The Unnecessary

What Happens When Nobody Needs You?

#

This is the essay we have been avoiding.

We have described the floor and the commons and the contribution and the gathering. We have described Ravi cooking rice in the community kitchen and Margaret drinking coffee with Dorothy and the town that rebuilds its social fabric after the errands dissolve. We have described these things with warmth, with specificity, with the tentative optimism the Reimagined allows itself when it can feel a direction worth pursuing.

This essay does not have that warmth. It has the thing underneath the warmth, the thing the warmth was trying to cover, the question that every proposal in this cluster has been built on top of without looking down.

The question is: what happens to people when nobody needs them?

Not when they lose a job. Job loss is temporary. The economy cycles. The worker retrains. The language of job loss assumes a return. What we are describing is not a cycle. It is a structural condition. The economy does not need Ravi. Not temporarily, not until the recovery, not until he retrains. It does not need him. The drone replaced him and the drone is cheaper and more reliable and the drone does not need a room or a motorcycle or a platform or a reason to get up in the morning. The economy has moved on. Ravi has not moved on because there is nowhere to move to.

Multiply Ravi by millions. By hundreds of millions. The delivery riders, the call center workers, the data entry clerks, the back-office processors, the drivers, the warehouse workers, the retail staff, the agricultural laborers displaced by precision farming. Each displacement is a specific story with specific circumstances. The aggregate is a class. A new class, defined not by what it produces but by what it does not produce. Not by its exploitation, which at least implied the exploiter needed something from the exploited, but by its irrelevance.

We do not have a sociology for this. We need one.

The Sociology of Irrelevance

#

Every human society in the historical record has stratified by contribution. The forms vary enormously. Feudal societies stratified by land and military obligation. Industrial societies stratified by capital and labor. Knowledge economies stratified by credentials and cognitive output. The specific contributions that determined your place in the hierarchy changed across centuries. The principle did not: your position in society reflected what you gave to society, or what society believed you gave, or what you could compel society to give you in exchange for what you provided.

The unnecessary class breaks this principle.

The person on the floor contributes nothing the economy measures. Not labor, which the machines provide. Not capital, which the person on the floor does not possess. Not consumption at a level that matters, because universal basic existence provides enough to survive, not enough to drive a consumer economy. Not taxes, because there is no income to tax. Not military service, because the military is increasingly automated. Not reproduction at a rate the state desires, because fertility rates in populations without economic purpose tend to fall, not rise.

The state has always maintained populations that did not contribute economically. The very old. The very young. The disabled. But these were understood as temporary conditions, life stages, or exceptions that the contributing population subsidized. The unnecessary class is not a life stage. It is not an exception. It is a permanent structural position occupied by working-age adults who are capable of contribution but for whom no contribution is required.

What does the state want from them?

The honest answer is: as little trouble as possible. Stay healthy, because illness is expensive. Stay housed, because homelessness is disruptive. Stay calm, because unrest is destabilizing. Get educated, because education correlates with the behaviors the state prefers: lower crime, lower substance abuse, higher compliance with public health measures. Walk more, because walking reduces the healthcare costs the state now bears entirely.

This is not malice. It is the logic of a system that has lost its reason for investing in human capability beyond the minimum required for social order. The state invested in education because educated workers were more productive. The state invested in healthcare because healthy workers showed up. The state invested in infrastructure because infrastructure moved the goods the economy produced. When the economy no longer needs the workers, the investment logic shifts from development to maintenance. You do not develop an asset you do not use. You maintain it, at the lowest cost that prevents it from becoming a liability.

The welfare state maintained people who could not work. The maintenance state maintains people the economy does not need. The distinction is not semantic. It shapes every policy choice: how much to spend on education (enough for compliance, not enough for flourishing), how much to spend on healthcare (enough for function, not enough for vitality), how much to spend on infrastructure (enough for delivery, not enough for gathering).

The Anthropological Void

#

Every human society in the anthropological record has organized around reciprocity.

