This is just comment from an observation I made to myself and no doubt goes on a bit and even presents me more as some kind of rant-fuelled ’mad’ man (which can keep me warm at night!), so . . .

There I was, adding another good read to my digital library and I thought, ‘Hey, it’d be a good thing to share some of the passages that have made a mark with me, to others on a social media network, particularly a work one, that can just share good writing and books others may be inspired to read themselves’ . . . rather than having been ‘sold’ a book to read on a (work-based) social network because that’s business right?

Don’t break barriers, those are what justify our (working) existence!

And so, I gathered a few passages from good reads I had had, sorted out a format and decent layout to accommodate the chosen words at a readable size, wrote the posts’ text and the posts’ images’ alt text in advance as it’s always a good idea to support those that need to ‘see’ – using assistive technologies – an image they won’t be able to actually see on these platforms . . . LinkedIn, to its credit, provides the adding of alternative text to a posts’ image as a core feature . . . and getting those existing basics of the web right means other ‘reinventing-the-wheel and or sticking plaster solutions’ aren’t necessary.

Plus, the platform’s scheduled post facility was a helpful addition to regularity without the need to regularly log in, click around and repeat tasks and all that faff!

In amongst all my thoughts and preparation of putting these things together I couldn’t help but think how long would it take for someone in my network to see these ‘just sharing the words that have helped and inspired me and might help others (even at work)’ posts, to promote (rather than recommend separately and in a non-salesy way, to show they’ve made some effort) that a certain book, by a certain person – that one has ‘worked’ alongside from previous work experiences and wondered often, what did they do, really? – that was trying but a bit of a talker, even chancer, despite maybe some worthy intentions and mostly seeing a market of success and relevancy to tap and latch onto for a bit of attention-seeking and relevancy in the current market(ing) zeitgeist?

Give ’em their due

Still, one must say that they did write a book (although it is co-authored) and so have an ISBN to their name, however well, or poorly, it may be constructed (read some of its Goodreads reviews that actually rate the writing of the book, not just its point) and is adding to the community and collective conversation(s), despite still being a bit too neoliberal in setup, semi-answers and composition for accommodating change, beyond the typical individualistic approaches bred by an ism or two, and not just adding more expectations and weight on those that don’t have as many opportunities in life but are no less deserving or expectant of meaningful, long-term change . . . and in seeking and empowering others with considered assistance and fortitude.

Anyway

Aside from all that context, it took 2 weeks essentially, of four posts (scheduled on a Monday and Friday, each week) and in response to the fifth post (appearing on the third week’s Monday, of The Silo Effect by the anthropologist Gillian Tett) a cursory message from an old association of mine and a sort of, ‘Oh, nice to see you back . . .’ type thing and that the posted words were of complementarity to the book and its author highlighted for easy linkage in their reply, that I had thought, ‘I wonder how long it’ll take before that book is mentioned to me?’ and there it was.

It’s why, for the first 34 (of the 42 book passages) I put together as LinkedIn posts had the book’s published date on them just to show people have been investigating and critiquing in pertinent ways and challenging expected, typical economic and societal ways for many a year (with and from good sources).

Not to disparage efforts of adding to the conversation of the times isn’t a worthwhile thing, but when that has the sense of being a little (too?) transactional, opportunistic and worthy because of contemporary times, one feels a little suspect of those kind of attempts at adding to that social, and global if slightly too Western, rich and educated (in certain ways) and all that, conversation.

I’ll take people with worked (even lived) experiences, learnings and practices, that can be better integrated and help lower the prevalence of things like (capitalist-)individualism, status, meritocracy and the assumption that (digital) technology will save everything so it’ll be all right . . . people like Hilary Cottam, Jeffrey Boakye, Gina Miller, Mike Berners-Lee, Grace Blakeley and many more that are adding accessibly and informatively, over any marketing-led approaches that just seem to be a bit narrow, even using certain names to help bolster appeal of the ideas, even though the person picked seems a little inappropriate (given privilege, status, class an' all that) to a relevant discussion and possible proposition(s) for systemic, meaningful change for all

Still, what do I know, eh . . . opinion doesn’t help, does it?

Afterword

Yes, I deleted the comment attached to that post (in an of act of individual citizenship!) as I didn’t want to be associated with it, couldn’t be bothered to reply with something like, ‘Of all the books you chose to recommend (especially given you’ve never once messaged me through the platform before), it had to be that one!’ and just thought, ‘Well, that didn’t take long for that book to be mentioned . . . and by that person . . . people playing to type which I suppose is their job and typical somewhat . . . nothing changes . . . you couldn’t even make an effort to write something a bit more thoughtful and less salesy and demonstrate your possibly nuanced and thoughtful edge, even to loose associations, in the marketplace?’

Why does it seem like everything these days, ultimately, seems to be about quantity (and the data, the spreadsheets), not quality?

Oh, it's ’cause you can’t measure quality so you measure quantities as it’s all about the numbers, the gains . . . the computer says no if you try to measure life and if you did the computer – the future, right?! – couldn’t cope . . . and that many (marketing and other, similar departmental) jobs would likely prove to be unnecessary to real progress . . . oh, neoliberalism and the not very helpful late-twentieth-century and current twenty-first-century capitalist ways and means . . . how do we make you a bit more useful and less monetarily dependent on ruining, sorry, running the lives of citizens?

That’s a rhetorical question, for the record, and a small part of this article’s point and or humour.