The Iron Cage

The Misdiagnosis of Emptiness

You wake up at the right time, you make the coffee the way you always make it, you answer the messages that light up your phone, you move through the day with a kind of practiced competence that looks, from the outside, like stability. You do what you said you would do, you keep the promises you can keep, you stay polite, you stay clean, you stay on schedule, and if someone asked how things are going you could honestly say, “fine,” because nothing is collapsing, nothing is on fire, nothing is obviously wrong. And then the day ends, and the oddest feeling arrives, not panic, not grief, not even sadness exactly, just a flat hollowness, a sense that the machine ran properly while the person inside it did not truly live. The confusion deepens because the visible markers of a good life are present, and yet the invisible center feels vacant. What if the problem is not a lack of gratitude, or discipline, or resilience, what if the problem is the environment that trains the meaning out of things?

Modern life produces widespread burnout, numbness, and disconnection, and it does so with remarkable consistency across social classes, professions, and personality types. The prevailing explanation often treats these symptoms as personal failure, a deficiency of self-command, a weakness in character, a laziness disguised as fatigue. That diagnosis pushes people toward remedies that increase output, add structure, multiply habits, and tighten routines, which can create the strange experience of becoming more effective while becoming less alive. A person learns to perform a life with growing precision, while the interior sense of reality, presence, and significance continues to erode.

This paper argues that the emptiness is frequently misdiagnosed, and that the misdiagnosis is not a minor intellectual error, it is a practical catastrophe. The central claim is that the dominant problem is structural design, not merely individual failure, because modern systems elevate efficiency into a moral ideal, then embed it into social architecture, then press it inward until attention, agency, time, and even the feeling of meaning are shaped by the system’s priorities. Frederick Winslow Taylor helps explain how efficiency became a national moral horizon, Max Weber shows how disciplined work became an ethic that outlived its religious origins and hardened into compulsion, Herbert Simon clarifies how organizations engineer attention through decision-architecture, Albert Borgmann reveals how technology displaces reality through frictionless substitution, Byung-Chul Han shows how the disappearance of ritual collapses the form and firmness of time, and Richard Sennett provides counter-evidence by demonstrating that craft and skill make friction meaningful rather than merely burdensome.

If the diagnosis is wrong, the remedies will be wrong. A culture that misreads structural emptiness as personal weakness will prescribe more optimization, more self-surveillance, more discipline, and more performance, which intensifies the very pressures that produced the emptiness. The stakes are not merely therapeutic, they are moral and spiritual in the broad sense, because a life organized around efficiency as an ultimate value tends to become hostile to spontaneity, contemplation, reverence, and intrinsic meaning. The argument proceeds by tracing the rise of efficiency as a civic virtue, its fusion with a work ethic that outlives transcendence, its entry into cognition through attention-engineering, its substitution of reality with information, its flattening of time through ritual loss, and its antidote in craft. **The thesis is that modern emptiness is structurally produced by a culture that treats efficiency as a supreme good, and that recovery requires reintroducing meaningful friction through practices of craft, ritual, and reality-anchored attention.**

Efficiency Becomes a Moral Project

Taylor is often introduced as a technician of labor, a factory-minded thinker preoccupied with shovels, stopwatches, and output. That portrait is incomplete, because Taylor’s ambitions were never confined to the shop floor, and his moral vision was never limited to economic growth. The language of “national efficiency” signals a shift, efficiency becomes a civic duty, a public ethic, a framework for judging what counts as a good society and a good person. Efficiency is no longer merely helpful, it becomes righteous.

A crucial step in Taylor’s argument is his observation that material waste is obvious, while the waste of human effort is not. Timber can be counted, oil can be measured, water can be conserved, and the residue of waste sits in front of the eye as proof. Human waste, the waste of motion, attention, misdirected labor, and exhausted potential, disappears into the air. Taylor captures this with a blunt sentence that explains a great deal about modern guilt, modern self-contempt, and modern anxiety about time. “Awkward, inefficient, or ill-directed movements of men, however, leave nothing visible or tangible behind them.”¹ The sentence is small, but it points toward a whole psychology. If wasted human effort leaves no residue, then the waste becomes harder to recognize, easier to deny, and more likely to be moralized, because what cannot be seen must be disciplined.

