The Normalization of Violence in Commercial Kitchens Through Food Media(journals.sagepub.com)
journals.sagepub.com
The Normalization of Violence in Commercial Kitchens Through Food Media
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605211005138
77 comments
I find some of the media mentioned hard to watch, like I would video of any other psychological or physical abuse. I'm not a bleeding heart, but I think that sort of "reality" TV is our little Coliseum.
NurtureShock, a book about parenting and child development research, has a chapter discussing how children's television shows kids behaving badly for dramatic reasons, followed by a resolution that "teaches a lesson". It turns out that, instead of learning the lesson, kids just internalize the bad behavior.
I wonder if a similar phenomenon happens with adults, especially since these reality shows don't even have the redeeming/lesson element. These shows reinforce dysfunctional culture by making it look normal and/or exciting.
I wonder if a similar phenomenon happens with adults, especially since these reality shows don't even have the redeeming/lesson element. These shows reinforce dysfunctional culture by making it look normal and/or exciting.
I’ve heard of similar research around language use: young children tend to focus on nouns and verbs to the exclusion of adverbs, etc, so “don’t throw sand at Tommy” may reinforce “throw sand at Tommy” as the “don’t” is subconsciously elided.
(A more effective phrasing might be ‘keep the sand on the ground’)
(A more effective phrasing might be ‘keep the sand on the ground’)
I am very skeptical about this. I remember enough from my own childhood to know that a request "Don't throw sand at Tommy" would be met with "OK, that make sense, Tommy probably does not want to have sand thrown at him" kind of reaction, while my reaction to "keep the sand on the ground" would immediately be "why? what if I want to play with it, build a sand castle from it, ...".
The point is mostly referring to very young children - under age five. Most people don’t remember much before then, so your remembered childhood self is probably older than the demo of this argument.
I have noticed that, on reddit at least, entertainment has a very strong region from which it converges to "getting off on feeling smarter/better than other people".
This is based on my own experience filtering subs from r/all when I notice that this is the experience that they are providing. The filter list is currently dozens to hundreds of subreddits long, and almost all of them have several hundred thousand subscribers.
I suspect, based on these anecdata, that television has the same convergence properties, and the abusive reality TV spectacle is mostly about assuaging viewers' inferiority complexes in the same way. "Look at how badly this person is running this restaurant, at least you aren't as dumb as they are", "Look at these idiots taking this dating show seriously. If I were a contestant on the bachelor, I would never ____", etc.
(I am not intrinsically opposed to the notion that it's just gladiatorial spectacle, but I have been acutely aware of this force for a while now, and try to shoehorn it into explaining every social malady.)
This is based on my own experience filtering subs from r/all when I notice that this is the experience that they are providing. The filter list is currently dozens to hundreds of subreddits long, and almost all of them have several hundred thousand subscribers.
I suspect, based on these anecdata, that television has the same convergence properties, and the abusive reality TV spectacle is mostly about assuaging viewers' inferiority complexes in the same way. "Look at how badly this person is running this restaurant, at least you aren't as dumb as they are", "Look at these idiots taking this dating show seriously. If I were a contestant on the bachelor, I would never ____", etc.
(I am not intrinsically opposed to the notion that it's just gladiatorial spectacle, but I have been acutely aware of this force for a while now, and try to shoehorn it into explaining every social malady.)
I don't disagree with what you're saying necessarily or with the negative implications of that genre of reality tv.
But for me, specifically with Gorden Ramsey's shows, the appeal is different. To me, it's about watching someone who tries to pull one over on Ramsey and fails miserably. The deciept is a part of the appeal (sometimes the deceipt is self deciept, admittedly).
But for me, specifically with Gorden Ramsey's shows, the appeal is different. To me, it's about watching someone who tries to pull one over on Ramsey and fails miserably. The deciept is a part of the appeal (sometimes the deceipt is self deciept, admittedly).
I'm the same.
I've always despised (for example) Gordon Ramsay's abusive style and never quite understood the appeal of a show that demonstrated such bad treatment of fellow humans. I don't care how you dress it up -- high standards, toughening them up etc. etc.-- it's just a fucking horrible way to treat people.
