Day: June 16, 2025

Origin and Purpose of the Book

• David Graeber’s book was inspired by his 2013 viral essay, “On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs,” which sparked global attention (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).
• The book explores a “neglected aspect of the world of work”, namely jobs perceived as meaningless even by those who hold them (p. 78).
• Rudolph defends the seemingly provocative title as fitting, noting the serious anthropological and sociological depth behind it: “this is a serious, important and excellent book” (p. 78).

---

🔹 Definition of a ‘Bullshit Job’ (BS Job)

• Graeber defines it as “a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence”, though they must pretend otherwise (Graeber, 2018, pp. 9–10; Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).
• These jobs often contribute little or no value to society, and their elimination might even improve things (p. 78).

---

🔹 The Five-Fold Taxonomy of BS Jobs

1. Flunkies – Exist to make superiors look/feel important (e.g., idle receptionists) (p. 78).
2. Goons – Aggressive roles that manipulate or deceive (e.g., PR, telemarketers) (p. 78).
3. Duct Tapers – Solve problems that shouldn’t exist (e.g., temporary IT fixes) (p. 78).
4. Box Tickers – Create the illusion of action (e.g., writing reports no one reads) (p. 78).
5. Taskmasters – Managers who generate work for others unnecessarily, sometimes inventing new BS jobs (p. 78).

“Taskmasters become BS generators whose role is to create BS tasks for others” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).

---

🔹 BS Jobs vs. “Shit Jobs” (S Jobs)

• BS Jobs: White-collar, often well-paid, but meaningless.
• S Jobs: Blue-collar, poorly paid, but socially necessary (e.g., cleaners, care workers) (p. 78).

“S jobs typically involve work that needs to be done… workers are paid and treated badly” (p. 78).

---

🔹 The Phenomenological Criterion

• Graeber proposes that if you feel your job is BS, it probably is, and vice versa (p. 78).
• This subjective validation challenges traditional labor economics and emphasizes personal agency.

---

🔹 Social Value vs. Economic Value

• Graeber argues that “the more one’s work benefits others, the less one is likely to be paid for it” (p. 78).
• For instance, nursery workers generate social value, while bankers destroy it—yet the latter are paid significantly more (p. 78).

---

🔹 Psychological Impact of BS Jobs

• BS jobs induce “hopelessness, depression, and self-loathing” (p. 78).
• Graeber describes this as “spiritual violence”, attacking human dignity and purpose (p. 78).

---

🔹 Historical and Systemic Observations

• BS jobs proliferated even as capitalism was supposedly focused on efficiency (p. 78).
• Graeber provocatively claims “the existing system isn’t capitalism” but “managerial feudalism”, driven by hierarchical bloat (p. 78).
• This mirrors Soviet-style “make-work” practices: “Employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty” (p. 78).

---

🔹 Moral Superiority and Work Ideology

• Both political left and right share the idea that having any job is morally superior to not working (p. 78).

“Not working is very bad… a contemptible parasite unworthy of sympathy” (p. 78).

• Graeber links this to religious doctrine, particularly Genesis, where labor becomes punishment for the Fall (p. 78).

---

🔹 Paradox of Modern Work

• People both resent and derive self-worth from their jobs.

“Workers… gain feelings of dignity and self-worth because they hate their jobs” (p. 78).

• A collective belief persists that misery in work is morally redemptive, echoing the anti-Utilitarian “Gospel of Labour” (p. 78).

---

🔹 Higher Education and Bullshitization

• Academia is not immune: increasing layers of strategic roles, managers, and admin staff detract from teaching and research (p. 78).
• Citing Ginsberg, Rudolph notes that universities are experiencing a “staffing explosion” that mirrors other sectors (p. 78).

“All nonexecutive Deans, PVCs… are bullshit jobs” (p. 78).

---

🔹 Critiques and Limitations

• Rudolph finds Graeber’s qualitative data compelling, but criticizes the lack of statistical rigor (p. 78).
• He warns that statements like “half of all jobs are BS” rely on ad hoc empiricism (p. 78).
• Lack of attention to non-Western contexts and gig economy is also noted (p. 78).

