The Ethical Dimension of Manual Labor?

This New York Times article was a fascinating read. Not only because the first paragraphs do a good job of identifying the strangely mixed condescension with which the trades are treated in North American society, but also for the thought-provoking insights in to the contrasting nature of different sorts of work. The author writes,

… mechanical work has required me to cultivate different intellectual habits. Further, habits of mind have an ethical dimension that we don’t often think about. Good diagnosis requires attentiveness to the machine, almost a conversation with it, rather than assertiveness, as in the position papers produced on K Street. Cognitive psychologists speak of “metacognition,” which is the activity of stepping back and thinking about your own thinking. It is what you do when you stop for a moment in your pursuit of a solution, and wonder whether your understanding of the problem is adequate. The slap of worn-out pistons hitting their cylinders can sound a lot like loose valve tappets, so to be a good mechanic you have to be constantly open to the possibility that you may be mistaken. This is a virtue that is at once cognitive and moral. …

This active concern for the motorcycle is reinforced by the social aspects of the job. As is the case with many independent mechanics, my business is based entirely on word of mouth. I sometimes barter services with machinists and metal fabricators. This has a very different feel than transactions with money; it situates me in a community. The result is that I really don’t want to mess up anybody’s motorcycle or charge more than a fair price. … [emphasis mine]

Now, I think that much of the contrast in the article has to do with the difference between entrepreneurship and middle management, the contrast between responsibility to the client vs. responsibility to an employer. Certainly, there are non-manual jobs that can involve some of that sense of community, responsibility, and the challenge and excitement of solving a problem and being directly accountable for it. Having pride in a tangible result.

On the other hand, I found that snippet, quoted above, about the ethical dimension of habits of mind compelling. It seems reasonable enough that there must be some real differences in cognitive development between the person who interacts with physical puzzles and products every day vs. those who only think and read and write and interact primarily with computers, pencil and paper. I see traits in my carpenter husband that seem organically connected with his trade, as though being a craftsman is a character trait like being introverted or optimistic, and I’ve learned to recognize some of these traits in other tradespeople as well – not that I find it easy to describe what exactly those traits are, without being guilty of over-generalization or romanticism. It’s more a mode of being, thinking and doing, I think. In any case, I appreciate it and often envy it and I wonder sometimes whether anyone else has noticed this – this imprint one’s work seems to make on one’s soul – or whether I am alone in this.