This is not a Western insight or a capitalist observation. It is anthropological bedrock. Marcel Mauss’s gift economy. Marshall Sahlins’s forms of reciprocity. The potlatch. The bride price. The harvest share. The communal hunt. The forms are as varied as human culture itself. The principle is constant: I give, you give, and in the giving and receiving we constitute ourselves as a society. Without reciprocity, you have individuals in proximity. You do not have a community.

The unnecessary class has nothing to give that the systems around them require.

This is different from poverty, which is a condition of having too little. The poor person in a functioning reciprocity system still gives: labor, care, loyalty, participation. The poor person has a place in the system, a degraded place, an unjust place, but a place. The unnecessary person has no place. The system does not exploit them. It does not oppress them. It does not need them. The absence of need is harder to organize against than the presence of exploitation, because exploitation at least implies a relationship.

What holds a society together when a significant portion of its members have no reciprocal relationship with the rest?

We do not know. No human society has faced this at scale. The closest precedents are not encouraging. Colonized populations whose economic systems were destroyed and replaced with dependency. Reservation communities maintained by government transfer. Rust belt towns after the factory closed. In each case, the dissolution of reciprocity produced not just poverty but something deeper: the collapse of the social fabric that reciprocity maintained. Crime increased not because people were hungry but because the social norms that constrained crime were rooted in reciprocal relationships that no longer existed. Substance abuse increased not because people were in pain but because the purposes that gave them a reason to stay sober had dissolved. Social trust declined not because people became less trustworthy but because trust is a product of repeated reciprocal exchange, and the exchange had stopped.

These are not analogies. They are previews.

The Psychology of the Floor

#

Viktor Frankl, writing from inside the most extreme deprivation humans have inflicted on other humans, argued that meaning is the irreducible human need. Not comfort. Not safety. Not pleasure. Meaning. The person who has a reason to endure can endure almost anything. The person who does not have a reason cannot endure even comfort.

The floor provides comfort. It provides safety. It provides, through the commons, a measure of social contact. It does not provide meaning, because meaning cannot be provided. Meaning is generated through the encounter between a person’s actions and their consequences. I did this, and it mattered. Not mattered to me. Mattered. In the world. To someone. The action had a consequence that would not have occurred without me.

The unnecessary person’s actions have no consequences the world registers. The rice Ravi cooks in the community kitchen is genuinely appreciated by the old woman at the corner table. But the kitchen would function without Ravi. Another person would cook. The AI logistics system that supplies the kitchen does not know Ravi’s name. The contribution model from the previous essay is real, but it is modest, and Ravi, who is twenty-three and came to the city to become something, can feel the modesty. He can feel the difference between being needed and being allowed to help.

The psychology of the floor is not depression in the clinical sense, though depression is a common outcome. It is something more specific: the erosion of the belief that your actions matter. The slow, quiet contraction of the sense of agency that occurs when nothing you do has consequences that could not be achieved without you. You are not in pain. You are not in danger. You are comfortable. And the comfort is the problem, because comfort without purpose produces a particular kind of despair that is invisible from the outside, because the outside sees the comfort and assumes the person inside it is fine.

They are not fine. They are existing. Existing is not the same as living. Living requires the experience of mattering. Mattering requires the world to need something from you that it would miss if you did not provide it.

The Intergenerational Fracture

#

Ravi’s mother, in the village, worked. She worked in the fields. She worked in the kitchen. She worked raising Ravi and his sister. Her work was hard and often unjust and poorly compensated and she would not wish it on her children. But her work organized her life. It gave her days structure, her efforts consequence, her relationships the specific texture of people who depend on each other because the work requires it. She knew who she was. She was the woman who did these things, and the things mattered, and the mattering was her identity.

What does she transmit to Ravi?

The ethic of work, which has no application. The aspiration to provide for a family, which the floor provides for. The pride of self-sufficiency, which universal basic existence renders unnecessary. The narrative of effort and reward, which the economy has severed. Everything she knows about how to live is organized around a world that no longer exists for her son, and the transmission of her knowledge, which across human history has been the mechanism by which cultures sustain themselves across generations, transmits nothing that Ravi can use.

