Elbert Hubbard’s “The Law of Obedience”
The first item in the commonsense creed is Obedience. Do your work with a whole heart! The man who mixes revolt and obedience is doomed to disappoint himself and everybody with whom he has dealings. To flavor work with protest is to fail absolutely. When you revolt – climb, get out, hike, defy – tell everybody and everything to go to limbo! That disposes of the case. You thus separate yourself entirely from those you have served – no one misunderstands you – you have declared yourself. But to pretend to obey, and yet carry in your heart the spirit to revolt, is to do half-hearted and slipshod work. If revolt and obedience are equal, your engine will stop on the center and you benefit nobody, not even yourself. The Spirit of Obedience is the controlling impulse of the receptive mind and the hospitable heart. There are boats that mind the helm and boats that don’t. Those that don’t, get holes knocked in them sooner or later. To keep off the rocks obey the rudder. Obedience is not to lavishly obey this man or that, but it is that cheerful mental condition which responds to the necessity of the case, and does the thing. Obedience to the institution – loyalty! The man who has not learned to obey has trouble ahead of him every step of the way – the world has it in for him because he has it in for the world. The man who does not know how to receive orders is not fit to issue them. But he who knows how to execute orders is preparing the way to give them, and better still – to have them obeyed.
— Elbert Hubbard
Maybe thats why handwork dropped off after the early 1900’s.
Nobody revolted against the industrial revolution and the institutions that were pounding into their brains “obey me”.
Viva the independant thinkers!
Those who have served in the military know what it means “to soldier.” It simply means that there are times and places when there is nothing that can be done but do what must be done. You need to march up that hill, so do it and shut up.
He is not talking about the obedience of a dog or a slave but to the world of necessity which is master to all of us.
IMNSHO
I would perhaps agree,
However, one could also argue that the industrial revolution was a disobedience of set thought, so the old ways went the way of the dodo, An over simplification perhaps, but there might be elements of this in the revolution.
I find though that the substance of what was being said in this, was in effect, do your best. Don’t half heartedly go through the motions of compliance. You end up cheating the client, customer, boss, friends, but most importantly yourself.
I found this really good.
Thanx Chris.
Along this line I’ve bean thinking that the dove tail joint in the roubo bench is off. I don’t see why it is the way it is. I have been reading his books and he comes of as an educated sort of guy. I would think that most craftsmen of that time would not have been. Not to say they were not intelligent. Very much the opposite. Ruobo speaks with an educated voice. So I don’t think he was a worker himself or if he was, later was educated. That joint makes no sense to me. The one that does is the wedged tenon and mortice joint. Because it restricts the last possible movement. The current version would seem to help split the bench. Plus I have not seen it mentioned any were else. Besides as being used as stretcher and in the seemingly magical impossible dovetail.Perhaps he misunderstood what the worker was telling him. It is like a dove tail after all.
Elie,
Roubo was a menuisier first and built the dome of the the Paris Haymarket. His books were … well he says it best. Read these translations:
http://lostartpress.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/what-made-andre-jacob-roubo-tick-part-1/
http://lostartpress.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/what-made-andre-jacob-roubo-tick-part-2/
As to the dovetail joint in particular, it shows up over and over in the archaeological record on workbenches. And after using that joint on many benches, I think I know why.
1. It’s best to use a twin tenon on a joint that large to balance the amount of material in the mortise and the tenon.
2. Through mortises in 4″ to 6″ material are time consuming to make.
3. Making one of the twin tenons on the outside of the leg makes the mortise easy to cut.
4. Making it a dovetail shape ensures the tenon won’t warp out of line with the workbench top.
The joint is a huge time-saver. It works very well. Lots of other dead woodworkers did, too. Case closed in my book.
I would add the increased surface area in contact between the components makes for a stronger bond. Anything to help combat the force applied by the leg vise…
I’ve thought a lot about that joint lately. I wish I had legs big enough to use it in the petite Roubo I’m building.
Elbert Hubbard… my dad (1891-1973) was an inventor who embraced Industrialism thoroughly. Among his effects was a dog-eared copy of economic philosophy as espoused by a long-haired and angry eyed Hubbard, the cover printed on brown paper. I recently acquired a copy of my dad’s high school and college scrap book. It contains a 3 1/4″ x 5 1/2″ note card with this same “The Law of Obedience”. On it is printed what I think is the Roycroft symbol.