And even if you can somehow justify it, what is it about working in a kitchen of all places that necessitates treating staff like utter shit? I can think of much higher stakes careers where this type of treatment would never happen nor be deemed to be "required" for any reason whatsoever.
It's even more reprehensible when you consider the position of power these people are in, and how those keen to get into the industry are more likely to submit themselves to this demeaning behaviour for the sake of their career.
And even even more so when you consider what a wide reach these people have in terms of audience. How many young people are they being a bad role model for.
Finally, an admission of hypocrisy on my part (given the above); I recently watched and enjoyed quite a few episodes of Gordon Ramsay's courses on Masterclass, where mercifully he is alone in his kitchen, with no one to abuse, and is actually quite cordial and charismatic. I've never given a crap about cooking before, and watched an episode on a whim and found myself quite inspired. So that at least seems to imply that there is an alternative way of presenting cooking shows without ripping junior staff to shreds. (Or alternatively, it implies that I'm a hypocrite and you should ignore everything I say).
I've always despised (for example) Gordon Ramsay's abusive style and never quite understood the appeal of a show that demonstrated such bad treatment of fellow humans. I don't care how you dress it up -- high standards, toughening them up etc. etc.-- it's just a fucking horrible way to treat people.
And even if you can somehow justify it, what is it about working in a kitchen of all places that necessitates treating staff like utter shit? I can think of much higher stakes careers where this type of treatment would never happen nor be deemed to be "required" for any reason whatsoever.
It's even more reprehensible when you consider the position of power these people are in, and how those keen to get into the industry are more likely to submit themselves to this demeaning behaviour for the sake of their career.
And even even more so when you consider what a wide reach these people have in terms of audience. How many young people are they being a bad role model for.
Finally, an admission of hypocrisy on my part (given the above); I recently watched and enjoyed quite a few episodes of Gordon Ramsay's courses on Masterclass, where mercifully he is alone in his kitchen, with no one to abuse, and is actually quite cordial and charismatic. I've never given a crap about cooking before, and watched an episode on a whim and found myself quite inspired. So that at least seems to imply that there is an alternative way of presenting cooking shows without ripping junior staff to shreds. (Or alternatively, it implies that I'm a hypocrite and you should ignore everything I say).
I fully agree. I hate to say it, but I don't even have a model of the type of person who enjoys shows like those.
I'd venture that some of it at least is a combination of two factors:
- Compulsive and systematic abusers can make their way to powerful positions in the majority of modern organizations, where hierarchy and a lack of empathy can provide them with an edge.
- Normal people who suffer abuse - even if it's indirectly, and even if they're not really aware or able to articulate that something is wrong (for example, if they've experienced angry comments or unnecessary work from a manager, who is in fact simply passing down unpleasant demands they've received from above) are comforted and sedated by seeing that kind of abuse normalized on a "respectable" / "popular" television show.
If that theory is accurate, it wouldn't necessarily mean you have to be sympathetic to either population. It's just a possible way to understand the circumstances that lead normal people to spend their downtime with shows like this. Understanding can lead to empathy, and with both it's possible to find improvements. Change without understanding and empathy can be risky.
- Compulsive and systematic abusers can make their way to powerful positions in the majority of modern organizations, where hierarchy and a lack of empathy can provide them with an edge.
- Normal people who suffer abuse - even if it's indirectly, and even if they're not really aware or able to articulate that something is wrong (for example, if they've experienced angry comments or unnecessary work from a manager, who is in fact simply passing down unpleasant demands they've received from above) are comforted and sedated by seeing that kind of abuse normalized on a "respectable" / "popular" television show.
If that theory is accurate, it wouldn't necessarily mean you have to be sympathetic to either population. It's just a possible way to understand the circumstances that lead normal people to spend their downtime with shows like this. Understanding can lead to empathy, and with both it's possible to find improvements. Change without understanding and empathy can be risky.
> By exploring television shows, like “Hell’s Kitchen,” and chef memoirs, like Bourdain’s Kitchen Confidential, readers will see how bullying and harassment are romanticized in these mediums, glorified as a product of kitchen subculture, and consequently normalized in the kitchen.
Can the study really make this conclusion? Has media had an effect on bullying and harrasment in the cooking industry or is something that is already common in that industry being shown as entertainment?
