Work or mastery ?

How do we achieve the best possible result in the work, in the construction? In my opinion, contrary to popular belief, it is not the search for greater mastery that is the best path. Concrete elements of method.

When one has to produce an object, whether it is intellectual, artistic, literary, pedagogical, or if the project is to produce one’s own learning, it seems to me useful to take a look at one’s working method. We are traditionally taught to be in search of some form of mastery, whether it be organizational, technical, athletic, bibliographic, intellectual, scholarly... We are told that if we “master” we will do the best work possible. Things, in my opinion, are far from being so simple, because often the quest for mastery can, on the contrary, seriously harm the quality of the work and therefore the result.

Example: making a movie

Let’s take the example of a film project. We will first write the script, trying to master all aspects of it: interest of the subject, dramaturgy, psychology of the characters, cinematographic point of view, etc. The purpose of the script, besides being artistically interesting, is to reassure the people who are going to invest in the project, be it financially, technically, artistically or strategically. During the shooting of the film, to continue in the direction of mastery, we will respect, also for organizational reasons, what had been planned and written. Everything is under control, all the cases have been ticked, the film has been made in perfectly professional conditions, a priori guarantees of its potential future success. However, very often, this type of production process generates rather insipid films, not very exciting, and which do not meet the interest of the public. Yet the script and the process were “perfect”, we mastered everything!

What went wrong? The problem is that this “mastery” in the method made this film not “alive”, it does not have a “beating heart”, which leads to powerful interest. It is not “on the edge”, it is not rich of this particular tension, intrinsic to strong works. The desire to control the work process from start to finish had the function of reassuring all the participants in the project, whatever their title, with the promise of ensuring a perfectly controlled film, meeting a certain number of shared criteria. But there is one thing that cannot be reduced to criteria, it is this “alchemy” that produces something anchored, deep, that makes sense and touches the sensitive, in an individual, collective and non-consensual way. This is true in creation, in industry, in learning, in pedagogy... in all fields of human activity. But how could we have done “better”?

The sociological reality

Also, as a spectator, one will be able to find many defects in this “perfectly mastered” film. Yet its team was convinced to have controlled everything! A film, whatever its degree of mastery, will always remain a cultural object, contextualized, in connection with criteria related to the habits and customs of the culture in which it is bathed. Thus, even the will of the most total mastery always operates in a context of which we cannot embrace all the elements. We are immersed in our culture without being aware of it, we are caught in our habitus, as Pierre Bourdieu would say.

The will to mastery is thus in reality only the fantasy of a mastery. Mastery has no real existence.

Knowing that one cannot master everything

The starting point for a better working method must, in my opinion, take as its first support the certainty that it is impossible to master everything, and that the quest for mastery is a fantasy. If we take an ethnological or sociological view, we immediately see that any quest for mastery is illusory and futile.

So what does this mean? We don’t organize anything anymore? Is it anarchy? Do we let things drift? Do things just happen by themselves without any requirements? No, of course, you have to work to achieve a valuable result. You have to have a strong intention. But then how do you “work”? What is “working”? What is a “good job”, a “real job”? So what is this other path that I am proposing?

A misleading etymology

People think they know the etymology of the word labor. It is most often said that it comes from tripalium, a Latin word for an instrument of torture. But if we dig into the history of the word and the uses of the notion of work, we realize that the history is much more complex, rich and alive. Its origin is rather related to the ancient Spanish root, trabajar, which means “to aim at a goal, requiring to overcome resistance”, as well as to its common root with the English word travel, which means the journey, the transformation, the passage from one state to another. Work is therefore a transforming operation. We say “birth work” for example, for the path that opens to life.

To deepen the subject of the history of the word “work”, I recommend this excellent article on Mediapart: L’arnaque de l’etymologie du mot “travail”.

An example of work versus mastery

I use a real life example that I have experienced many times to illustrate what I call “real work”. For more than twenty years, I have been regularly offering film-making workshops in many contexts, whether for adults in vocational training or in the social field, film school students, museum visitors, children... I will not go into the details of the specific procedures of the workshops, which are very diverse and of which it is possible to find summaries in the section « Cultural and pedagogical actions » of this web site. I will focus on the working method that I use.

I propose to a group of people to make a collective film, or films by small groups, or individual films, according to a very precise protocol, a framework which ensures the good end of the film in little time. Within this framework, they will be free to express themselves and be autonomous in the making of the film. The films are shot in sequence (in one go, without editing). The filming can be repeated several times until the result is obtained. There is no preliminary writing of the script, the writing and the shooting are done in the stride, and the improvisation during the shooting gives ideas of writing, the film being able to be started again in whole several times (since it is shot in shot-sequence). Thus, its “scenario” has nothing fixed.