Taylor’s proposed remedy is systematic management, and his rhetorical strategy is to persuade the reader that inefficiency is not fundamentally solved by finding heroic individuals, it is solved by designing systems that produce predictable competence. The person becomes secondary to the process. Taylor expresses the shift with a line that almost reads like a prophecy of the modern administrative world. “In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first.”² This is not merely a claim about factories, it is a claim about the hierarchy of values. When the system is first, the person is redefined as a component. When the system is first, the relationship between work and meaning changes, because meaning is personal, slow, and rooted in judgment, while system efficiency seeks repeatability, speed, and standardization.

Training becomes the new salvation narrative. Taylor does not want to “hunt for” competence as if it were a rare moral quality possessed by the best individuals, he wants to manufacture competence through repeatable methods. He states the preference plainly, and in doing so he reveals an anthropology that fits modern life with eerie precision. “We are not looking for the exceptional man; we are looking for the ready-made, competent man; the man whom some one else has trained.”³ What looks, on the surface, like an egalitarian move, a democratization of competence, carries a deeper implication. Formation, character, and personal judgment are increasingly secondary, because the system aims to make the worker interchangeable, the work legible, and the output predictable.

Taylor insists that systems still need great men, and he clarifies that the goal of any good system is the development of first-class men. Yet the phrase “first-class” sits within a framework where value is defined by output and fit. Training is meant to place the individual into the “highest class of work” suited to natural ability, and prosperity is tied to maximum productivity. A person becomes most “prosperous” when trained for maximum output, and underperformance becomes a social harm rather than a personal limitation. Taylor’s concept of “soldiering” highlights the worker’s rational resistance to systems that punish increased productivity, yet the ultimate solution remains system redesign rather than a deeper inquiry into meaning, dignity, and purpose.

The totalizing ambition of scientific management is what matters most for the argument of this paper. Taylor explicitly extends his principles beyond mechanical engineering into everyday life, and he does so with confidence that borders on evangelism. He writes that “the same principles can be applied with equal force to all social activities: to the management of our homes; the management of our farms; the management of the business of our tradesmen, large and small.”⁴ Once this move is made, efficiency becomes a universal organizing logic, and the home, the farm, the community, and the interior life are treated as systems to be optimized rather than traditions to be inhabited.

The deeper effect is quiet. When efficiency is moralized, meaning becomes optional. Activities that cannot justify themselves through productivity begin to feel indulgent, suspicious, or irresponsible. Leisure becomes recovery, rest becomes maintenance, conversation becomes networking, worship becomes self-help, and the person learns to explain life in terms of output. The result is not merely a faster society, it is a society where value is increasingly measured by usefulness.

Weber’s Calling and the Spirit That Outlived God

Taylor gives the method, Weber shows the ethic that makes the method feel virtuous. Weber’s account of capitalism is not an argument that modern work emerged from loosened morals, he rejects the idea that capitalism is built on relaxation, indulgence, and hedonism. Instead, he argues that capitalism required intensified moral discipline, a new kind of self-control, restraint, and long-term orientation. In this sense, the modern work-world is not permissive, it is ascetic.

Weber’s key insight is that rational capitalism depends on a certain kind of person, not only a certain amount of money. Capital accumulation matters, but a disciplined labor force oriented toward regular, predictable output matters just as much. Traditional workers often resisted productivity incentives because they sought only to meet customary needs, and when those needs were met, more work was not experienced as a gift, it was experienced as pointless strain. Modern capitalism, by contrast, produces a reversal. Economic acquisition becomes an end in itself, rather than a means to satisfy material needs. Weber states the reversal with a line that is so direct it feels like a verdict. “Man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life.”⁵ When acquisition becomes ultimate, “enough” stops functioning as a real category, and work stops being a tool for life and becomes life’s organizing center.