Another quotation on a card is “Horse Sense” which begins:
” If you work for a man, in heaven’s name work for him. If he pays wages that supply you with your bread and butter, work for him, speak well of him, think well of him, stand by him, and stand by the institution he represents… ”
It is fascinating to me that Hubbard was such an important figure to my dad, whose politics were way to the right and who had no respect for socialists or anarchists whatsoever.
Thanks for sharing this window of work ethic. It’s sad to say that our work ethic today pales in comparison to these words, actually saying the words “work ethic today” is a bit of a farce in its self as it is more rare than we recognize.
Cheers
An interesting take from Mike Rowe on work ethic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRVdiHu1VCc
Thanks Jason, what a great video and I couldn’t agree more.
Cheers
I second that. A very entertaining message that gets right to the heart of the matter. Thanks for sharing it.
Jim
A fabulous video. It should be required viewing at every high school and university in the nation!
Glad everyone enjoyed it. Mike has done a half-dozen or so audio podcasts as well, and they’re equally as compelling. Also, his podcasts with Adam Carolla are hilariously insightful and are worth the time to find and download.
It seems a lot of old woodworking illustrations show some severely skewed chisels, like those above. I wonder what purpose such skewed chisels served in handwork that we seem to have forgotten.
I have had and left a number of jobs in my life time, most of them very good jobs. The most common reason for my leavings had to do with the fact that I could no longer even half-heartedly support the business plans of the person or company where I worked. I am currently self-employed and although I am not very successful by most standards, I am pretty much content.
I can only hope that this post is left at least in part ironically, given our host’s pretensions to anarchism. If not ironic, this post is emblematic of a very deap-seated confusion.
Maybe it’s a cultural thing but the word obedience rubs me the wrong way, at least with respect to work ethic. I will follow a leader I believe in and trust but I will never blindly obey anyone. I have a mind and I use it. I could never be an automaton. I’ve worked for some really good bosses and I’ve done what they told me to do because I believed it was the right thing to do. I’ve also worked for some jerks that I stood up to because I thought they were wrong. Eventually either they left because there were more of us opposed to them than they could tolerate, or I left because I realized I didn’t fit in. I don’t believe respect, commitment, or working hard are founded on obedience. Nor do I believe that blind obedience shows respect or commitment. I don’t believe loyalty and obedience are equivalent either. Loyalty is a two way street in my book. Blind obedience may give the impression of loyalty, but obedience is fickle because it is driven by authority, whereas loyalty is driven by respect. Respect comes from interactions and observations. Authority comes from position. Respect is earned – authority is given.
Don’t confuse subordination with subjugation.
Another way to look at it is a ‘boss’ can buy your duty but has to earn your loyalty.
Great picture.
Source?
Yes, the whole obedience thing sounded a bit absurd. But that picture is fantastic. See how he briskly planes that board, shavings flying around! Where does this picture come from? What period was it made?
Gosh, I waited to post on this because it really is the first LAP post that made me want to, well, BARF.
“But to pretend to obey, and yet carry in your heart the spirit to revolt, is to do half-hearted and slipshod work.”
I’ll buy this line perhaps but throw the rest out, passionately. I choose instead to commemorate this ubiquitous prose.
“Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do”. – Apple Inc.
“Obedience is not to lavishly obey this man or that, but it is that cheerful mental condition which responds to the necessity of the case, and does the thing.”
Yup, do the thing.
here, hear
“But this very obedience will be acceptable to God and pleasing to all only if what is commanded is done without hesitation, delay, lukewarmness, grumbling, or objection.
For the obedience given to Superiors is given to God, since He Himself has said, “He who hears you, hears Me” (Luke 10:16).
And the disciples should offer their obedience with a good will, for “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). For if the disciple obeys with an ill will and murmurs, not necessarily with his lips but simply in his heart, then even though he fulfill the command yet his work will not be acceptable to God,who sees that his heart is murmuring.
And, far from gaining a reward for such work as this, he will incur the punishment due to murmurers, unless he amend and make satisfaction.”
Benedict of Nursia, founder of Benedictine monasticism, circa 500 A.D.
For what it’s worth…
Nothing seems more out of place for the artisan than conformity, the essence of obedience. It stifles creativity and saps the desire to venture into the unique and discover the new. The curious mind is the disobedient mind.
“But to pretend to obey, and yet carry in your heart the spirit to revolt, is to do half-hearted and slipshod work.”
“Do your work with a whole heart!”
Ergo, revolt!
I have a customer for whom I have “corrected” a great deal of work done by a previous workman who, in his own light of creativity, did what suited him even when it went counter to the wishes and requests of his client. This creative fellow has since left the area altogether. His work might have been full-hearted but it was certainly shoddy.