---

🔹 Proposed Solutions and Vision

• Rather than advocating mass layoffs, Graeber proposes the “de-bullshitization” of real work (p. 78).
• He supports universal basic income and a reduction in working hours as paths toward meaningful reform (p. 78).
• The goal is not utopia, but to “start us thinking and arguing about what a genuine free society might actually be like” (p. 78).

---

🔹 Conclusion and Impact

• Rudolph concludes the book is a “provocative, eclectic, and hilarious” read that challenges deep cultural assumptions (p. 78).
• It combines “everyday anecdotes, theoretical insights, and pop-cultural references” with intellectual rigor (p. 78).

📖 1. Reader-Response Theory

Focus on individual perception and experience of meaning

• The book uses a phenomenological definition of meaning, which directly aligns with reader-response theory—where subjective interpretation defines significance.

“If you feel your job is BS, it probably is” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).

• Like literary texts whose meaning is co-created by readers, the value of a job emerges through self-perception, not external utility.
• This aligns with Stanley Fish’s theory that interpretation is a product of communities and context—not fixed meanings.

---

🏛️ 2. Marxist Literary Theory / Critical Theory

Critique of power, labor, and class under capitalism

• Graeber’s critique of managerial feudalism resonates with Marxist analysis of labor alienation and surplus labor under capitalism.

“The existing system isn’t capitalism… it is managerial feudalism” (Graeber, 2018, p. 191; Rudolph, 2018, p. 79).

• The inversion of value (low-paid socially useful jobs vs. high-paid harmful jobs) critiques capitalist ideology and commodification.
• Links to Frankfurt School thought, which interrogates how culture and bureaucracy uphold exploitative systems.

---

🧠 3. Existentialist Literary Theory

Exploration of meaning, alienation, and authenticity

• The book’s exploration of “spiritual violence”, hopelessness, and depression caused by meaningless work echoes existentialist themes in literature.

“Directed at the essence of what it means to be a human being” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).

• The existential search for authenticity and meaningful action parallels characters in literature by Sartre, Camus, and Dostoevsky.
• BS jobs, like existential absurdity, force individuals to confront the void of modern life.

---

📚 4. Cultural Studies / Ideological Critique

Unmasking dominant ideologies that shape social behavior

• Graeber exposes the “moral superiority of work” as a deep-seated cultural belief rooted in religion, not economics.

“Not working is very bad… a contemptible parasite” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 80).

• Literary theory that focuses on hegemonic discourse, such as that of Raymond Williams or Stuart Hall, would find Graeber’s book a vivid case study.
• The book interrogates the rhetoric of productivity, paralleling how literature reflects and critiques ideological apparatuses.

---

🧾 5. Bureaucratic Narrative Theory

Critique of form, genre, and narrative structure in institutions

• Graeber’s classification of job types (Flunkies, Goons, Duct Tapers, etc.) can be seen as a satirical taxonomy, echoing narrative archetypes and structuralist models.

“Box Tickers… allow an organization to claim it is doing something that, in fact, it is not doing” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).

• The concept of “bullshitization” functions like a genre trope, describing how stories of purpose are constructed around empty roles—similar to how narratives can be hollow.

---

💬 6. Postmodern Theory

Interrogating grand narratives and embracing fragmentation

• The very title “Bullshit Jobs” signals postmodern irreverence, irony, and suspicion toward institutional authority.
• Graeber’s book deconstructs the myth of progress through work, revealing contradictions within the modern employment narrative.
• As Rudolph notes, the book is “polemic” and “an eclectic mix of anecdotes, insights, and pop-culture references” (p. 81)—hallmarks of postmodern pastiche.

---

⚖️ 7. Ethical Criticism / Humanist Literary Theory

Concern with moral dimensions of human action and dignity

• The emotional toll and dehumanization through BS jobs highlights ethical issues in society—a concern central to moral or humanist criticism.
• It raises questions about what kind of society ought to exist and how literature—and in this case, theory—can serve human flourishing.

