Duty [an entry in the taphonomy of worlding]
As inspired by Raymond Williams' Keywords
One of the belonging-along-with that this ‘taphonomy of worlding’ is attempting to do, is to re-inscribe the definitions of words we use within that new but ancient unnamed framework, where worlding is that part of selfing which is not the self-in-itself.
Duty as a form of “self-care” or ‘technology of the self’ as far as the self is concerned is not care directed at the self, but directed through the self into worlding. However ‘duty’ should not then be defined in terms of self-sacrifice, even if it happens. The self may not have felt it has sacrificed anything at all. This is often a guess by others trying to work out what has happened, and who may have well felt the sacrifice.
Generally duty is regarded as an old-school sensibility, with the view that it is only held in mind by a fast disappearing generation of those born before WW2 in more western post-colonial or continental Euro countries. And often with the view that it has already completely disappeared.
Duty, with those contexts above in place, is often described as follows:
A duty (from "due" meaning "that which is owing"; Old French: deu, did, past participle of devoir; Latin: debere, debitum, whence "debt") is a commitment or expectation to perform some action in general or if certain circumstances arise. A duty may arise from a system of ethics or morality, especially in an honor culture. Many duties are created by law, sometimes including a codified punishment or liability for non-performance. Performing one's duty may require some sacrifice of self-interest. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty 2025-06-06]
I wish to reduce the debt loading in this usage, and boost the significance of expectation and aspiration to world as well to self, i.e. the issue of sacrifice is not necessary to a healthy sense of worlding, nor is a relationship of duty to shame/honour required, even if that context of fealty bookkeeping has informed the choice of a verb like debt to describe this aspect of life, and which we use for ‘duty’ today (whether I like it or not).
While some writers see duty as a mere framework in which to remove selfing from the ratio between worlding and selfing, such that those who act out of duty become automata to some social machine: with the biggest examples being the military or the family business (admittedly in royal families they are the same thing.)
In part this post is reflecting on those older members of my wider family for whom duty is important as they reach end-of-life decisions and life planning which involves making a will. The last instructions they can give as a self who worlds, even while the world goes on and they do not. Where for a short time their will will suffice.
This sense of duty arose in a foreign country called the past, to paraphrase Hartley, and duty’s meaning, while almost lost in the current era as history maintains its course to be one damn narcissist after another, must be held in some consideration, as an old idea in relation to an older effort with no name and so about which we have no idea; worlding as a duty, the duty of worlding, as opposed to the duty to the world, or the duty of the world.
We should remove the sense of debt from duty, and look at what remains, our relationship to the world we each world. Should not account for this.
As such let me simply say, it does not matter if you do not understand what duty is/was, or that you criticise duty vehemently, in some excuse to revalue all values (and mostly falling to world the world in doing so)(looking at you Nietzsche)...
That even if you do not understand what duty is, you may well know you have a duty to world well, regardless of how badly duty has been abused in your part of the world as automatic for the people, or as an expectation as an automaton of self.
Duty is the realisation that all those ‘shoulds’ one shoulds, also apply to the self as much as anyone. Debt and shame and sacrifice and an account are not required at all.
The world worlds on. What is your part, if not a part?
References:
Ray Monk. Wittgenstein: the duty of genius New York, Free Press : Maxwell Macmillan International, 1990 [see lso https://archive.org/details/ludwigwittgenste0000monk eventually]
Once More The Story of VIN 903847 by Passion 4 at youtube:
The wonderful short documentary Once More. The Story of VIN 903847 -- the incredible history of a 1955 Volkswagen Beetle. Academy Award nominated director Hubert Davis looks to investigate the incredible history of a 1955 Volkswagen Beetle, VIN 903847, through each of its drivers. Dating back to the original owner [Wolfgang Paul Loofs], three remarkable solo trips around the world are just the start of the story. As much as it is a story about the people connected by one machine, it's also an observation of our enduring fascination with the automobile.