I’ve been
trying to think why I dislike the word “asset” when it is used in the context of what human beings bring to the table in
terms of their community, public life and self-help.
I got some
of the answers by asking people what “asset” meant to them. For some it meant
being seen as valuable – “you’re such an asset”. For others, it was a term used
in books and films to describe dehumanised and expendable people – like “CIA
assets”. For many, particularly more middle class, it was about owning things
and “looking after your assets”.
I don’t
think I like any of those meanings. Whenever I’ve been told I’m an asset, it’s
either the prelude to exploiting my good will or a justification for having
just done that. It goes hand in hand with being patted on the head for being a good girl. I
definitely don’t like the idea of being expendable. And I don’t have much time
for materialism and guarding stuff that I’ve accumulated.
So I guess
it’s not surprising that I get uncomfortable with the current fashion for
insisting that we talk about people’s assets or reminding ourselves that people
are assets.
My association of asset with exploitation is increased because for all the talk of
being assets and coproducing/co-working, it is exceedingly rare for anyone on
the “you’re an asset” side of the table to get paid, whereas everyone on the
“we’re the trend-setting public service” side is paid to be there.
No comments:
Post a Comment