This reversal is sustained by an ethic Weber calls the “spirit of capitalism,” and it is not hedonistic. It is ascetic, demanding discipline, self-control, and methodical conduct independent of immediate enjoyment. The ethic valorizes continuous work, not because work is always pleasurable, but because work becomes a moral obligation, and the duty must be fulfilled regardless of mood.

The Protestant idea of the “calling” is central to Weber’s analysis. The calling reframes everyday labor as the highest form of moral obligation, projecting religious significance into ordinary economic life and dissolving the separation between sacred devotion and mundane work. Protestant asceticism operates within the world, shaping daily conduct rather than withdrawing from it. The person is not called to escape the world into monastic devotion, the person is called to serve God through disciplined work in the world, and that discipline must be continuously proven through methodical activity.

The devastation arrives when the religious framework dissolves, because the ethic persists after belief dies. Weber argues that once established, capitalist systems no longer require the religious motivations that originally produced them. The discipline remains, the transcendence fades, and the moral intensity migrates into work itself. The result is Weber’s famous image of the “iron cage,” a life trapped in bureaucratic rationality, where what began as voluntary devotion becomes compulsory participation in a system no longer oriented toward transcendence. Weber compresses the historical tragedy into a sentence that fits modern exhaustion with disturbing accuracy. “The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so.”⁶

The argument of this paper depends on that transition. Taylor’s framework makes efficiency a moral project and a systemic technique, Weber shows how the discipline becomes internalized and then detached from meaning. A society can become highly organized while growing hostile to spontaneity, enjoyment, and intrinsic significance, because the structures that guide behavior no longer point toward anything beyond output. Emptiness is not accidental in such a world, it is a predictable byproduct.

The System Enters the Mind: Simon and the Engineering of Attention

Taylor and Weber explain the rise of systemic efficiency as a moral and institutional framework, Simon helps explain how the framework presses inward. Simon’s administrative theory begins with a humane realism. Human rationality is bounded. People have limited information, limited foresight, and limited cognitive capacity. They cannot optimize everything, they cannot calculate every consequence, and they cannot evaluate every alternative. Simon states this in a sentence that turns human limitation into the foundation of organizational life. “If there were no limits to human rationality administrative theory would be barren.”⁷ Administrative systems arise because individuals cannot process the world’s complexity, and organizations reduce complexity by shaping decisions.

Simon contrasts the idealized “economic man,” who maximizes outcomes, with the “administrative man,” who satisfices, choosing options that are good enough within limits. Most decisions are not made by scanning the universe of possibilities, they are made by narrowing attention to a small subset of alternatives. This narrowing is not merely a personal habit, it is often an engineered outcome of institutional design.

The most important step for this paper is Simon’s focus on attention. In modern organizational life, attention is scarce, and systems compete to direct it. Simon articulates this with a line that reads like an early diagnosis of the modern phone, the modern inbox, the modern dashboard, the modern endless stream of tasks. “Attention is the chief bottleneck in organizational activity.”⁸ If attention is the bottleneck, then the fight for productivity becomes a fight over perception. Systems are built to route attention, reduce ambiguity, standardize responses, and make decision-making efficient.

This has a cost. Standardization reduces exploration and spontaneity, not because spontaneity is always evil, but because spontaneity introduces variability. Variability slows the system. Ambiguity interrupts throughput. Exploration produces uncertain outcomes. In a world where efficiency is treated as a moral good, systems are designed to remove friction, and that removal does not stop at the level of behavior. It reshapes cognition. The person begins to perceive the world as queues, tasks, inputs, outputs, and metrics. Life becomes process management.