She tells him to work hard. He has nothing to work hard at. She tells him to save. He has nothing to save from and nothing to save for. She tells him to marry, to have children, to build a life. He does not know what building a life means when the materials of a life, work, trajectory, accumulation, aspiration, are not available to him.

This is the intergenerational fracture. Not a gap, which implies two sides that could be bridged. A fracture: a break in the transmission of meaning between the generation that lived inside a reciprocal economy and the generation that lives on the floor of a post-reciprocal one.

The fracture runs in both directions. Ravi cannot use his mother’s wisdom. His mother cannot understand Ravi’s world. She sees the floor and sees comfort and cannot comprehend why her son, who has enough to eat and a roof and a phone, is not happy. She worked her entire life so that her children would have what Ravi has. Her success is his ceiling, and she cannot see this because from where she stands, a ceiling that is this high is a gift.

Serving Each Other

#

There is one thread that runs through the sociological, anthropological, and psychological wreckage, and it is the thread the contribution model was reaching for.

People can serve each other.

Not the economy. Not the state. Not the market. Each other. The old woman who needs the rice. The child who needs the adult in the room. The neighbor who needs someone to notice the broken step. The elderly man who needs someone to sit with him on the porch. The community that needs someone to grow the tomatoes, fix the bicycle, teach the children to sing, keep the accounts for the community kitchen, organize the Saturday gathering, remember the stories.

These are not jobs. The market does not value them. The state does not require them. They are the things humans have always done for each other, the things that constituted community before the economy captured the concept of contribution and reduced it to paid labor. The gift economy. The care economy. The neighborly economy. The economy of “I noticed your light was off for three days so I came to check.”

This is not a solution. It is a direction. The direction says: the reciprocity that holds a society together does not have to run through the market. It can run through the community. The contribution that provides meaning does not have to be paid. It has to be needed. Not by the economy. By a person.

But we must be honest about the limits of this direction. The neighborly economy is real and it is valuable and it does not scale. It works in the village, where relationships are dense and durable. It works in the small town, where the community is legible to itself. It does not obviously work in the megacity, where anonymity is the default and the neighbor is a stranger and the community is too large to be held together by personal reciprocity.

And it does not address aspiration. The young person who serves the community is doing something genuine. But the young person who dreamed of becoming something, who felt the pull of a larger life, who came to the city because the city was where you could be more than what the village allowed, is not satisfied by the community kitchen. Not because the kitchen is insufficient. Because the person wanted more, and more was the engine of every civilization that ever climbed, and the engine has been disconnected from the vehicle, and the vehicle is sitting in the driveway with a full tank and nowhere to go.

The Question We Cannot Answer

#

Does aspiration itself change?

Does the generation born on the floor, the generation that never knew the ladder, develop a different relationship to ambition? Not lower ambition. Different ambition. Ambition directed toward mastery rather than advancement, toward craft rather than career, toward depth rather than height. The cook who aspires to make the best rice in the neighborhood rather than the cook who aspires to own a restaurant chain. The gardener who aspires to grow the best tomatoes rather than the gardener who aspires to a career in agriculture. The musician who aspires to play beautifully rather than the musician who aspires to fame.

This is possible. It may be happening already, in communities where the economic ladder has been removed and people have found other structures to organize their striving around. It is also possible that this is a story comfortable people tell about the adaptability of less comfortable people, the way every generation of the privileged has narrated the contentment of the poor.

We do not know. We cannot know from where we sit, which is inside the economy that is dissolving, holding the values that the economy produced, trying to imagine what values replace them. Our imagination is shaped by what we know, and what we know is shaped by the world that is ending, and the world that is beginning has not yet produced the people who will know what it feels like to live inside it.

What we can say is this: the floor without meaning is a warehouse. The commons without reciprocity is a waiting room. The contribution without consequence is make-work. And the state that maintains a population it does not need is a state that will, over time, treat that population the way institutions always treat the things they maintain but do not need: minimally, efficiently, and with decreasing attention.

