For those of you who haven't seen it, check out Ana's post/review of Vanderkam's book. Interesting cross-conversation.
I've been meditating on Sarah's comment about the "sugariness" of her writing as opposed to say xyk who wants some snark. I think one of the problems--and I don't mean this about LV specifically though certainly it's a launching pad--is that the positivist attitude which is SO prevalent in our culture can underplay the very real STRUCTURAL inequalities that make achieving success very different for different individuals. i.e. instead of employers making it easier for working women to do their jobs and achieve somethign resembling real balance (or whatever you want to call it), let's focus instead on teh fact that you can have 5 whole minutes to read to your kid before school!!!! (I put in that snark just for you, xyk!) Barbara Ehrenreich has written about the happiness movement in this vein and, for those of you who like more academic rigor, Sara Ahmed (or this related piece by Angela McRobbie).
Now I'll be the first to admit that while I'm not a pollyanna, I do try, really I do, to reframe positively and I'm generally a happy person (unless you catch me during BEDTIME DRAMA) but I can acknolwedge that I have it pretty damn good. It's why I give the homeless guy off the highway money whenever I can. He needs it more than I need another overpriced coffee from Starbucks. That said, it's not simply an issue of reframing the narrative when you are struggling to get by, and that's fundamentally why using the lives of those top earners as examples in self-help literature for the masses is so ICKY to me (how's that for critical discourse?!).
Some people rely on outsourcing, some on free childcare from relatives, some on partners, some on high salaries. I could keep going. My point is that resources are limited. Something, somewhere needs to give. In my case, I rely on paid childcare where I can and work less than the narratives in my field say I should (and Ana, you probably wouldn't be happy with the grime in my house, though the bathroom would probably pass an inspection). If I had a spouse and/or more money, that might look different. I chose my life. I'm really happy with my choices. But give me an extra $100/week and maybe I would pay someone to clean my house or pick up my kids. And in the world Vanderkam's talking about, $100/week really isn't that much (for ME it is).
*
I feel like there are three issues that have come up, partly due to her work itself and partly just the conversation:
1. Actual time use (macro level)
2. Perceptions/narratives about how that time is used.
3. Working/living more efficiently (micro level)
The upshot for me is I stopped tracking my time. Because it occurred to me I'm not bothered by how I'm spending my time right now. It's summer, when I literally do not get paid. I bank my salary during the academic year and bank my research, which is really what earns my salary, over the summer. It's a system that works moderately well for me. When the semester hits all too soon, I might try it again, but I suspect that the only thing that can be tweaked for me occurs at the micro-level. It's my heavy teaching semester, so I'm counting on using childcare for 2-3 hrs on Sundays about twice a month. I can't afford much more that that financially, and I can't afford much less than that from a work standpoint. If Tiny Boy starts going to bed before 9:00 on a regular basis, though, all bets are off!!!
I've been meditating on Sarah's comment about the "sugariness" of her writing as opposed to say xyk who wants some snark. I think one of the problems--and I don't mean this about LV specifically though certainly it's a launching pad--is that the positivist attitude which is SO prevalent in our culture can underplay the very real STRUCTURAL inequalities that make achieving success very different for different individuals. i.e. instead of employers making it easier for working women to do their jobs and achieve somethign resembling real balance (or whatever you want to call it), let's focus instead on teh fact that you can have 5 whole minutes to read to your kid before school!!!! (I put in that snark just for you, xyk!) Barbara Ehrenreich has written about the happiness movement in this vein and, for those of you who like more academic rigor, Sara Ahmed (or this related piece by Angela McRobbie).
Now I'll be the first to admit that while I'm not a pollyanna, I do try, really I do, to reframe positively and I'm generally a happy person (unless you catch me during BEDTIME DRAMA) but I can acknolwedge that I have it pretty damn good. It's why I give the homeless guy off the highway money whenever I can. He needs it more than I need another overpriced coffee from Starbucks. That said, it's not simply an issue of reframing the narrative when you are struggling to get by, and that's fundamentally why using the lives of those top earners as examples in self-help literature for the masses is so ICKY to me (how's that for critical discourse?!).
Some people rely on outsourcing, some on free childcare from relatives, some on partners, some on high salaries. I could keep going. My point is that resources are limited. Something, somewhere needs to give. In my case, I rely on paid childcare where I can and work less than the narratives in my field say I should (and Ana, you probably wouldn't be happy with the grime in my house, though the bathroom would probably pass an inspection). If I had a spouse and/or more money, that might look different. I chose my life. I'm really happy with my choices. But give me an extra $100/week and maybe I would pay someone to clean my house or pick up my kids. And in the world Vanderkam's talking about, $100/week really isn't that much (for ME it is).
*
I feel like there are three issues that have come up, partly due to her work itself and partly just the conversation:
1. Actual time use (macro level)
2. Perceptions/narratives about how that time is used.
3. Working/living more efficiently (micro level)
The upshot for me is I stopped tracking my time. Because it occurred to me I'm not bothered by how I'm spending my time right now. It's summer, when I literally do not get paid. I bank my salary during the academic year and bank my research, which is really what earns my salary, over the summer. It's a system that works moderately well for me. When the semester hits all too soon, I might try it again, but I suspect that the only thing that can be tweaked for me occurs at the micro-level. It's my heavy teaching semester, so I'm counting on using childcare for 2-3 hrs on Sundays about twice a month. I can't afford much more that that financially, and I can't afford much less than that from a work standpoint. If Tiny Boy starts going to bed before 9:00 on a regular basis, though, all bets are off!!!