Can the study really make this conclusion? Has media had an effect on bullying and harrasment in the cooking industry or is something that is already common in that industry being shown as entertainment?
> Can the study really make this conclusion? Has media had an effect on bullying and harrasment in the cooking industry or is something that is already common in that industry being shown as entertainment?
I do see your point in terms of questioning how they came to this conclusion.
However, to put it a different way; Given the extreme behaviour depicted in these widely watched shows, would you consider that violent/aggressive behaviour in kitchens would likely be overall, A) less normalised, B) the same (no effect), or B) more normalised?
In other words, it may well have already existed in the industry already, but are the shows helping to make this better or worse...
I do see your point in terms of questioning how they came to this conclusion.
However, to put it a different way; Given the extreme behaviour depicted in these widely watched shows, would you consider that violent/aggressive behaviour in kitchens would likely be overall, A) less normalised, B) the same (no effect), or B) more normalised?
In other words, it may well have already existed in the industry already, but are the shows helping to make this better or worse...
Another strangely abusive environment is theatre. Theres just like, a very weird culture of entitlement and control among the directors I’ve dealt with. It feels super unnecessary to the end product, just a side effect of… some confluence between egos, culture, and borderline personality disorder, I guess
I have two kids that are actresses (both are getting their first professional jobs now), and well, here goes: prior to 2019, asshat producers and directors were the norm. Everything from attempted casting couch-ish shenanigans (both were in their teens so, have a seat over there needed to happen to these guys) to screaming fits in rehearsals. Between cancelling sexual predators and COVID changing people's tolerance for abusive behavior, things are getting a lot better.
The disorder in all of it were lots of people were in the business for reasons other than putting on a great experience for audiences... and I do se a huge improvement on the stage from what was going on a few years ago. It's really important that everyone in the business, from Hollywood to the local youth civic theater continue to root out the bad ones.
There's a lot of great talent waiting to direct and produce the next show/movie/whatever, and it's time we gave them a chance over the abusive, predatory asshats that were the norm of the past.
The disorder in all of it were lots of people were in the business for reasons other than putting on a great experience for audiences... and I do se a huge improvement on the stage from what was going on a few years ago. It's really important that everyone in the business, from Hollywood to the local youth civic theater continue to root out the bad ones.
There's a lot of great talent waiting to direct and produce the next show/movie/whatever, and it's time we gave them a chance over the abusive, predatory asshats that were the norm of the past.
How has COVID reduced tolerance for abusive behavior?
I wonder if this is related to the low pay. I'm a part time working musician (as in, don't quit your day job). I've noticed that how the musicians are treated by both bandleaders and venues is roughly proportional to how much we're getting paid.
But I've also noticed that the abusive environment that we've heard about at the top of the business, doesn't necessarily trickle down to the lower echelons. At the level of work that I typically get called for, bandleaders who abuse their players get weeded out very quickly.
But I've also noticed that the abusive environment that we've heard about at the top of the business, doesn't necessarily trickle down to the lower echelons. At the level of work that I typically get called for, bandleaders who abuse their players get weeded out very quickly.
I don't watch any "reality" shows. Because they're not reality -- they're some show runner's idea of what will sell. The producers choose people and situations for their dramatic potential, and then manipulate the "actors" until they get what they want.
Reality doesn't have a soundtrack. And most of the time, it's boring and nothing is happening. As soon as you edit out all the boring parts, you're not "reality" anymore.
Reality doesn't have a soundtrack. And most of the time, it's boring and nothing is happening. As soon as you edit out all the boring parts, you're not "reality" anymore.
One show that does creative competition right is the glass-blowing competition "Blown Away" on Netflix. Interesting characters, fascinating and demanding medium, good affirmative vibe while allowing for honest criticism. My daughter rewatches the episode from both existing seasons frequently and enjoys the personalities.
It's great indeed, really enjoyed it. Turns out you can make a fascinating show about a creative process without people calling each other dickheads every minute, and without what I call "American" editing where there's dramatic music and camera zooms for every mundane action on the screen.
As someone that worked in kitchens for years, this is backwards. The environments are already like this and the media simply describe it.
