Tämä sivusto käyttää evästeitä palvelujen toimittamiseen, toiminnan parantamiseen, analytiikkaan ja (jos et ole kirjautunut sisään) mainostamiseen. Käyttämällä LibraryThingiä ilmaiset, että olet lukenut ja ymmärtänyt käyttöehdot ja yksityisyydensuojakäytännöt. Sivujen ja palveluiden käytön tulee olla näiden ehtojen ja käytäntöjen mukaista.
"Where does the desire for endless rules, regulations, and bureaucracy come from? How did we come to spend so much of our time filling out forms? And is it really a cipher for state violence? To answer these questions, anthropologist David Graeber ... traces the peculiar and unexpected ways we relate to bureaucracy today, and reveals how it shapes our lives in ways we may not even notice"--Jacket.… (lisätietoja)
A kind of analytical review of the history of bureaucracy. Thie author illustrates how systems emerge and self sustain around rules that many times make little sense and have side effects. While on the other hand societies respond to rules in contradictory ways, even mantaining opposite behaviour to the rules they want to drive forward. ( )
As always, Graeber manages to observe the world we live in and describe how it is utterly bizarre. Whether or not you agree with Graeber's analysis, he will make you think differently about our society.
This book has four essays focusing on various aspects of bureaucracy and how we hate it but how afraid we are of a world without it. ( )
Interesting perspective on bureaucracies being, rather than a hindrance or frustrating side effect of organization, are essential to the functioning of organizations. ( )
Not as boring as it sounds? Still kind of boring though.
Basically it is a glimpse into bureaucracy and it's role in society. Some of the points it made, were really interesting. The relationship with capitalism, exploitation, and how bureaucracy enables it was interesting. His points about bureaucracy always having a structure of violence to support it really made me look at it differently.
All that being said, there were many tangents that didn't feel relevant at all, and it really felt like padding. I think Graeber is an interesting writing and he brings up a lot of questions that are very insightful. I'll probably check out more of his work. His book on Debt sounds a lot better, honestly. ( )
Four essays building a deep analysis of the basis of bureaucracy and its immediate companion, violence (not to forget the notion of “rationality”) and its opposite: freedom. By alternating an historically precise political and economical analysis with some spot-on parallels with the world of tales, science-fiction and super-heroes, Graeber is able to construct a coherent discourse on bureaucracy (and on the lack of authentic imagination defining our society) which should “open the eyes” of many people. ( )
Tiedot englanninkielisestä Yhteisestä tiedosta.Muokkaa kotoistaaksesi se omalle kielellesi.
[Graeber talked to an economist from one of the Bretton Woods institutions “(It is probably better not to say which one)”, about how the government deals with corporate fraud. The economist tells him that they prefer to settle rather than go to trial, usually for 20% - 30% of the amount of the fraud.]
ME: Which means . . . correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that effectively mean the government is saying, “You can commit all the fraud you like, but if we catch you, you're going to have to give us our cut”?
OFFICIAL: Well, obviously I can't put it that way myself as long as I have this job . . . (Introduction: “The Iron Law of Liberalism and the Era of Total Bureaucratization”, pp. 25-26 (Melville House, 2015))
First of all, they assume that the “public” is an entity with opinions, interests and allegiances that can be treated as relatively consistent over time. (1. “Dead Zones of the Imagination,” p. 98 (Melville House, 2015))
First of all, they assume that the “public” is an entity with opinions, interests and allegiances that can be treated as relatively consistent over time. (1. “Dead Zones of the Imagination,” p. 98 (Melville House, 2015))
To illustrate what I mean, consider that in English-speaking nations, the same collection of referred to in one context as the “public” can in another be referred to as the “workforce.” [. . . ] The “public” does not work [. . .] It is especially odd since the public does apparently have to go to work: this is why leftist critics often complain, the media will always talk about how, say, a transport strike is likely to inconvenience the public, in their capacity as commuters, but it will never occur to them that those striking are themselves part of the public – or that if they succeed in raising wage levels, this will be a public benefit. (1. “Dead Zones of the Imagination,” p. 98 (Melville House, 2015))
Viimeiset sanat
Erotteluhuomautus
Julkaisutoimittajat
Kirjan kehujat
Tiedot englanninkielisestä Yhteisestä tiedosta.Muokkaa kotoistaaksesi se omalle kielellesi.
"Where does the desire for endless rules, regulations, and bureaucracy come from? How did we come to spend so much of our time filling out forms? And is it really a cipher for state violence? To answer these questions, anthropologist David Graeber ... traces the peculiar and unexpected ways we relate to bureaucracy today, and reveals how it shapes our lives in ways we may not even notice"--Jacket.
)
)
)
Google Books — Ladataan...
3