For Monday, read Mike Rose's essay "Blue-Collar Brilliance" (p. 243-254 in They Say). If you're waiting for your book to come in, you can find the article here . (If you have trouble with the link you should be able find them by googling the author and title together.)
In a short blog post, briefly summarize Rose's essay. Put it in two parts: what is he arguing against? (They Say). What is arguing for? ("Rose says." You might find chapter two of They Say and its guidelines about summary helpful.
Then write a short paragraph that describes how his essay relates to either Terkel's chapter about Mike or the excerpts from Marx that we read. What different perspective about work or class is added that might make us rethink what we took from those other readings?
In Blue-collard Brilliance Mike Rose speakes about his mother and relative as blue collard workers in the 1950's. He explains that his mother was a waitress in a restaurant and how difficult her job actually was. He says "like anyone who is effective at physical work my mother learned to work smart as she put it, to make every move count". He goes on to explain the lack of education his mother recieved and the circumstances of she hadn't recieved it. Even without an education his mom, just as any blue-collard worker, works extremely hard. Maybe even substantially harder that a white collard worker because for most blue collard workers you arent living to work you are working to live.
ReplyDeleteIn "working" by Terkel, Mike explains in his interview that this kind of blue collard work does not build character, that its a mindless routine. I think that mike from "working" point of view contradicts Mike Rose's point of view. I think mike rose is argue that blue collard work does infact build character due to its hard labor. Many feel that white collard workers are more "feminine" in a sence there is really now physical labor. Behind a blue collard worker this is drive a means to support, weather for family or self.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter my previous reading of the chapter in "They say, I say" the author discusses the different types of occupations and gives an idea of the mindset and its cohesiveness with work. He also elucidates the difference in character between a blue, pink, or white collar. Through the first couple of pages i gathered the idea that he is trying to imply your educational background doesn't describe your work skill. Rose makes it clear on the point that you can have a different aspect of your work and find joy. He uses his mother as an example, when she was a waitress she applied different practices to her routine and she talks about how she learns something new every day.
ReplyDeleteIn "Working" by Terkel, he explains that work is a place of income if you are repetitive and have no independence, then your worthless therefore work is just something that consumes to much time and decreases the time on things you like to spend it doing. Both perspectives from the books differ in the outlook of your occupation, Terkel talks about labor being a way to survive and Mike is saying, that people who are blue collars can find the same enjoyment as a white collar, it depends on the persons character.
Dazia - Good overview and use of quotation. Notice that "blue collar" is already an adjective so you don't need to add "ed" to the end. Interesting point about "feminine" - how does that relate to the ways Rose and Mike disagree about the value of this kind of work?
ReplyDeleteHi Anthony - Some good ideas here; work on being clear. Do you think in his interview views himself as "worthless"? Does Terkel want us to think this? Is his view of his work similar or different from Rose's view of this kind of work?
ReplyDeleteIn the book "They say, I say'. " Blue Collar Brilliance". Mike is arguing against the fact that blue collar and white collar jobs are different, and he sees his mother working at a restaurant as a waitress. He sees how she is able to address different people with different personalities. Mike is also arguing the fact that blue and white collar jobs requires both mental and physical skills.
ReplyDeleteRosie is arguing for all low working people, that everyone deserves an opportunity to have a high position jobs no matter of the status.
Rose's essay and Terkel's chapter about Mike is related because they both work at blue collar jobs that they don't really enjoy and they work long hours with very little income to support their families. It seems as if their not being appreciated by the white collar working people.
Good job Cassandra. I'm curious about your second paragraph and how you could make its ideas more specific: what would it mean for a blue collar worker to have "a high position"? (I'm NOT saying it couldn't, I want to think about different ways we evaluate value.)
ReplyDelete