My personal theory is that kitchen jobs attract a certain sort of person: ones with short attention spans (making a dish is immediately rewarding) and those that couldn’t get a “real job” due to tattoos, drug use, alcoholism, etc. etc. This all adds up to a more variable group of people than the white collar academic media class considers normal.
My personal theory is that kitchen jobs attract a certain sort of person: ones with short attention spans (making a dish is immediately rewarding) and those that couldn’t get a “real job” due to tattoos, drug use, alcoholism, etc. etc. This all adds up to a more variable group of people than the white collar academic media class considers normal.
Blaming television is easy. But this is not a new problem created by television. Commercial kitchens are high stress, fast paced, cramped hot environments with little pay that act as a job of last resort for many people. That's why there's violence.
I find the vilification of Gordon Ramsey misguided. He is the nicest man in the kitchen (not to mention the world's top TV chef at the moment). Look how tenderly and patiently he acts with his own children in the kitchen segments where they appear. If he's dealing with an idiot sandwich, yeah, he does what needs to be done, but he is never wantonly or arbitrarily abusive, and it makes satisfying watching to boot!
Being able to turn the violence on and off like a switch is a feature of an abusive boss.
Still, without knowing for sure, I've always assumed that the outbursts are staged, if not rehearsed. I can't deny that it's entertaining, like reality cop shows. A lot of drama is about worlds that I wouldn't choose to live in.
Still, without knowing for sure, I've always assumed that the outbursts are staged, if not rehearsed. I can't deny that it's entertaining, like reality cop shows. A lot of drama is about worlds that I wouldn't choose to live in.
Yes, the Gordon Ramsay you see on TV is definitely a made-for-TV character.
He’s not abusive to his own children? What a saint he must be. “Dealing with an idiot sandwich” is precisely the differentiation between nice person and asshole. “Dealing with an idiot sandwich” is also victim-blaming. The idiot sandwich might also argue “idiot boss who can’t articulate what he wants”.
> If he's dealing with an idiot sandwich, yeah, he does what needs to be done, but he is never wantonly or arbitrarily abusive, and it makes satisfying watching to boot!
I am so very sick of this false rationalization.
There is nothing about having high standards that requires abusive behavior to enforce them. That is straight up bullshit.
Ramsey is indeed playing up the abuse for the sake of attracting viewers, however it's not purely an act. He was trained under Marco Pierre White, arguably the first modern celebrity chef, who was infamous for straight up violence in his kitchens. Kitchens are dangerous enough. There is zero excuse for throwing pots at peoples heads or starting straight up fist fights.
Listen to people who've worked in Ramsey's restaurants and it's clear the example he sets results in abusive behavior top to bottom.
By way of contrast, there's a Canadian chef named Laura Caulder that was traditionally trained by someone very high up in the French culinary world. She had a show for a number of years on Canadian tv, including a special episode where she went back to her alma mater to help out with a very high profile dinner (think ambassadors and royals sort of thing). Her mentor was fascinating to watch, because she was completely unyielding on holding the very highest standards, but without a shred of abusive behavior. She simply stated things as they were, demanded better, and that was that.
There's nothing about Ramsey's antics that are necessary for achieving greatness, and it's depressing that people find abusive behavior satisfying to watch.
I am so very sick of this false rationalization.
There is nothing about having high standards that requires abusive behavior to enforce them. That is straight up bullshit.
Ramsey is indeed playing up the abuse for the sake of attracting viewers, however it's not purely an act. He was trained under Marco Pierre White, arguably the first modern celebrity chef, who was infamous for straight up violence in his kitchens. Kitchens are dangerous enough. There is zero excuse for throwing pots at peoples heads or starting straight up fist fights.
Listen to people who've worked in Ramsey's restaurants and it's clear the example he sets results in abusive behavior top to bottom.
By way of contrast, there's a Canadian chef named Laura Caulder that was traditionally trained by someone very high up in the French culinary world. She had a show for a number of years on Canadian tv, including a special episode where she went back to her alma mater to help out with a very high profile dinner (think ambassadors and royals sort of thing). Her mentor was fascinating to watch, because she was completely unyielding on holding the very highest standards, but without a shred of abusive behavior. She simply stated things as they were, demanded better, and that was that.
There's nothing about Ramsey's antics that are necessary for achieving greatness, and it's depressing that people find abusive behavior satisfying to watch.