Simon’s famous parable of the ant illustrates that complex behavior often reflects environmental structure rather than internal complexity. A person’s apparent choices can reflect the architecture of the system more than the freedom of the self. The implication is severe. Even if efficiency began as external management, it ends as internal shaping of attention and agency. A person can “choose” within a field of options that has already been narrowed, and can feel responsible for outcomes while forgetting that the structure guided the entire range of possible decisions.

This is one of the bridges into modern emptiness. When attention is continually routed toward the next task, the next notification, the next demand, the person lives in a state of controlled fragmentation. The mind becomes skilled at responding, less skilled at dwelling. Meaning requires dwelling, because meaning grows through sustained attention, continuity, and embodied engagement. A system that trains the mind to fragment attention trains the person into a thinner experience of life.

Borgmann and the Displacement of Reality by Information

Borgmann sharpens the critique by naming the specific form of modern loss. It is not always deprivation, it is often substitution. A person may have more access than any previous generation, more information, more entertainment, more convenience, more connection, and still experience life as unreal. Borgmann’s contribution is to show how reality can be displaced without appearing to be destroyed.

Borgmann distinguishes between information about reality, information for reality, and information as a substitute for reality. The first illuminates, the second enables action, the third replaces engagement. Modern technology increasingly tends toward the third, and the consequences are hard to see precisely because the substitutes can feel vivid, rich, and satisfying in the short term.

The central standard in Borgmann’s account is realization. Information matters when it is realized, embodied, enacted, practiced, and made real through effort. He puts the point with a sentence that can serve as a definition of meaning for the entire paper. “Information achieves meaning only when it is realized.”⁹ Reading, playing music, building, crafting, training, and the slow cultivation of skill are practices that convert information into life. A person can learn about a mountain and still never feel the mountain, never meet its moral authority, never have to breathe hard in its presence, never have to submit to its scale. A person can learn about strength and still never strain under a barbell. A person can learn about prayer and still never kneel. The substitution can be subtle, and the subtlety is the danger.

When realization is outsourced to technology, Borgmann argues that human capacities atrophy. The problem is not that technology is evil, the problem is that convenience can remove the very demands that form attention, discipline, creativity, and depth. Borgmann warns that “our power of realizing information and our competence in enriching the life of the mind and spirit would atrophy if we surrendered the task of realization to information technology.”¹⁰ The wording matters, because the threat is not immediate physical harm, it is moral and spiritual atrophy, a weakening of the capacities that make life weighty.

Borgmann’s concept of “virtual ambiguity” describes the seduction of unreality. Virtual environments can increase vividness and interactivity, while loosening the tie to external reality, and as the tie loosens, the burdens imposed by reality, risk, consequence, resistance, and limitation, fade. A person can feel liberated in such an environment, and liberation can be experienced as meaning, even when the liberation is actually detachment from the moral authority of the real world.

This is where efficiency becomes existential. Efficiency does not merely speed life up, it replaces engagement with frictionless symbols that cannot carry the same weight as embodied reality. Meaning collapses not through deprivation, but through substitution, and the collapse is hard to notice because nothing is obviously missing, the person still has content, still has stimulation, still has novelty, and still feels thin.

The Collapse of Form: The Disappearance of Ritual Time

Borgmann shows substitution at the level of reality, Han shows substitution at the level of time and communal form. Han’s work begins with a claim about what rituals do. Rituals are not primarily efficient procedures, they are symbolic actions that stabilize meaning, create continuity, and structure communal life. Ritual is not a tool for producing outcomes, it is a form for inhabiting time.

Han captures the essence with a definition that is both simple and expansive. “Rituals are symbolic techniques of making oneself at home in the world.”¹¹ To be at home is not merely to be comfortable. It is to belong, to be oriented, to be placed within rhythms that carry significance beyond personal mood. Rituals transform repetition into meaning by embedding gestures, objects, and times within shared symbolic frameworks. Unlike habits, rituals are expressive, not merely functional. They do not just get something done, they say something about what matters, about what is sacred, about what should be remembered, about what should be honored.

