The world at work

By Edward Hadas
January 2, 2013

When I was a boy I was fascinated by my parent’s copy of “The Family of Man”. The book, taken from a 1955 photography exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, was like a window into the big world. The beautiful images of people from many countries showed that the human condition was essentially the same everywhere: we all went through the same noble story of birth, love, struggle, religion and death. Much later I learned that the photographer Edward Steichen, who designed the show, wished to inspire exactly such sentiments. In the words of Carl Sandburg, taken from the book’s prologue, the human race was “one big family hugging close to the ball of Earth for its life and being”.

My enthusiasm was typical. The exhibit was extraordinarily popular around the world, as was the book based on it. Tens of millions of people, from sophisticated New Yorkers to Guatemalan peasants, must have felt that the pictures – the French couple kissing, the circle of rapt South Africans listening to a teller of tales – expressed something fundamental and hopeful about the human condition.

Were we right? Was this an accurate representation of the unity and nobility of the human condition? The dawn of a new year is a good time to look back at this one-time cultural icon. The book’s depiction of work – about 10 percent of the 503 pictures, including a Pakistani construction site with elephants, an Iranian shepherd and Americans wearing suits in a boardroom – provides a good test-case.

My childish enthusiasm certainly needs to be tempered. The truths expressed are not really timeless. In fact, the depictions of working men were already old-fashioned in 1955. The hard manual labour which Steichen considered emblematic of masculine toil was on the decline. Bureaucrats and sedentary machine operators might not be as obviously photogenic as the man pictured standing on a girder suspended in mid-air, but would have been closer to the truth. As for women, in the section on work they are mostly shown engaged in domestic drudgery, such as cleaning and carrying water. Such predominantly feminine toil has not been eliminated, but over the last 60 years women have increasingly come to share workplaces – and the corresponding hopes and frustrations – with men.

The array of pictures is on the wrong side of an epochal shift in labour. The decline of farm and harsh factory toil and the rise of offices and services could be almost as important an historical transition as the industrial revolution. Of course, Steichen cannot be blamed for missing this development, but the limited perspective is a reminder that it is hard to be timeless.

The “Family of Man” is not only dated, it is also misleading, because the portrayal of work glosses over a disturbing truth. In the human condition, the gap between rich and poor is arguably as fundamental as is the unity of labour. “The Family of Man” shows unity well – men and women toil equally in Bolivia, Palestine and the United States – but the show ignores the division: America was basically a land of plenty while most other countries in the world suffered from the age-old scourge of widespread and persistent poverty. The omission makes “The Family of Man” look naive or even dishonest.

Steichen presumably thought that pictures of a divided world would have undercut his universal message. Perhaps he hoped that the economic gap was temporary. Whatever his reasons, time has not been kind to his choice. The United States may have lost its near-monopoly on plenty, and nearly all poor countries are now much richer than they were in 1955, but a great gulf still separates the desperately poor from the ridiculously rich. Unfortunately, the decision to gloss over economic bad news is typical of the book. While there are some tragic images, the view of mankind is uncomfortably upbeat. I would like a companion volume, “Mankind’s Broken Family”, filled with photos of war, cruelty and suffering.

Despite these significant weaknesses, I would still recommend “The Family of Man”, and not merely for the quality of the photography. The show’s message remains powerful and, dare I say it, inspirational. In Sandburg’s words, the human condition is “so alike, so inexorably alike”.

Economists can take a special comfort from this message: their globalisation rests on a solid foundation. People can work and trade together because they share needs, desires and humanity. Still, economists should also learn a humbling lesson from “The Family of Man”. They crave GDP growth, but economic progress has only a modest effect on life’s great themes. The pictures of work in a 2013 revival exhibition would be quite different, but the universal story would be identical: Sandburg’s “epic woven of fun, mystery and holiness”.

5 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

“The United States may have lost its near-monopoly on plenty, and nearly all poor countries are now much richer than they were in 1955…”. This is WHY globalization rests on a solid foundation of common human needs and desires.

But there is only so much land, and of that arable land; and so much water in a given place and all land that is or can be productive is owned. The heartless reality of mathematics tells us that the more mouths that must eat from finite resources, the less for each.

The debate between the Catholic Church, the Mormons, and all who would have humans breed without restraint is a simple one. Is the “purpose” of man on this earth simply to cover every square meter of this planet with human protoplasm with a singular goal of “quantity of life”? Or is it to achieve something?

Those societies where SOME people have become “rich” enough to have the necessary leisure to think, to construct philosophies and intellectual disciplines have been the ones from which civilization (with all of it’s warts) has arisen. No thinking American would voluntarily return to the life of their parents or their grandparents.

And yet if “we” harness all available resources of this earth can deliver there is simply no way the present SEVEN BILLION (and exploding) residents will EVER achieve the comforts and options of most Americans! I would argue that it is quality of life that is “our” goal and “purpose” here. That is why almost universally the birth rate of “well off” nations and individuals is lower. They understand math.

Today no one fears that the Soviet Union will “bury us”. But all should look long and hard at the demographics of the muslim world and wonder what that bodes for our future if the Europe of today is any indication.

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

The purpose of the unrestrained growth promoted by religion is to create more followers and thus more power for the priests.

Posted by brotherkenny4 | Report as abusive

Another excellent piece Mr. Hadas!

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive

Though there are so many similarities around the world when we look with a positive, happy smile at the world. There are just as many when looking with a negative point of view too. OOTS is right, there are 7 billion people and before I die there will be 9 billion. We can, as OOTS points out, take thoughtful defensive posture. Others will fight to the death to keep what they have. Maybe we should drive ahead faster as old G’dubya would do. Reality is we’ll do all of those things. That’s the world at work.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive

A strong sense of common humanity is the ONLY way we can progress from our current state. Unfortuantly, in many areas I see growing a stong sense of every man for himself.

Posted by BidnisMan | Report as abusive