I disagree with this. Calling names and yelling and screaming is a lot less efficient than a quiet "This isn't right. How can we not have this happen again?" I say this as a guy who learned to lead in the Navy, and discovered that, when I yelled and grandstanded, it was all about my ego and not about getting things done and done right. I will say that assholes in high pressure situations are entertaining to watch on TV, but absolutely not that effective (the idiot sandwich will quit and piss in the soup on the way out) in real life.
That is exactly... abuse. Abusive bosses can be nice to their kids. Abusive bosses can be nice to their employees. Abusive bosses can even be nice to "idiot sandwiches." What makes an abusive boss is how they are at their worst: a professional boss will act with composure, either trying to help the worker become better or firing them professionally if they need to go.
The difference between the UK and the US version of Kitchen Nightmares is extreme. The US cut puts so much emphasis on aggression that there isn't room for anything else.
Yep, strongly agree with this take. All of the yelling and aggression is an act for US television if you watch other programs he's been in.
Another thing based on UK Kitchen Nightmares is you really only see the hostile side come out when he's put into a situation where the other person is hostile. If the person genuinely wants to learn and try to save their business, he's nothing but helpful. There are episodes of the UK show where they're basically just wholesome all around.
Another thing based on UK Kitchen Nightmares is you really only see the hostile side come out when he's put into a situation where the other person is hostile. If the person genuinely wants to learn and try to save their business, he's nothing but helpful. There are episodes of the UK show where they're basically just wholesome all around.
Wow! You're not kidding.
I just did a quick search and found this [1] It's the exact same 1 minute scene from UK and US. The UK is constructive criticism and wholesome banter. The US version cuts the playful banter as if he's just being mean, adds music and a narrator of doom, cuts his concern about her going home to her daughter, and her "very good day" quote is way out of context.
[1] https://youtu.be/RFVLPcTWfBk
I just did a quick search and found this [1] It's the exact same 1 minute scene from UK and US. The UK is constructive criticism and wholesome banter. The US version cuts the playful banter as if he's just being mean, adds music and a narrator of doom, cuts his concern about her going home to her daughter, and her "very good day" quote is way out of context.
[1] https://youtu.be/RFVLPcTWfBk
Too bad the clip is fake.
>> If he's dealing with an idiot sandwich...
They are still human beings that should be treated with dignity.
If you watch his UK shows basically it boils down to if you call yourself a professional chef he expect you to be one. If you are not then he will get angry. But on many occasions you see someone in the kitchen that just straight up say they have no clue what they are doing and you get to see him teach them without any of the yelling etc.
Except in the US series where they must require him to be more abrasive for better TV. There is a different chef Ramsey in the UK version.
There is something about the vocal rejection of mediocrity and bad work that creates some great things. It also attracts young naive geniuses who want to be abused but create greatness. I’ve seen the same in the contemporary art world.
From Gordon Ramsey to Steve Jobs to the film whiplash. People who are very vocal about wanting the best can get it.
And don’t forget. Literally anyone who decides to work with Gordon Ramsey or Steve Jobs knows what they are like. They did it willingly. They aren’t abusing random innocent souls. They are expecting the best from people who decided to work with them.
From Gordon Ramsey to Steve Jobs to the film whiplash. People who are very vocal about wanting the best can get it.
And don’t forget. Literally anyone who decides to work with Gordon Ramsey or Steve Jobs knows what they are like. They did it willingly. They aren’t abusing random innocent souls. They are expecting the best from people who decided to work with them.
I worked for Steve Jobs and I wouldn't say I knew what he was like. I had an outsiders view of what he was, and while there were some stories of his behavior, a lot of the details weren't out there. This was before the world of blogs, Twitter, Gawker or wherever people now share this sort of information.
Once you start working in an environment with a Steve Jobs type, things become complex and conflicted. You feel that you are doing great work, and sometimes you are. A Steve Jobs type will figure out how to motivate you with some percentage of shame, praise, monetary rewards or whatever combination allows them to drive you to generate the results they want.
Saying people want to be abused in pursuit of creating greatness is a vast oversimplification of the dynamics that occur in these types of relationships. It is an interesting dynamic that develops over time and is in general quite unhealthy. I still have Steve trauma to this day! I don't want to equate it with more damaging forms of physical and emotional abuse, but there was damage done.