"resources are limited. Something, somewhere needs to give."
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly the fundamental principle of economics.
And LV, if she were to comment, would tell, you, well, if you were using your time better you could make more money. But that really isn't the case for the majority of people. When your husband is making 200K+/year it is very difficult to think about actual resource constraints that people have (time, mental energy, money). Because when you have that safety cushion you have resources to build up that 100K+/year free-lance business. There really is a lot of luck involved in making > 6 figures/year, as much as conservative politicians want to believe it's 100% due to effort and not circumstances.
I found your first paragraph really interesting. This isn't a literature I'm well versed in, so I'll jot down these names to look into later. Its definitely something that nags at the back of my mind when I read/think about time management the "happiness movement"---i.e., isn't this all very self-involved and shouldn't we be using our energy (and persuasive writing skills!) to tackle larger world issues that could help more people, including those that have it worse? I usually come to the conclusion that maybe we can do both. Change our own perspectives so that we feel happy & satisfied in our lives & then use that momentum to do more. I'm sure this is naive, but it helps me sleep at night.
ReplyDeleteOur house is full of cobwebs and dog fur and the baseboards have never been cleaned in the 6 years we've lived here (I didn't even know what "baseboards" were until recently)---general "grime" is OK. I'm specifically anal about food crumbs (mice) and bathrooms (my own neurosis).
n&m, the only way my salary will go up substantially is if I teach summer school (then time goes down!) or if I get a new job. Looking for a job takes time and money. That's a whole other post! But within my current job, working more will not actually get me anything as I'm already at the top of our 'merit' system
ReplyDeleteAna, we'd get along great!
ReplyDeleteThe thing about the individual vs. structural questions has to do with where power to change is located. i.e. my workplace can offer me a place to pump milk and help accommodate my needs as a mother AND worker vs. I can check email while I pump and therefore maximize my own time. Often placing emphasis on the individual doing more (ala self help) displaces real conversation about what SHOULD happen....like legit maternity leave, subsidized childcare, etc.
@gwinne,
ReplyDeleteNo no, I totally get it (also an academic). But I have seen her tell people that enough to know that's the response. If you'd just follow her advice you'd be more productive, then you'd make more money, and you'd outsource more of the things you don't like so you could be more productive and make more money and outsource more, also you would enjoy life more in a virtuous productivity/happiness spiral. That's how self-help books sell!
I shouldn't be dumping on her so much-- I certainly didn't dump on Sheryl Sandberg. But at the same time, I don't think that Sandberg has that underlying message that if you're not succeeding/happy (with a high powered career as a definition of success, and happy seems to be defined as following LV's system) it's because you're doing something wrong. She was extremely careful to avoid doing that in Lean In.
:-) Thanks for the tiny snark plug-in!
ReplyDeleteNow, where can I get me one of those husbands who earns > $200 K/yr?
Gwinne, xykademiqz, and nicoleandmaggie--I am really enjoying this conversation. Making the individual solely responsible for change is something that makes me uncomfortable, though, as Gwinne suggests in her comment. It's not good advice or a good work ethic alone that gets these self-help gurus where they want to be; it's opinions PLUS a lot of money.
ReplyDelete@undine It's not even just the "making the individual responsible" vs. "pushing for structural change" but that a lot of advice, while it may have worked well for one (privileged) person in one specific situation is not actually very good advice for most people, and can be harmful (for people with less privilege), at least in the extremes. (These heterogeneous differences can go the other way too-- note Tressie McMillam Cottom's piece on why going to graduate school in the humanities can make sense for an under-privileged person of color in ways that it wouldn't to a middle class white person.)
ReplyDeleteBut the self-help industry would be a lot smaller if everybody actually "figured it out".
(Note that I am totally on board with the general idea of comparative advantage, it's just how comparative advantage is pushed in practice in practice may not actually be optimal for people with tighter budget constraints-- they see a different relative wage.)
My MIL was here this past weekend, and commented, "you two are SO BUSY!" And by the way? It's summer. She ain't seen nuthin'.
ReplyDeleteInteresting conversation. I hadn't heard too much about the book, but I might have picked it up, because this is something I worry about a LOT. On the other hand, you're all making points that I find myself making, too. There are obstacles to my outsourcing more, even if I had the resources to do so. Could I have a live-in nanny to pick up my kids all the time and stay nights when I'm late and S. is traveling? That might do it. But I prefer not to do that, and I don't think we could afford it even if we wanted to.
I have made some micro changes: going running in the morning very briefly with my daughter so I can get in some exercise time (though not more than 5k), trying to get to bed a little earlier. I could probably spend less time on Facebook. But macro changes? Not likely.
Continuing to follow this ...
Justine, if you want my copy of Vanderkam's book, shoot me an email. Happy to send it on.
ReplyDelete