people (and maybe Dr.S)  to open their eyes to what power and value shifts are going on around them.

I chose these two words because they both have to do with a kind of obliviousness in power. The first is used almost satirically, Dr. S ‘offers’ his money fully intending that he’ll get his money’s worth.  “Mad” refers to a state of mind that one reaches when one thinks they know everything, like how Dr. S “knew” he would leave Betty’s fully satisfied. Instead, the economics of the situation didn’t play out the exact way he thought they would. Understanding this connection is important because it helps put into perspective the intentions that Dr. S has going into Betty’s and why things go the way they do when he *ahem* can’t perform.