The Contract Document

If the report works to solidify the office and cement its power, the contract serves as an indicator of this power, and, in a sense, it gives a more truthful view of the office, with regards to power, than the report itself gives. We have been more critical of the report because we care more about it, and about the reporters, because the report arises at the bottom and slowly makes its way to the top, it is a mark of accomplishment for the office, while the contract arrives from the top directly at the lap of the lowly worker. But the contract is also an important document: the contract is the basis for the legitimacy of the piece of paper and the words upon it; in other words, the analysis of documents as pieces of paper with words on them begins with the analysis of the contract. Let us look at the contract and attempt to show why and how it emerged, and what its particular role is. The contract is any document which makes the relationship between the two parties a relationship of predictability; it is a stabilizing document. The office is the meeting place of the two parties to a contract, it is the point of contact between two bodies bound by the contract. Just as the report individualizes the body, because each person has to offer on his/her own to the report, the contract collectivizes the bodies, it brings the two parties together and begins the process where one subject becomes concerned of the other subject's well-being for the duration of the contract. Just as the report makes each point in the hierarchy visible to the document, the contract makes every worker visible directly to the boss. What is most important is that in today's society, the contract is the substitute of 'act of ownership': whereas previously things could be said to be 'owned,' bought and sold in acts and trades, today, things are said to be contracted out, and the owner of the service remains intact for the foreseeable future. Of course we know that the body can be contracted out, but what is most difficult to understand is that land too can be and is always contracted out, that is, land too is usually a service. It is difficult to understand this because we only think of small portions of land and how they have been bought and sold, and we believe in the power of money, such an informal and casual document that it really should not be taken seriously in the analysis of documents. But we must now venture to look at large land owners: they are not simply ready to part ways with land for gold or other substitutes. Rather, land is contracted out, a document is prepared which gives land for use for a period of time. The confusion between contract and purchase comes from the length of time: some contracts are so long, running for generations upon generations, that it seems the land has been purchased, but this is usually not the case. The reason that contracts are long is because the owner sees himself/herself as unchanging within that period of time, it is not that the land's value, productivity etc doesn't change that the contract is signed, but that the qualities within ownership don't change. The chief quality of ownership which has to be constant in order for a contract to remain is power: as soon as the boss senses that his/her power is weakening, he/she exercises whatever power is left in order to modify or terminate the contract. Getting back to the office, the contract certifies not that the lowly worker will not change, but that the leadership and authority of the office will not change. The office as a place of authority is established in the contract: the longer the contract, the more it means that the office as a place of authority will not change. The contract document, therefore has two roles: it is upheld as long as the office is a place of authority, but it is discarded as soon as the office loses its authority.