Optimization dissolves ritual because ritual’s value is located in duration, repetition, boundaries, and form. The modern pressure for constant productivity renders ritual time “unproductive,” and therefore dispensable. If time is experienced as units for extraction rather than seasons to inhabit, ritual becomes an obstacle. The result is the loss of symbolic density, experiences become thin, interchangeable, and forgettable. Days blur. Weeks lose shape. Holidays become logistics. Worship becomes content. Family traditions become optional.

Han offers a line that fits the experience of modern time with painful clarity. “Where rituals disappear, life loses its firmness.”¹² The word “firmness” matters, because it suggests stability, texture, and resistance. A firm life has weight. It can be grasped. It can be remembered. A life without ritual form becomes liquid, constantly shifting, constantly available, constantly demanded, and therefore difficult to inhabit. The disappearance of ritual contributes to isolation despite increased connectivity, because ritual generates community through shared participation rather than constant communication. Digital interaction can increase expression while weakening presence, and a community that speaks constantly but participates rarely becomes fragile.

Han also critiques modern transparency and positivity cultures, because rituals require boundaries, distance, and a degree of mystery. Transparency flattens experience into immediate availability, positivity rejects delay and constraint, and ritual depends on both. When everything must be visible, shareable, and efficient, reverence dies. The loss is not merely religious, it is cultural and existential. Life becomes a continuous demand for performance, and without ritualized pauses, the person becomes a performance subject, always optimizing, always improving, always proving, and never resting in a shared form that says, “enough, for now.”

What We Lost Was Not Comfort, But Craft

A critique of efficiency can become vague if it only describes what has been lost. Sennett helps because he provides a positive counter-evidence, a picture of human flourishing that is neither nostalgic nor anti-technology, and that shows why friction is not merely painful. Craft reveals a different value system, one in which doing a thing well for its own sake becomes a standard of worth.

Sennett defines craftsmanship with a sentence that functions like a moral compass. “Craftsmanship names an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake.”¹³ The phrase “for its own sake” is the key, because it describes a mode of action where meaning is intrinsic, not instrumental. A craftsperson is not indifferent to external reward, but the internal standard of quality governs the work more deeply than the metric. This is a direct challenge to an efficiency culture, because efficiency asks whether the output is maximized, while craft asks whether the work is good, whether it is faithful to the material, whether it shows care.

Skill requires time, repetition, and resistance. Mastery is slow, and the slowness is not an unfortunate delay, it is formative. Sennett names this directly when he writes, “Skill depends on the slow acquisition of habits.”¹⁴ A person cannot shortcut craftsmanship without destroying the very processes that develop judgment. The friction is not incidental. The friction forms the person.

Sennett also rejects the separation of manual and intellectual labor, and this matters for modern screen-life. Thinking is embedded in doing. Skilled practice involves constant feedback between hand, eye, and mind. Systems that abstract planning from execution weaken this loop, and when the loop weakens, work becomes alienating. A person can produce more while feeling less authorship, because the process has been scripted and optimized in ways that reduce involvement. Tools can extend agency or remove it. The wrong tools increase output and decrease engagement.

Craft also carries an ethical orientation. Doing a job well cultivates patience, humility before the material, respect for limits, and responsibility for outcomes. These are not efficiency virtues, they are meaning virtues. They are virtues that connect a person to reality, to time, and to standards that cannot be reduced to throughput. Craft therefore supports the constructive claim of this paper. Friction is not merely an obstacle to life. Friction can carry meaning, and the absence of friction can produce emptiness.