This has not gone well historically. The reservation. The project. The managed decline of communities the economy abandoned. The comfortable neglect that is worse than active cruelty because it does not even have the dignity of conflict. You are not oppressed. You are irrelevant. Oppression implies that someone needs something from you badly enough to take it by force. Irrelevance implies that nobody needs anything from you at all.

I wonder whether the most important thing this project can say about the unnecessary class is not a proposal but a refusal. A refusal to accept that any human being is unnecessary. Not as a moral platitude but as a design principle. The system that treats people as unnecessary will produce unnecessary people. The system that insists on necessity, that designs for reciprocity even when the economy does not require it, that creates the conditions under which every person’s contribution is genuinely needed by someone, may produce something different.

We do not know what it produces. We know what the alternative produces, because we can see it already, in every community where the economy left and the floor held and the people stayed and the staying was not living.

Ravi is twenty-three. He cooks rice on Tuesday mornings. The old woman says it is too soft. He adjusts. She comes back on Wednesday.

This is not enough. He knows it. We know it. The old woman might know it too, though she does not say so, because the rice is warm and the room is warm and having someone to complain to about the rice is, for the moment, a form of being needed.

Whether this is the seed of something or the ceiling of something depends on choices that have not been made, by governments that have not acknowledged the question, in economies that have not yet finished dissolving the structures that made the question avoidable.

The question is not avoidable for much longer. The drones are already in the air.

This is the third essay in Cluster 3 of The Reimagined, “The Commons.” It confronts the question the preceding essays built toward but did not fully face: what happens to people, sociologically, anthropologically, psychologically, when the economy no longer needs them? It draws on Part 52 (The Empty Ledger), Part 55 (What Remains), Part 66 (The Bypassed Road), and Part 61 (The Tolerance of Existence). It extends the Reshaped World’s treatment of the state-citizen relationship and the toll-booth economy into the territory of permanent structural irrelevance. The essay does not resolve. The Reimagined cannot resolve this. It can name it, which is the precondition for addressing it, and it can refuse to accept that any person is unnecessary, which is a design principle even when it is not yet a design.

References

#

Meaning, Purpose, and Psychological Need:

Frankl, Viktor E. Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press, 1959.

Seligman, Martin E.P. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. Free Press, 2011.

Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. “The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior.” Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, 2000, pp. 227-268.

Reciprocity and Social Organization:

Mauss, Marcel. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Translated by Ian Cunnison, Cohen and West, 1954.

Sahlins, Marshall. Stone Age Economics. Aldine-Atherton, 1972.

Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Farrar and Rinehart, 1944.

Deaths of Despair and Community Dissolution:

Case, Anne, and Angus Deaton. Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press, 2020.

Putnam, Robert D. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis. Simon and Schuster, 2015.

Vance, J.D. Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. Harper, 2016.

Work, Identity, and the Post-Work Condition:

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Graeber, David. Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Simon and Schuster, 2018.

Weeks, Kathi. The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries. Duke University Press, 2011.

Surplus Populations and Structural Exclusion:

Standing, Guy. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Bloomsbury Academic, 2011.

Wacquant, Loïc. Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Duke University Press, 2009.

Davis, Mike. Planet of Slums. Verso, 2006.

Li, Tania Murray. “To Make Live or Let Die? Rural Dispossession and the Protection of Surplus Populations.” Antipode, vol. 41, no. S1, 2010, pp. 66-93.

Intergenerational Transmission and Cultural Continuity:

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press, 1984.

Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. University of California Press, 2003.

Aspiration and Social Mobility:

Appadurai, Arjun. “The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition.” Culture and Public Action, edited by Vijayendra Rao and Michael Walton, Stanford University Press, 2004, pp. 59-84.

Ray, Debraj. “Aspirations, Poverty, and Economic Change.” Understanding Poverty, edited by Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee et al., Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 409-421.

Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf, 1999.