Is the glass half empty or half full? Yes, skill requires discipline and dedication but creativity requires more than simply executing one’s skill and staying within the lines.
It is interesting how differently we read Hubbard’s dictum. I read it much the same as did Jim McCoy and Tim Henriksen. I guess I don’t see obedience and discipline as necessarily the same thing. On the other hand, I can see how one’s methodic and meticulous approach to their craft could be construed as obedience. Perhaps the key phrase in Hubbard’s piece is:
“Obedience is not to lavishly obey this man or that, but it is that cheerful mental condition which responds to the necessity of the case, and does the thing.”
For me, a disciplined (or obedient) approach is the means to a creative end. The end drives the method by which one achieves it.
Thanks for the prod, Rick.
How about: Ask not what your _______ can do for you. Ask what you can do for your ______.
Elbert Hubbard. Roycrafters. A particular favorite study of mine back in college under the heading “alternative communities of the nineteenth century”. One of the most popular motivational speakers and self promoters of his time. Loved or not loved by many. Hubbard followed the path of quite a few alternative community leaders of that period by creating his new society based on the ideals of the arts and crafts movement, bent to his purposes which were largely to support his lifestyle and businesses of publishing and the commercialization of the brand Roycrafters. He did an amazing job of it too.
Hubbard made sure his Roycrafters featured the good stuff of life, the life he wanted to live which was not the life of the more conservative society he rejected. Free speech (so long as it adhered to his sayings.) Free love ( we didn’t invent it) Free experimental drugs (we didn’t invent those either) Communal food (that too) and so on. As with most alternative communities of that time and even now, as the members grew older and either died or moved on, the membership shrank and eventually the Roycrafters as a group and as a commercial entity disappeared.
Keep in mind that, as with most alternative communities, obedience to the internal laws and mores is necessary for the survival of the community and the for the maintenance of the leaders power. Hubbard did a good job of it through his writings. Or at least he did until his people died off. He ran into the same problem nearly all of the other communities had and have: no new membership equals eventual disbandment. No one to take over leadership from the one charismatic leader means no more movement. In a way, it’s a pity as the Roycrafters produced some great metal work and pottery.
“Obedience is not to lavishly obey this man or that, but it is that cheerful mental condition which responds to the necessity of the case, and does the thing. Obedience to the institution – loyalty!”
I wonder if the word ‘lavishly’ above is a typo? Add an ‘s’ and it becomes ‘slavishly’ which is what I get from the context of the passage.
IMO, obedience is contextual. At work I’m given direction on what to do. If I’m a tradesman the master may assign me to work on a commission for a customer. I would be disobedient to do sloppy work, or not work on it at all. I would also be quickly unemployed! I am obedient to do my best work on it, which includes using my creative talent within the parameters of the commission to do an artful job. IMO, obedience and creativity are not mutually exclusive.
If I am the master and receive a commission from a customer then I have greater freedom to express my creativity in how that commission is fulfilled. I could create a new form, to the delight of my customer if I fulfill the parameters of the commission. If I am disobedient to the customer in terms of how I execute the commission then I will be quickly out of business.
In my religion, all work done in the spirit of service is equivalent to worship (of God). So to me there are levels and contexts of obedience, while at the same time the limit on creativity is strictly due to my own limitations on how creative I can be. Creativity is great for a woodworker, depending on context, not so great for a surgeon. I don’t want a creative appendectomy! I want it done by the book, with skill and precision. At the same time, I applaud the surgeon who invents a new procedure such as a heart transplant. Such things are for the masters though, not for the intern or apprentice.
In the military, as in business, and indeed in our personal lives, we subordinate ourselves to the organization, be it commander, boss, parents, or the needs of a relationship. Our subordination may be willing or unwilling. If the former and the leader is one who cares about the troops and takes care of them then life is good, we receive our marching orders and execute them faithfully with room for initiative depending on our function. If our subordination is unwilling then we’ll either not last in the position or relationship or we’ll get ulcers and/or cause trouble because of a bad attitude. For certain we will not be happy campers.
When it becomes our turn to be the leader and give orders, we’ll know better how to give them because we’ve taken them and executed them faithfully. We’ll also have observed those who failed in both regards.
In the long run it’s my own obedience to God and my own conscience that’s most important. That’s where integrity comes from.
Did I mix enough metaphors there?
That was a strangely anti-anarchistic post, Chris! Or was it? Hmmmmm….. 🙂