📉 1. Weak Empirical Foundation

• Graeber’s use of statistics (e.g., “37% of British workers think their jobs are pointless”) is described as “ad hoc empiricism” and methodologically shaky.
• Rudolph cautions readers:

“His statistics could be regarded as ad hoc empiricism and should be… taken with a big pinch of salt” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).

---

🧪 2. Non-Representative Sampling

• The qualitative testimonies Graeber relies on come from self-selecting respondents, which introduces selection bias.
• Rudolph critiques this as a “convenience sample”, unrepresentative of broader populations.

“People would have needed to read the essay” and choose to reply—thus skewing the results (Rudolph, 2018, p. 81).

---

🌍 3. West-Centric Analysis

• Graeber’s examples and sources are mostly from Western contexts (UK, US, Netherlands).
• Rudolph notes a lack of non-Western case studies, making the theory less globally applicable.

“There is no persuasive evidence that half of all jobs are BS jobs” beyond Europe (Rudolph, 2018, p. 81).

---

🚫 4. Omission of Gig Economy & Startups

• Graeber largely ignores modern forms of work like freelancing, gig work, or flat-structured start-ups.
• These could challenge or complicate his framework of BS jobs.

“Graeber also seems to omit tech and other start-ups… and there is also nothing much on the gig economy” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 81).

---

📚 5. Overlooking Seminal Theories

• While Graeber references bureaucracy, he does not directly cite key theories like Parkinson’s Law or the Peter Principle in this book.
• Rudolph finds this a missed opportunity for richer theoretical integration:

“He could have used Parkinson’s Law… but avoids repetition” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 81).

---

🧭 6. Lack of Concrete Solutions

• Graeber is deliberately light on policy prescriptions, focusing instead on critique.
• While Rudolph respects this, he notes the book may frustrate readers seeking practical answers:

“Graeber’s point is not to provide solutions… but to start us thinking” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 82).

---

🧮 7. Overgeneralization of Bureaucracy

• Rudolph warns that sweeping generalizations about institutions like universities or governments risk oversimplification.
• Even if bureaucracy often produces BS jobs, not all administrative work is inherently BS.

🔹 1. Purpose and Context of the Article

• Sobolev aims to rethink the theory of metaphor in light of postmodern criticism and cognitive science.
• Challenges the idea that metaphor has a unified structure, suggesting instead a field of heterogeneous possibilities.
• Responds to the inadequacy of classical models (like I.A. Richards and Max Black) in addressing metaphor’s multidimensional operation in contemporary discourse.

---

🔹 2. Critique of Traditional Metaphor Theories

• I.A. Richards (Tenor and Vehicle):
  • Sobolev notes its binary simplicity but criticizes its lack of structural dynamism.
• Max Black (Focus and Frame):
  • Acknowledges the interaction theory but finds it overly tied to rhetorical logic and insufficiently open to cultural and cognitive variables.
• Both models rely on the assumption that metaphor functions according to stable relations, which Sobolev disputes.

---

🔹 3. Key Theoretical Distinctions Introduced

• Structure of Identification vs. Structure of Functioning:
  • Identification: How metaphor is recognized or detected in discourse.
  • Functioning: How metaphor operates, shapes meaning, and evokes response.
  • Important because recognition does not guarantee understanding or appreciation of the metaphor’s impact.
• This dual distinction allows Sobolev to separate form from effect, enabling a more flexible model.

---

🔹 4. Proposal of a Tripartite Structure

• Moves beyond the binary of “tenor–vehicle” or “focus–frame”.
• Suggests three components in metaphor:
  • Frame: The contextual or grammatical setting.
  • Primary Term: The central or familiar referent.
  • Secondary Term: The novel or metaphorical concept applied to the primary.
• This structure enables a better mapping of metaphorical tension and interplay across layers.

---

🔹 5. Multidimensional Axes of Metaphor

Sobolev proposes metaphor should be examined along several independent but interacting dimensions:

• Axis of Similarity:
  • Whether similarity is given (pre-existing) or created (through metaphor).
• Axis of Function:
  • Is the metaphor used for elucidation (clarifying existing concepts) or creation (generating new understanding)?
• Axis of Modality:
  • Evaluated in terms of truth/falsity (propositional logic) or success/failure (performative effect).
• Axis of Conceptual Transference:
  • Degree to which new concepts are transferred or transformed through metaphor.