Once you start working in an environment with a Steve Jobs type, things become complex and conflicted. You feel that you are doing great work, and sometimes you are. A Steve Jobs type will figure out how to motivate you with some percentage of shame, praise, monetary rewards or whatever combination allows them to drive you to generate the results they want.
Saying people want to be abused in pursuit of creating greatness is a vast oversimplification of the dynamics that occur in these types of relationships. It is an interesting dynamic that develops over time and is in general quite unhealthy. I still have Steve trauma to this day! I don't want to equate it with more damaging forms of physical and emotional abuse, but there was damage done.
> I still have Steve trauma to this day!
We have trauma about all sorts of things. The ultimate question in your story is - Would you do it again or not if you had a choice?
I suspect the majority of people who work with these crazy geniuses would want to do it gain despite everything. So there is something of value there above the abuse.
We have trauma about all sorts of things. The ultimate question in your story is - Would you do it again or not if you had a choice?
I suspect the majority of people who work with these crazy geniuses would want to do it gain despite everything. So there is something of value there above the abuse.
Oof. Such a hard question! It was one of those experiences at the right age, at the right time, where I was able to tolerate the experience. I couldn't do it now at my age and mental state. If I could go back in time, I might try to work with other personalities in technology who also were meaningul to me and could have used the zeal and energy applied to their projects.
This is interesting. There are similar "stories" about Elon Musk. Perhaps not quite the same as Jobs, but in the same vein. I've often wondered about this personality type of the emotionally unregulated, genius leader, who gets amazing things done, but can leave a bit of a wake behind them of slightly damaged people (both professionally and personally).
Is this really the only way to get great things done? Or is it just that these individuals get talked about a lot, and meanwhile the well balanced emotionally intelligent leaders are quietly working away, respecting their team and also doing groundbreaking stuff...
Anyway, never seen anyone talk about working for Steve here, so thanks for sharing your insights!
Is this really the only way to get great things done? Or is it just that these individuals get talked about a lot, and meanwhile the well balanced emotionally intelligent leaders are quietly working away, respecting their team and also doing groundbreaking stuff...
Anyway, never seen anyone talk about working for Steve here, so thanks for sharing your insights!
I would hope that the majority of "great" things that are getting done are on teams that are managed in thoughtful, healthy and constructive ways.
The Steve Jobs way of doing things worked in that he was able to motivate small teams of people to generate results quickly to solve problems that were quite difficult. The market both rewarded and punished him for this.
It would be nice to get away from personality cult product development. If there is a process to do this, I am all for it!
The Steve Jobs way of doing things worked in that he was able to motivate small teams of people to generate results quickly to solve problems that were quite difficult. The market both rewarded and punished him for this.
It would be nice to get away from personality cult product development. If there is a process to do this, I am all for it!
> It would be nice to get away from personality cult product development.
I struggle with this moral dilemma constantly. Say if we look at SpaceX/Tesla and their respective impact on space transportation and EVs - does the outcome justify the means if Musk treats his employees badly? (I'm not saying he does - I don't know that - just hypothetically).
Same for Jobs...
Is it morally acceptable to have this kind of personality type in charge if the output of the organisation pushes things forward for a large number of people? I don't mean to debate really whether we consider SpaceX or Apple to have pushed things forward for humanity - but for the sake of this discussion...
I've worked with a lot of business leaders myself who show quite similar traits. From my perspective there is a personality type here that seems to be suited to high risk, leading edge organisations that move fast, cut through the crap, disrupt, and get things done. (But, can treat those around them quite badly).
As a technologist I love the progress created by some of these companies, as a moral human being, I sometimes struggle a bit with the "means".
I struggle with this moral dilemma constantly. Say if we look at SpaceX/Tesla and their respective impact on space transportation and EVs - does the outcome justify the means if Musk treats his employees badly? (I'm not saying he does - I don't know that - just hypothetically).
Same for Jobs...
Is it morally acceptable to have this kind of personality type in charge if the output of the organisation pushes things forward for a large number of people? I don't mean to debate really whether we consider SpaceX or Apple to have pushed things forward for humanity - but for the sake of this discussion...