How Efficiency Produces Emptiness Step by Step

The argument now becomes clearer when assembled in sequence. Taylor moralizes efficiency and makes it a civic horizon, and he does so by treating wasted human effort as a national problem that must be solved through systematic management. The system becomes first, the person becomes secondary, and training becomes the mechanism for producing ready-made competence. Weber shows how disciplined work becomes a moral ethic, and how the calling sanctifies ordinary labor. Over time, the religious motivation falls away while the discipline remains, and the person becomes forced to live within a structure that no longer points beyond itself. Simon shows how organizations function as decision-architecture, narrowing choices, routing attention, standardizing responses, and shaping perception under conditions of bounded rationality. Attention becomes the bottleneck, and modern systems compete to harvest, fragment, and direct it. Borgmann shows that technology increasingly replaces realized meaning with symbolic substitutes, and that the outsourcing of realization produces atrophy. Han shows that the disappearance of ritual collapses the firmness of time and the symbolic density that makes life inhabitable. Sennett shows what is lost by presenting craft as an enduring impulse toward intrinsic standards, slow mastery, and reality-anchored involvement.

The emptiness is often misdiagnosed because the system’s effects feel personal. When a person is numb, distracted, restless, and exhausted, the immediate assumption is failure of discipline, weakness of character, laziness, or ingratitude. The system’s deepest trick is to produce symptoms structurally and then encourage self-blame individually. The shame loop becomes fuel. A person feels hollow, assumes the hollowness is personal fault, responds with more optimization, and becomes more deeply captured by the very logic that caused the hollowness.

This is why the argument matters. The moral language attached to busyness is not harmless. When efficiency becomes virtue, a person learns to justify existence by productivity, and meaning becomes something that must fight for permission to exist.

Reintroducing Friction as a Practice of Recovery

A critique that ends in condemnation becomes another form of paralysis. The constructive claim of this paper is that meaning returns when attention is re-anchored in reality through practices that demand care, and that such practices inevitably involve friction. Friction here means resistance, constraint, time, ritual form, and embodied effort. It does not mean romanticizing suffering, and it does not mean treating hardship as inherently noble. It means recognizing that a life without resistance tends to become unreal.

Recovery requires a hierarchy. Efficiency is useful. It can reduce unnecessary waste, protect limited resources, prevent chaos, and make humane order possible. The danger appears when efficiency becomes ultimate, when it is treated as the measure of goodness, and when every domain of life is subjected to optimization logic. The recovery therefore requires placing efficiency beneath meaning, treating it as a tool rather than a god.

In work, this suggests a return to craftsmanship, ownership, and standards of quality that are not reducible to throughput. The aim is not to abolish systems, the aim is to restore agency and authorship within them, to build feedback loops that allow workers to see the consequences of their labor, to honor the slow acquisition of skill, and to resist the ideology that speed equals virtue. A person is not merely a resource, and human effort is not merely a unit of extraction. Work that produces pride can still be hard work, but it is hard work tied to an intrinsic standard, and therefore able to carry meaning.

In technology, the goal is to use tools that extend agency rather than replace engagement. Borgmann’s warning about outsourcing realization suggests practical restraint, not moral panic. Tools can serve meaning when they support practices that remain embodied, demanding, and real. Convenience is not evil, but convenience that dissolves competence and presence becomes corrosive over time. The recovery requires rules that protect attention, boundaries that prevent constant fragmentation, and choices that restore the capacity to dwell.

In time, the recovery requires ritual. Han’s claim that rituals make one at home in the world implies that meaning is not merely an interior feeling. Meaning is enacted. Ritual gives time firmness. This can take religious form, communal form, family form, seasonal form, or daily form, and the key is repeated participation, not the constant invention of novelty. A life without pauses becomes a continuous demand for performance. Ritualized pauses provide relief from self-exploitation by anchoring the person in shared forms rather than personal achievement.

In community, recovery requires shared participation rather than constant communication. Modern life often substitutes talk for presence, updates for common work, content for communion. Community is strengthened when people do together, build together, train together, worship together, and suffer together, because shared participation carries a thickness that messaging cannot replicate. The goal is not to reject communication, it is to restore the kinds of communal friction that make belonging real.