These axes form the core of his analytical framework, enabling plural interpretations.

---

🔹 6. Epistemological and Aesthetic Implications

• Sobolev asserts that metaphor is not simply a decorative element or a cognitive shortcut.
• It is a mode of knowledge generation, especially in art and literature.
• Metaphors cannot be paraphrased without loss of meaning due to their complex multidimensional operation.

---

🔹 7. Cultural and Contextual Flexibility

• Metaphor operates differently across:
  • Disciplines (literature, science, politics).
  • Cultures (Western vs. non-Western conceptual traditions).
  • Mediums (spoken, written, visual).
• Sobolev’s model allows for metaphor variability without collapsing into relativism.

---

🔹 8. Integration with Poststructuralism and Cognitive Linguistics

• While poststructuralists view metaphor as indeterminate and unstable, Sobolev argues this does not negate structured analysis.
• Embraces Lakoff and Johnson’s idea of conceptual metaphors but adds nuanced structural depth.
• Incorporates insights from cognitive linguistics, while remaining committed to aesthetic and literary specificity.

---

🔹 9. Contribution to Literary Theory

• Provides a synthesis between rhetorical, cognitive, and aesthetic perspectives.
• Reframes metaphor as an open system with cultural embeddedness.
• Offers tools for analyzing metaphor in literature, theory, philosophy, and communication.

---

🔹 10. Conclusion and Future Directions

• Metaphor must be seen as a flexible, multi-dimensional structure rather than a fixed linguistic entity.
• Encourages scholars to move beyond dualisms and embrace models that reflect the plurality of metaphorical thought.
• The model sets the stage for further interdisciplinary research, especially in digital, cross-cultural, and AI applications of metaphor.

📘 1. Structuralism and Poststructuralism

• Challenge to Structuralist Simplicity
  • Sobolev critiques binary metaphor models (e.g., Richards’ tenor/vehicle), arguing they oversimplify metaphor’s complexity (p. 904–906).
  • Suggests that metaphor cannot be captured by a single system of relational equivalence.
• Revision of Poststructuralist Relativism
  • While poststructuralism emphasizes the instability of meaning, Sobolev offers a middle ground: a structured yet non-unified field (p. 924).
  • He supports poststructuralist insight into multiplicity but proposes a model where metaphor has functional axes that remain analyzable.

---

🧠 2. Cognitive Literary Theory

• Integration with Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)
  • Sobolev builds on Lakoff & Johnson but critiques their model for being overly universal and schematic (p. 909–910).
  • Introduces axes like modality and conceptual transference to address metaphor’s aesthetic and rhetorical variability, especially in literature (p. 922).
• Contribution: Multi-Dimensional Cognition of Metaphor
  • Proposes a model that can be flexibly applied to poetic, philosophical, and everyday discourse, accommodating both thought and feeling (p. 915–918).

---

🧬 3. Rhetorical Theory / Classical Rhetoric

• Beyond Persuasion
  • Rejects metaphor as purely rhetorical decoration or a tool of persuasion (Aristotelian view) (p. 905).
  • Emphasizes metaphor’s role in world-construction and knowledge-making, especially in literary texts.
• Contribution: Expanding Function
  • By distinguishing between identification and functioning, Sobolev gives literary metaphor epistemic and creative functions, not just persuasive ones (p. 906).

---

🖼️ 4. Aesthetic Theory

• Metaphor as Artistic Structure
  • Asserts that metaphor’s aesthetic power lies in its resistance to paraphrase—a direct engagement with New Criticism and aesthetic formalism (p. 926).
  • Literary metaphor cannot be reduced to logical propositions; it functions affectively and aesthetically.
• Contribution: Articulation of Irreducibility
  • Positions metaphor as an irreducible site of experience and ambiguity, essential for literary beauty and innovation (p. 926–927).