I've worked with a lot of business leaders myself who show quite similar traits. From my perspective there is a personality type here that seems to be suited to high risk, leading edge organisations that move fast, cut through the crap, disrupt, and get things done. (But, can treat those around them quite badly).
As a technologist I love the progress created by some of these companies, as a moral human being, I sometimes struggle a bit with the "means".
Your struggle is completely understandable. It goes even deeper with me. I struggle with how people can work for Apple/Facebook/Twitter/Google/Any Company? when you can create charts of the good vs bad impact they have. If one dwells to much on this, it leads to madness.
This is abuse apologia. The exact same argument could be applied to allow any sort of abusive behavior from sexual harassment to physical abuse to breaking safety laws. Just because someone gives you a paycheck does not mean they get to abuse you mentally, physically or verbally.
I know in the modern world any vocal criticism of anyone is not allowed. Everyone is very fragile apparently. But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it.
Also my point about voluntary participation still stands. People choose to work for Gordon Ramsey. He’s not abusing random people in the street.
Also my point about voluntary participation still stands. People choose to work for Gordon Ramsey. He’s not abusing random people in the street.
> I know in the modern world any vocal criticism of anyone is not allowed. Everyone is very fragile apparently.
Verbal abuse is not vocal criticism. In fact, calling anyone who stands up against boundary violations fragile is itself an abuse technique.
> But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it.
Maybe for your own personal definition of great that thinks objectifying people to a function for some ostensible "greater good" is OK.
Maybe other people's definition of greatness necessarily includes not having abused anyone while achieving it. Something something virtue, human excellence, golden mean...
> Also my point about voluntary participation still stands.
For some absolutized romantic sense of free will, you'd be right. Humans don't work that way though. The number of people who go back to self-defeating patterns is a staggering proof to this; addiction relapses, returning to domestic abuse relationships, eating disorders etc. These are not even fringe issue, these are epidemics. Why would an abusive work relationships be any different?
Verbal abuse is not vocal criticism. In fact, calling anyone who stands up against boundary violations fragile is itself an abuse technique.
> But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it.
Maybe for your own personal definition of great that thinks objectifying people to a function for some ostensible "greater good" is OK.
Maybe other people's definition of greatness necessarily includes not having abused anyone while achieving it. Something something virtue, human excellence, golden mean...
> Also my point about voluntary participation still stands.
For some absolutized romantic sense of free will, you'd be right. Humans don't work that way though. The number of people who go back to self-defeating patterns is a staggering proof to this; addiction relapses, returning to domestic abuse relationships, eating disorders etc. These are not even fringe issue, these are epidemics. Why would an abusive work relationships be any different?
> Verbal abuse is not vocal criticism.
My original post used precise wording that said vocal rejection of mediocrity. Then I was accused of abuse apologism. I never said verbal abuse is ok, I was accused of it though.
My original post used precise wording that said vocal rejection of mediocrity. Then I was accused of abuse apologism. I never said verbal abuse is ok, I was accused of it though.
You have equivocated verbal abuse with vocal criticism through insinuating what Gordon Ramsey did on TV to be the latter and tying that to a telos of greatness. Then you hedged against criticism with a strawman fragility accusation. What Ramsay does is verbal abuse through and through, not calling it so is abuse apologism at best, and more like gaslighting when considered together with accusations of fragility.
You can give honest feedback to someone without verbally abusing them. In fact, not giving honest feedback can be a form of mental abuse. I'm a strong believer in continuous honest communication, but that doesn't have to be in the form of yelling at someone.
> But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it.
Do you really want to articulate the position "I'm sorry you were abused, but I believe that it's OK because of the end product that I got to enjoy"?
Do you really want to articulate the position "I'm sorry you were abused, but I believe that it's OK because of the end product that I got to enjoy"?
Your point about the voluntary nature is good. Your other point needs work. There are useful ways to communicate someone's failures, and counterproductive ways. The TV Ramsey, for all his entertainment value, is a counterproductive example, despite his partly-fictional nature. Imagine, for a moment, a reality show featuring an amped-up-to-11 Steve Jobs breaking keyboards over developers' heads while shouting creative abuse; would such a program inspire tech CEOs to do better, or worse?
