Aesop's Bat

Over the summer, I read an Op-Ed piece by David Brooks in the New York Times which stuck with me. I have posted the link to it above. Also, I include a link to Michele Lamont's The Dignity of Working Men, which provides the intellectual basis for the piece. Though the anecdotal portion of the piece alternates between fawning and respect, the analysis distills some interesting ideas about how moral priorities supercede economic and social factors in framing the complexities of class division as well as a hypothetical, but strong link between morality and success of populist politics. So, rather than speculate at what the unifying principle may be until I read Lamont's opus, I ask where does caddying fit into this construct and nomenclature? Caddying certainly has its share of mythology, romance, the possibility of dying with one's boots on while trying to make a big score. What is the underlying ethos of chasing a little white ball across fields, state lines, continents? 

 

Caddying is a paradoxical bind. The quotidian aspects of preparing to win a golf tournament include checking yardages, adding information which is not in the yardage book (the only aid allowed during competition), and observing course and weather conditions. Caddies have total autonomy as to how much or little effort they expend in addition to practice rounds, practice sessions, and competitive play. A lot depends on what an individual player demands. Some like extra numbers. Others need help on the greens, so spending time leveling greens or rolling balls to determine how putts break to certain hole locations is a more optimal use of one's time. Yet despite the autonomy one has in preparing, one ties his fortunes inextricably to player performance. Yes, caddies earn a salary, but most revenue comes from performance based bonuses. Some caddies who work very hard during the week may not be proportionately rewarded financially because their players may struggle. So, like commercial fishing or mechanics on the NASCAR circuit or even derivatives traders, they are chasing the maximum amount of yield out of their investments, and rates of return result from luck as much as they do from skill sometimes. It seems reward often comes from not taking anything off the table rather than necessarily bringing something to the table. So is the nature of the job 'honest' the way farming or trucking or factory work are? Carrying the bag is hard physical toil; doing so under the pressure of tournament conditions is increasingly stressful. But much of that stress comes from that bind of tying one's fortune to someone else's results. It is an easy hard job from a physical standpoint. Unlike factory work, firefighting, or commercial fishing, caddying has few fatal occupational hazards. 

 

So, the profession is a bit of a hybrid, where the most gains come by virtue of someone else's effort, yet the basic tasks and duties seem to square with the satisfying aspects of an honest day's labor. Within the construct of Brooks' piece, caddying does not fit into either the blue or white collar world. Thus, its relative respectability or worth as a profession is rather indeterminate. Perhaps it is anomalous, beyond classification. Maybe this is what makes it so attractive to those who have gotten a bit of grass in the shoes.