Work?

The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery.

--Bertrand Russell

I take this from a little essay by philosophy professor Gary Gutting, in which he unpacks our love of work. He starts from Aristotle's definition, which is that work is something we do for the sake of something else (e.g., money), while leisure is something we do for its own sake. He then takes up Bertrand Russell's notion that we should be devoting all of our gains in productivity to reducing the amount we work. (A belief he shared with John Maynard Keynes.) Gutting:

Suppose that in 1932, when Russell wrote his essay, we had followed his advice and converted all gains in productivity into increased leisure. Antibiotics, jet airplanes and digital computers, then just glimmers on the horizon, would likely never have become integral parts of our lives. We can argue about just what constitutes real progress, but it’s clear that Russell’s simple proposal would sometimes mean trading quality of life for more leisure.

Some of the new things we have started making since 1932 seem worth it to most of us; proper heating and air conditioning come near the top of my list. But Gutting, like most moralists, thinks that much of what capitalism produces is worthless junk that we are somehow persuaded to want by clever advertising:

If products sell because they improve the quality of our life, well and good, but it doesn’t in the end matter why they sell.  The system works at least as well if a product sells not because it is a genuine contribution to human well-being but because people are falsely persuaded that they should have it.

Gutting is deeply suspicious of the marketplace as a way of determining what is worth working for, and convinced that we are in some sense slaves to the system:

From our infancy the market itself has worked to make us consumers, primed to buy whatever it is selling regardless of its relevance to human flourishing.  

Helping us escape from this trap is, he thinks, the main purpose of education:

True freedom requires that we take part in the market as fully formed agents, with life goals determined not by advertising campaigns but by our own experience of and reflection on the various possibilities of human fulfillment. Such freedom in turn requires a liberating education, one centered not on indoctrination, social conditioning or technical training but on developing persons capable of informed and intelligent commitments to the values that guide their lives.

Of course, if we really knew how to teach virtue and good judgment, we would be doing it already.

I don't mean to mock Gutting. I do think that or society is set up, in some ways, to encourage consumption -- consider the entire fashion industry -- and I think wise people would understand this and make their choices accordingly. But it is possible to understand that fashion is a racket and still enjoy it, because it is fun. It was not summoned into being out of the air, but grew from our deep attraction to novelty, beauty, and goods that convey membership in an in group. In Aristotle's (and Gutting's) terms, it is something that people pursue for its own sake. It costs money, so people who want to play the game have to work, and at least some of them probably find the ability to buy cool things a just recompense for the burden of working

I think Gutting is missing some other things about work. One thing people want very much is an identity; another is to feel useful. Work provides both of these things for many of us. It also forces us to be social, and I think that is good for a lot of people who otherwise be shut-ins. Working to provide for ourselves is quite simply woven into the evolutionary fabric of our being, and I am dubious of all projects that try to suppress that basic nature.