This rejection of vocal criticism as the driver of brilliant creativity is very similar to the "enlightened" rejection of the idea that the greatest accomplishments often come from the darkest places where we're often too afraid to look. Would some of mankind's greatest musicians, such as Elliott Smith, Kurt Cobain, and Beethoven, have created their music if they weren't dealing with some tough shit?
> Would some of mankind's greatest musicians, such as Elliott Smith, Kurt Cobain, and Beethoven, have created their music if they weren't dealing with some tough shit?
Would you therefore claim that people should intentionally be subjected to these conditions? I think one can acknowledge that great creativity comes from dark places without celebrating, welcoming, or, worst, inflicting those dark places.
Would you therefore claim that people should intentionally be subjected to these conditions? I think one can acknowledge that great creativity comes from dark places without celebrating, welcoming, or, worst, inflicting those dark places.
No, of course not. My point is that trying to eliminate the dark places is bad. Dark places happen naturally, we can't really eliminate them. My point is not, as you seem to think, that creating more dark places intentionally is good.
> My point is not, as you seem to think, that creating more dark places intentionally is good.
But that was the context in which we were having the discussion: not about Elliott Smith and the like, but about Gordon Ramsay, who creates such dark places (although of a very different sort from the dark places inhabited by someone with depression), and whether the cost that imposes on the participants is acceptable.
But that was the context in which we were having the discussion: not about Elliott Smith and the like, but about Gordon Ramsay, who creates such dark places (although of a very different sort from the dark places inhabited by someone with depression), and whether the cost that imposes on the participants is acceptable.
Is there any evidence to suggest that people who rise to greatness in abusive environments would not have risen to greatness in an environment that isn’t abusive?
The pyramids were built with slave labor, but that's hardly an argument for slavery.
I believe this is now generally regarded as a misconception, since there are records of the workers being paid. However it can be difficult to tease out the true nature of this work in the historic context, since the way such workers would be paid at the time would likely look like slavery in the modern context (e.g. being paid in grain.) There is also the orthogonal matter of paid/unpaid work, vs forced/unforced work; somebody who is forced to work but is also paid may still be considered a slave.
Those are worthwhile caveats. The reasoning of my point still stands, even if I'm factually in error.
To this day, the movie Whiplash is one of the greatest illustrations of how a demanding mentor can produce tremendous results.
I dunno. It's fiction. It may or may not have any relevance in the real world.
what an incredibly bizarre comment. "I don't know how anyone can see Ramsay as abusive. He's a super nice guy who only abuses idiots who deserve it".
What definition of abusiveness _doesn't_ include targeting only "those who deserve it", as defined by the abuser?
What definition of abusiveness _doesn't_ include targeting only "those who deserve it", as defined by the abuser?
While I'm not sure about your take, as someone with some links to the world of ultra-high end dining, Gordon Ramsey's persona is definitely made for TV. He worked for the chef whose persona he copies on TV (Marco Pierre White) but I've heard that he's much more pleasant in his own restaurants.
That being said, the glorification of such personas is troubling and a problem for the restaurant industry.
That being said, the glorification of such personas is troubling and a problem for the restaurant industry.
Would love reading a paper discussing the process leading to people publicly advocating for people they’ve never met. Great PR machines, media.
So it's ok to abuse people if they perform poorly or make stupid mistakes?
It disheartens me that you were downvoted for this reasonable question!
Related, So you want to be a Chef. https://web.archive.org/web/20210123015245/https://ruhlman.c...
This doesn't sound right.
Who uses reality tv as a model of how they should act at work?
I like watching truck modding shows where it's just a guy bolting on upgrades and whatever.
But that's not entertaining enough, so the reality tv version is a car shop where the owner has to come out and act like a chimp, yell and throw wrenches and shit because the parts haven't arrived yet or a repair is behind schedule.
Who uses reality tv as a model of how they should act at work?
I like watching truck modding shows where it's just a guy bolting on upgrades and whatever.
But that's not entertaining enough, so the reality tv version is a car shop where the owner has to come out and act like a chimp, yell and throw wrenches and shit because the parts haven't arrived yet or a repair is behind schedule.
Thanks to the influence of television, arguably the most famous chef in the world is famous not for food, but rather for verbal abuse.