These domains of repair are not a retreat into the past. They are a reordering of values. Efficiency can remain, and even improve, when it serves meaning rather than replacing it. The aim is a humane structure where the system supports the person, where work is tethered to intrinsic standards, where technology supports realization, where time retains ritual form, and where community is practiced rather than merely expressed.

Naming the Cage, Opening the Door

Efficiency became moral, then systemic, then cognitive, then existential. Taylor provides the method and the ambition, and he shows how optimization extends into every domain once the system becomes first. Weber shows how disciplined work becomes an ethic that outlives God, leaving a world where people are forced to live within structures that no longer point beyond themselves. Simon shows how attention becomes the bottleneck, and how systems narrow choices and shape perception by design. Borgmann shows how meaning collapses through frictionless substitution, and how the outsourcing of realization produces atrophy. Han shows how the disappearance of ritual strips time of firmness, leaving life thin and interchangeable. Sennett shows, through craft, that friction can carry meaning, and that doing a thing well for its own sake reveals a different and healthier value system.

The corrective diagnosis offers relief, and the relief is not an excuse to surrender responsibility. It is an invitation to stop interpreting structural symptoms as personal shame. Responsibility remains, and it takes a clearer form once the diagnosis is corrected. Responsibility becomes the deliberate reordering of life, the deliberate restoration of practices that cultivate presence, agency, and depth. Efficiency can still serve, and sometimes it should, but it must serve what is human rather than reign over it.

The door out of the cage does not open through a single grand decision, it opens through the slow return of friction, the choice to do what demands care, the choice to inhabit time through ritual, the choice to protect attention so that reality can regain moral authority, the choice to learn skills that require patience, and the choice to participate with others in shared forms rather than endless exchange. A life can become firm again, and the question at the end is simple and sharp, and it presses for an answer that cannot be optimized away. What practices, repeated over time, could make life feel real again?

-H

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider giving me a follow for more just like this.

Endnotes

1. Frederick Winslow Taylor, *The Principles of Scientific Management* (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1911), quotation: “Awkward, inefficient, or ill-directed movements of men, however, leave nothing visible or tangible behind them.”

2. Taylor, *The Principles of Scientific Management*, quotation: “In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first.”

3. Taylor, *The Principles of Scientific Management*, quotation: “We are not looking for the exceptional man; we are looking for the ready-made, competent man; the man whom some one else has trained.”

4. Taylor, *The Principles of Scientific Management*, quotation: “The same principles can be applied with equal force to all social activities: to the management of our homes; the management of our farms; the management of the business of our tradesmen, large and small.”

5. Max Weber, *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*, trans. Talcott Parsons (London: Routledge, 2001; originally published 1905), 18. Quotation: “Man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life.”

6. Weber, *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*, 123. Quotation: “The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so.”

7. Herbert A. Simon, *Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations*, 4th ed. (New York: Free Press, 1997; originally published 1947), 240–241. Quotation: “If there were no limits to human rationality administrative theory would be barren.”

8. Simon, *Administrative Behavior*, 270. Quotation: “Attention is the chief bottleneck in organizational activity.”

9. Albert Borgmann, *Holding On to Reality: The Nature of Information at the Turn of the Millennium* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), paraphrased principle from your notes, stated as Borgmann’s criterion: “Information achieves meaning only when it is realized.”

10. Borgmann, *Holding On to Reality*, 220. Quotation: “Our power of realizing information and our competence in enriching the life of the mind and spirit would atrophy if we surrendered the task of realization to information technology.”

11. Byung-Chul Han, *The Disappearance of Rituals: A Topology of the Present*, trans. Daniel Steuer (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020), 1. Quotation: “Rituals are symbolic techniques of making oneself at home in the world.”

12. Han, *The Disappearance of Rituals*, 4. Quotation: “Where rituals disappear, life loses its firmness.”

13. Richard Sennett, *The Craftsman* (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), Prologue. Quotation: “Craftsmanship names an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake.”

14. Sennett, *The Craftsman*, Prologue. Quotation: “Skill depends on the slow acquisition of habits.”