Bartleby

[jbor]

Paul wrote:

> Would think a better approach might be the question: why is
> it necessary so often to clothe perfectly legitimate demands of an
> employer on an employee in the subjunctive or as a question?

Well, that's definitely a cultural thing I think. Much work in the field of
intercultural communication in this country, and over there too I'd say,
goes into training employers and migrant employees about the mixed messages
sent/received when the boss's memo says something like "Would you come to a
meeting in my office at 11-00 am please?" or "Can you have that report ready
by this afternoon?" The boss doesn't intend it as optional, the employee
doesn't show up/present the report. The boss's almost euphemistic use of
modality is a cultural convention (it wouldn't happen like that in Greece,
for instance), but it's also an example of the manipulation of language,
specifically English, to underplay the workplace power dynamic and conceal
the true imperative of the employer's utterance.

> It is,  we 
> all know it is, and that nothing can be done about it. But the question
> of why is interesting, isn't it?  Think this might be something Rob
> would be interested in.
> 
> Will close by saying I can't help being reminded of an utterance that
> was popular around here a few years back and which might have
> constituted  an appropriate response to Bartleby.
> 
> Just do it!

There was a big youth anti-drugs campaign in the media over here a couple of
years ago which featured the slogan 'Just say "No!"', which now that I think
of it probably did derive from the Nike mantra, and which likewise could
have guided Bartleby's reply had his employer laid it on the line like that.

best