I give people precise technical instructions, then they will be autonomous to go and shoot their film, and then come back to present it to the others, who will also have made their films. These films will also be broadcast on the Internet, and thus seen by other people. So the stakes are high. This is not an exercise, these films will really exist. And I often give people half an hour (yes, only half an hour!) to come up with the idea and shoot their film, before coming back to present it. This seems very little, almost impossible to do, especially with the stakes I give the film, which is not an exercise but a “real” film. I tell people to first find a place (what we call a “setting” in the jargon), to find inspiration there, to do with what we have rather than looking for something that we have imagined in an abstract way. In such a short time, people have to “take action” almost immediately. No one is sure of themselves, but everyone is doing their best, working without questioning anything other than taking action. Since we know that the other members of the group are also making films on their own, there is an emulation. People always come back with a film. Because of the system, as everyone is on the same level, there is no time to fear the judgment of others. We do !

People come back with their films, we put them in a computer, a big screen has been installed, we plunge the room in the dark, the sound will be of good quality. And... we watch the films, one after the other. You can imagine the emotion, very strong, experienced by the people, the shame that they have to confront to the looks of the others what they made, in this so limited time.

During the projection, each person feels that what he or she has done is fully received by the others; it is experienced physically. The supervisor that I am sends back to them what he has perceived from their film, what I have received from it, in a precise way (which requires me a great attention, a real openness, and the overcoming of my own judgments). So I don’t make any judgments, I send back what I received, what the film enriched me with. There is always something.

This moment lived by the participants is very important, because they were able to make something, the value of which was instituted by the glance of the others. The films they produced in this short period of time all have a real interest, without pretending to be anything other than improvised artistic objects, rich with this energy.

Moreover, it is through the feedback of others that they realize what they have done. It is by seeing the film several times that they become aware of all that the film is rich in, even if it has passed through the unconscious (our inexhaustible creative source, impossible to control, but so rich). Thus, the discussion will be constructive if the spectators share with the authors what they have received, helping them to understand what they have done (and not the endless and useless discussions where the authors have to explain what they have done, which has no interest. The next time these people make a film, they will have a much higher level of skill, they will have learned a great deal, precisely because it was not intended to be a mastery, but a journey, a transformation

Some of the films made in these settings have won first prizes at international film festivals. There is something “magical”, almost every time, in these very intense moments of creation. For some people, it is the only film they will have made in their lives, and it will hold great value, for them and for those around them.

The “real” work

What happened? Method Analysis.

• The film I proposed to people to make had a purpose, it was made for others, not for oneself, it was an open object and inscribed in the reality outside the context of the workshop.
• During the moment of creation / writing / shooting, time being very limited, each person did their best, their maximum, in improvisation, simply to succeed in having done something. The limited time opens the floodgates of non-judgment on what one can propose, because it is necessary to do, whatever the cost. It was a difficult and important work, however without any stake of control.
• It is a surpassing of oneself, it is succeeding in what seems impossible.
• It is not at all comfortable or reassuring, it is oser, well forced, because in half an hour, the film must be returned.
• The people have been transformed by this experience. So a work has indeed taken place.
• It is learning from the way others look at one’s work, by sharing what they have received, and not by judging it according to criteria of “mastery” (often technical criteria, by the way).

This is what I call “real work”: to do one’s best, to do one’s best, without trying to master things, but “to give everything” so that something exists, quite simply, which will carry this energy, and to come out of it transformed oneself

This “work situation” opens up the possibility of discovering abilities that one did not know about oneself. However, after shooting the film, each person remains convinced that what he or she has done is “bad”. It is at the moment of confrontation with the gaze of others and of listening to what the film has brought to the spectators present, that the work, that is to say the inner transformation of each one, crystallizes: it is in the gaze of the other that I discover my capacities, and that my competences are inscribed in me. Everyone comes out of it transformed, enriched; there is a before and an after.

What I write here about the quality of films made in only half an hour may seem incredible, miraculous, or perhaps even fallacious: in such a short time, it is hard to believe that something worthwhile can be achieved, because there is no time for it to be "well worked out. I invite you to watch films produced in this type of setting, to make your own opinion, to realize the reality of this type of work.

“Real work”, as we have seen, has a purpose, is risk-taking, is profound, powerful, transformative, creative, surprising, enriching, alive, invested with all the effort and focus of the person. It is the exact opposite of mastery, which is a protective approach against risk and judgment, which therefore prevents change and becomes a prisoner of fears.