Dreading Chapter Summary

Ugh. This book. I remember reading a section of it in one of my previous philosophy courses and I was dreading/eager to finally read it in it’s entirety. Dreading because the small portion I read completely irked me. Eager because there was a possibility that the rest of the book could be great and make up for what I had read. After finishing the book, I still do strongly dislike some parts. My hate is not a strong as it initially was, but just looking at the cover annoys me. Although Nagle claims to want to work in sanitation in order to write “a book that would reveal how much sanitation workers and the Department that stands behind them merit praise and respect”, she presents facts to the contrary (36). She gives example after example of

One of my favorite examples of this trend is when she writes about the PAP wagon and the drug policy. She writes that one worker “decided to celebrate early” and was involved in an insignificant accident which led to the worker being PAPed (70). He failed the test and was fired. The best part is that it wasn’t beer that led to his downfall. Cocaine was in his system. Nagle downplays the heck out of this fact by writing “even stale beer” could have gotten him fired (70). It’s hard to tell what exactly Nagle is trying to demonstrate. Should the sanitation ease up on their regulations? Cause honestly who doesn’t do a little cocaine before a shift? He just wanted to celebrate and it’s not that bad because the accident didn’t even kill anyone. Ugh. This book. Anyway, cocaine is an illegal substance and even legal beer in your system while operating such heavy and dangerous machinery (sanitation is the fourth most dangerous job!) is super irresponsible and I am in full support of these strict rules. I can go on and on about the inconsistencies in the book, but I want to also touch on some of the good material that I

It’s kinda funny how I like the quotes that Nagle quotes… Anyway she included the quote from sociologist Marcel Mauss who thought that “even when an object ‘had been abandoned by the giver, it still possesses some thing of [that person]’”(7). I should read The Gift to get a better sense of what Mauss means by this, but I think it’s a good cautionary observation. It makes me think about the way I have watched people purchase items that they aren’t completely sure they’ll use (which is a major sign that they definitely don’t need it). If they can’t find a use they tell themselves that they’ll give it to a friend or family member, or donate it. The problem, and the way that I believe this example relates to the quote, is that in a way that item is marked by the previous owner. The item loses a little of it’s value. I know this isn’t the case for all items (ex. antiques), but lots of new items that have passed through less hands are thought of as having more value. I’m specifically thinking about the way items in thrift shops are heavily discounted (even with tags attached). These items aren’t even used, but the story of how they made it to the thrift store is unknown and that mystery leads me to assume that they are tainted in a way. Not spoiled enough to prevent me from buying them, but enough to make me value them less. The mark of the previous owner is still there even if it is invisible. This then makes me think about