Bartleby

[Paul Mackin]

jbor wrote:

>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.
>
Makes me perhaps want to reevaluate a little the idea that Bartleby is 
such a great exemplar of passive resistence.  Rather he seems to suffer 
from a severe social deficit. Strong linguistic impairment. Inability to 
interact approriately in the emplyer/emplyee environment. Something like 
that. Wonder if Mohandus K. had this problem too. Never saw the movie. :-)

P.

>
>>
>>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.
>
>
Yes, We had that here also. I associate it with Nancy Reagan.

P.