---

🌍 5. Cultural Poetics / New Historicism

• Cultural Variability of Metaphoric Logic
  • Recognizes that metaphors operate differently across cultures, epochs, and genres (p. 923).
  • Moves away from static universal models toward culturally embedded metaphoric fields.
• Contribution: Historicized Flexibility
  • Suggests metaphor analysis must be context-sensitive, aligning with New Historicism’s attention to historical and discursive specificity.

---

📚 6. Literary Hermeneutics / Phenomenology

• Metaphor as Interpretive Event
  • Metaphor is not just a structure but a phenomenological experience—the reader’s interaction with metaphor shapes understanding (p. 920–921).
• Contribution: Dynamic Reader Engagement
  • Echoes hermeneutic thinkers like Paul Ricoeur in proposing metaphor as a fusion of horizons between the reader’s world and the metaphor’s world.

---

🔄 7. Interdisciplinary Theory (Philosophy–Literature Interface)

• Metaphor as Philosophical Tool
  • Bridges literary theory and philosophy of language—metaphor is a way of thinking, not just describing (p. 908–909).
  • Engages with thinkers like Nietzsche and Derrida, while offering a more structured model for analysis.
• Contribution: Theory Hybridization
  • Proposes a theoretical framework useful across literature, philosophy, and cognitive science, reinforcing metaphor’s interdisciplinary centrality.

⚖️ 1. Ambiguity in the “Field” Model

• While Sobolev aims to escape rigid binary models, his proposal of a “field of heterogeneous possibilities” may be too abstract or diffuse for empirical application.
• Critics may argue that it lacks operational clarity, especially for researchers seeking concrete analytic tools.
• The multiplicity of parameters (similarity, modality, function, transference) may overwhelm or dilute explanatory precision.

---

🧪 2. Limited Empirical Validation

• Sobolev’s model is highly theoretical, with minimal empirical testing or examples drawn from systematic data.
• Cognitive linguists may criticize the lack of experimental or corpus-based evidence supporting the axes of metaphor proposed.
• It remains unclear how reliably different readers or researchers would identify or rate the values along Sobolev’s metaphor axes.

---

🔄 3. Overcomplication of Metaphor Structure

• The tripartite structure (Frame, Primary Term, Secondary Term) could be seen as a repackaging of existing binary models, adding complexity without clear interpretive advantage.
• Critics may question whether the “frame” is a truly necessary third element, or if it overlaps with grammatical or contextual analysis already covered in classical rhetoric.

---

🧩 4. Underdeveloped Cultural Specificity

• Though Sobolev claims that metaphors vary across cultures and epochs, he does not develop a cross-cultural comparative analysis.
• There is little discussion of non-Western metaphor traditions, oral storytelling, or indigenous cognitive models.
• Critics may argue that the cultural embeddedness he invokes is asserted rather than demonstrated.

---

📉 5. Lack of Engagement with Recent Cognitive Theories

• While Sobolev references Lakoff and Johnson, his engagement stops short of integrating or extending more recent developments in embodied cognition, neural metaphor processing, or blending theory.
• Scholars in cognitive poetics or psycholinguistics may find his approach theoretically elegant but scientifically shallow.

---

🖼️ 6. Neglect of Visual/Multimodal Metaphor

• The article focuses almost entirely on verbal/textual metaphor, leaving out metaphorical thinking in visual media, film, or digital interfaces.
• This omission may limit the relevance of his model in contemporary multimodal literary and cultural studies.

---

🤝 7. Weak Intertextual Anchoring

• Though Sobolev references major figures (Richards, Black, Lakoff), he does not robustly situate his argument in dialogue with literary theorists like Paul Ricoeur, Harold Bloom, or even Derrida.
• Critics may see this as a missed opportunity to deepen philosophical and literary grounding.

---

🔄 8. Tension Between Flexibility and Structure

• Sobolev’s attempt to merge structure with flexibility may be internally contradictory.
• The model might lack falsifiability—if any metaphor can fit somewhere within the multidimensional field, then theory becomes too adaptable to be critically tested.