The Head Gardener and his staff, Waddesdon Manor, c. 1904 [Source]

As I was saying, being a servant in a previous life means something deep inside me responds to domestic tasks -- the lovely steamy aroma rising off a hot iron on damp sheets, for example, or the soothing rhythmic workout of a good French polishing.  I have little doubt I was part of some house staff, because I must confess nothing resonates within me at the sight of a spade or a shovel.  My friend Eduardo loves to putter in the garden, which may signify any number of things, but I don't swoon at the thought of trimming a bush or laying on compost, I can tell you that.  Saddle soap and the pungent scent of horse and straw don't bring on some irresistible urge to muck out a stall either.  No, neither the garden nor the stable calls to me.

Yes, I am aware of what my detractors say -- that I am nostalgic for the days, now swept away by War and Progress, when privilege ruled, and the lower classes lived to serve and staff those enormous estates like Waddesdon Manor, construction on which commenced in 1874 by Baron Ferdinand de Rothschild (who it is only fair to note here was, as a banker, yet by all accounts a fair and honorable gentleman and employer). 

I realize some of you are criticial of what you perceive as my longing for a time when the upper classes held sway.  Yet once again I must protest.  What draws me to this earlier era (among many reasons) symbolized by 1904, is the way in which in those days one could speak plainly and honestly about class, whether for and against being quite beside the point.    

Oh I know you want to remind me of how fluid our modern "free" society has become.  How anyone is "free" to achieve whatever they put their mind to, although curiously the only examples of those who have managed to do so and rise through the ranks end up being that same handful of guys in I.T. (the one who invented YouTube -- genius!) but I understand what you mean.  Fluid doesn't mean, however, that a ruling elite hasn't been reconstituted.  I'm just saying that talk about class might bring us back to the subject of the relationship which exists between worker and employer, between servant and master, and the responsibility that goes along with that relationship.  I recognize some of you find the terms distasteful, but couldn't we at least try?  Yes, I know it's all about individual freedom.  It's that freedom we want to give to the whole rest of the world.  But does that have to mean freedom from all social contracts?  Freedom to the exclusion of all obligations to our fellow man? 

As David Harvey writes, "If it is indeed the case that the US public can be persuaded to support almost anything in the name of freedom, then surely the meaning of this word should be subjected to the deepest scrutiny." [A Brief History of Neoliberalism, p. 184].  Can we have this conversation, please?  Freedom to do what, exactly?  Freedom to create a monopoly of power?  Freedom to ravage and lay waste to our natural resources?  Freedom to lie and cheat and steal to defend the privileges of a few?  Is it really about free markets or is it more of a free pass to profit off others less fortunate? 

It's funny but when you talk about Labor as though it were a commodity, it seems so disposable, so impersonal, so much like something you can buy as cheaply as possible and throw away afterward.  It doesn't sound at all like real people with names and lives and dreams and history, who iron your shirts and clean your house and mow your lawn and sweat and toil, tending your garden.