As you know, I have sympathy with those like Russell Arben Fox who want to seal of certain spheres of action from the market. I don't want to pay some guy to read my kids stories, or to fight off the boogy-man. [Actually, since I have no kids, maybe I will someday want to contract to Pinkerton's for boogy-man protection. But I doubt it]
I think Fox errs, however, in his emphasis -- focusing on where the service occurs (in the home vs. outside of the home) as opposed to *what* services are "alienated". People mostly respond negatively to the idea of getting stentorian actors to intone wedding vows for them. I suspect we could generalize a bit from that insight, and get somewhere.
Chun, on the other hand, just seems round the bend. If this he's just lodging a general cri de coeuragainst the injustice of the world that makes some poor and others rich, well spiffy. I too yearn for universal aristocracy. But letting dissatisfaction with the facts of planet earth serve as basis for anathematising one type particular (consensual, "win-win," everyone better off) marketplace transaction; that's just batty.
It's interesting that your examples involve interpersonal relations that are damaged (maybe) by commercial interdiction. Those, I'll admit, are more plausible cases; the relationship between me and my linoleum is another thing.
If I admitted that outsourcing various family duties (childrearing, etc.) is alienating, it'd be because of the effects of the activity on the persons involved, and probably this would depend on attitudes about alienation. I get the sense that RAF would object that those who lack the attitudes ought to have them; that is, the alienation is deeper than our norms.
Well we can save objectivity easy. If you don't think being a good father involves playing catch with your kid, not paying a hobo to do it, you've got the paternal relationship wrong. Arben Fox can go there with pleasure. he's in more trouble explaining why I should feel bad about getting the hobo to grout my counter. Discomfort with the reality of economic inequality explains a lot of the reaction here: I suspect were we to swap the hobo with a celebrity counter-grouter making 200k a year, no one would care.
And another thing. If I developed a *machine* that changed diapers, or made dinner, or swept the floor no one would care. You have to be pretty lodged in Rousseau's bizzaro-world to "check yourself" about using disposable diapers, microwaves, and vacuums. Thus, I conclude that the concern centers on "transitive" alienation of drudgery: some sap getting stuck with a lousy job. Needless to say, a lousy job beats no job. But then we're back to the world's injustice, which was always topic one.
It's not quite that simple. Yes, some are bothered by the fact that lousy jobs exist at all, but the root of concern about jobs "in the home" is that they're tasks typically done out of/with love; cleaning, cooking, nursing, etc., are qualitatively different from, say, laying tile. That anyone is compelled by circumstance to do for money what ought to be done for love is what seems cruel or specially unfair about these jobs.
You seem to be concentrating on your alienation as the consumer of the service, but the real concern is (or ought to be) for the alienation of the provider. And while you and I probably agree that it's better to give someone a job than not, I also think it's valuable to remind the consumers of these "in home" services that their employees are compromising themselves, and should be treated with human, rather than purely economic, consideration.
I buy that point for childcare, but cleaning? Who scrubs the toilet with love? Not even Martha Stewart brought stenciling and fillips to that aspect of domestic maintenance. The anti-maid faction thus can't avail themselves of the argument you thoughtfully provide.
I agree that nannies, and 'companions' to the elderly fall into an entirely different category. And your right that alienation is a 2-way street here. Someone who cares for a loved one can't be regarded, or regard themselves as merely a hired hand. That's why 'personal service' cultures create roles much closer to family member for these kind of servants. I think these structures are often more humane, but they make egalitarians and democrats (like me, and like, I imagine Caitlin Flanagan) hella uncomfortable.
You sir, must be a crappy cleaner. I do think people clean with love, but we'll have to let the public chime in on this one.
Touche! But couldn't a crappy cleaner like me become a maid without being alienated?
Yeah, as I was writing comment 4, it occurred to me, "but some people just don't care if they do this stuff" and that's true, and they can do it without the same feeling of alienation. Go for it.
Right! But I suspect we want to say that if you aren't alienating by selling friendship or motherly love on the market, there's something *wrong* with you. At least, it's a lot weirder than not being aliented by cooking or cleaning.