What do you think?
Rate this book
261 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
In other words, talking about rational efficiency becomes a way of avoiding talking about what the efficiency is actually for; that is, the ultimately irrational aims that are assumed to be the ultimate ends of human behaviour. Here is another place where markets and bureaucracies ultimately speak the same language. Both claim to be acting largely in the name of individual freedom, and individual self-realisation through consumption. [...]
The poor, however, are so consistently miserable that otherwise sympathetic observers are simply overwhelmed, and are forced, without realising it, to plot out their existence entirely. The result is that while those at the bottom of a social ladder spend a great deal of time imagining the perspectives of, and genuinely caring about, those at the top, it almost never happens the other way around. [...]
Power makes you lazy. [...] While those in situations of power and privilege often feel it is a terrible burden of responsibility, in most ways, most of the time, power is all about what you don’t have to worry about, don’t have to know about, and don’t have to do. Bureaucracies can democratise this sort of power, at least to an extent, but they can’t get rid of it. It becomes forms of institutionalised laziness. Revolutionary change may involve the exhilaration of throwing off imaginary shackles, of suddenly realising that impossible things are not impossible after all, but it also means most people will have to get over some of this deeply habitual laziness and start engaging in interpretive (imaginative) labour for a very long time to make those realities stick.
Games allow us our only real experience of a situation where all this ambiguity is swept away. Everyone knows exactly what the rules are. And not only that, people actually do follow them. And by following them, it is even possible to win! This—along with the fact that unlike in real life, one has submitted oneself to the rules completely voluntarily—is the source of the pleasure. Games, then, are a kind of utopia of rules. (pages 191-2)This description has a couple of problems. First, it inaccurately assumes a meritocracy emerging from the transparency and consistent application of a universally agreed upon set of rules within a closed system, something not true of all games, just those without elements of chance. Second, it strikes me that a player's ability to win probably derives less directly from mastery of the rules than of the system borne from them. The actual printed rules of a game (or bureaucratic system) can be so voluminous as to need a book's worth of print to be communicated -- think Civilization or Axis and Allies or the Federal Acquisition Regulations that govern federal contracting -- or straightforward but complex in combination, iteration, and application -- think Go or John Conway's Life or the first two sections of Article III of the Constitution, which establish the American judicial system. Form dictates performance whether long-winded or concise, but simply saying so is no guarantee of fairness, balance, or fun.
Bureaucracies public and private appear—for whatever historical reasons—to be organized in such a way as to guarantee that a significant proportion of actors will not be able to perform their tasks as expected. It’s in this sense that I’ve said one can fairly say that bureaucracies are utopian forms of organization. After all, is this not what we always say of utopians: that they have a naïve faith in the perfectibility of human nature and refuse to deal with humans as they actually are? (page 48)Yet again, I must disagree. For me, the bureaucrat's rigid insistence in fulfilling all steps of a formalized practice stems from the asociality of large, hierarchical organizations: absence of personal contact reduces trust, which amplifies the redundancy required to avoid frustrating misunderstandings. Ironically, the greater the redundancy of messaging required, the more readily distortions can be introduced creating a negative feedback loop that proliferates ambiguity, inconsistency, and confusion.
the only real way to rid oneself of an established bureaucracy, according to Weber, is to simply kill them all, as Alaric the Goth did in Imperial Rome, or Genghis Khan in certain parts of the Middle East. Leave any significant number of functionaries alive, and within a few years, they will inevitably end up managing one’s kingdom. (page 155)Funny, but in fact this applies to any existing expertise. Bureaucrats are neither magi nor initiates in arcana, but people with some level of practical, operational experience. Whether considered a "technology" of social organization and hierarchical mobilization or else as a means or side effect of executing policy, anyone could surely choose to reinvent the wheel, but why would they? Graeber claims at page 26 that bureaucracies are inherently "utopian, in the sense that they propose an abstract ideal that real human beings can never live up to," but it's impossible to see how the alternative (voluntary, universal, spontaneous cooperation?) would be any less fantastical.