What are the forces and traditions that
shape our view of work and employment? In the West, at any rate, the story goes
back to the Garden of Eden. Did Adam and Eve have to work in paradise? Were
they unemployed if they did not? It seems that God never meant for us to work,
not in paradise, and not, I suppose, in heaven. This suggests that work is not
such a great thing in itself, and it would be better if no one had to work. We
could use our time in ways not regulated by clock and the rules of employers.
Human nature could take a leap forward if people were free to develop their
unique capacities rather than waste their lives in repetitious labor.
So, if we would be more fulfilled, in
general, with a life of leisure pursuits, however seriously we take them, and
however hard we ‘work at’ them, why is the thought of a life of leisure so
horrifying? Why do we immediately start thinking of lazy no-goods, lying around
all day doing nothing? Idle hands, we say, are the Devil’s Playground.
Obviously, we are not to be trusted to handle our own time. Why not? First, it
was because of the expulsion from Eden, and second, because of the ethic of
disciplined work required by industrial production.
At the Fall, God was displeased because
Adam and Eve broke the only rule he made for them. For this transgression, as
we know, women were to give birth in pain, and men to make their living by the
sweat of their brow. That was a long time ago.
Perhaps human beings can start thinking in different ways. Giving birth
is now less painful for women. Perhaps we can aim to make life less laborious
for all of us.
I suggest that the work ethic informing
late capitalist economic life has become a reactionary power preventing the
productive forces unleashed by the industrial and digital revolutions from
realizing their liberating potential. The global capitalist system is wedded to
cheap labor and less labor, and yet every society says that it wants full
employment. Why? Every time a machine
does the repetitious labor of ten humans, people lose jobs. Everyone laments,
rather than celebrating the release of human potential to pursue matters
besides mere production. The capitalist
world should reward people who voluntarily choose to take themselves out of the
labor market.
I envisage a world where people who are
content with a small living would receive a stipend from the State in return
for not working, much in the way that farmers are paid not to grow crops on
certain fields. It would ease the job market for others desirous of paid
employment. They and the business owners would become the wealthier elements of
society, but no one would live in utter poverty.
What would the people who choose not to
work do with their lives? Our Western culture builds so much value,
self-respect and ego into the idea of ‘working for a living’ that it is hard to
see how the people choosing not to work could even hold their heads up. My
vision requires a reversion to a previous idea about laborious or boring wage
or slave work that was held throughout the ancient world and down to the
beginning of the Twentieth Century. Work
was looked upon as inferior to leisure. The moment one could live off one’s
principle, there was no value seen in working at a drudgerous job.
It is only with the imperatives of
capitalism that the emphasis on work and productivity makes sense. When
Americans make fun of the 35 hour work week in France, what are they saying?
That it is better to work more than 35 hours a week than less? What kind of
crazy thinking is this? Why should Americans take so much pride in working hard
and long hours with such comparatively little vacation time? The French get it
in the neck for having a six week break in summer, the wonderful ‘long
vacation.’ Would the French be better off without it?
Do we live to work, or work to live? And
if we work to live, and the living is given to us, why continue to work? Just
for the sake of working? No, but for the sake of more money. Fair enough. But
what if you want to do something worthwhile that does not pay a living wage?
You could do it in my world, without worrying about a roof over your head, or
finding food to eat. Say you wanted to engage in amateur dramatics, or dance?
What if you wanted to build things in the craftsman’s way, slowly and with
care? Why, then, you could do those things. Not worrying about having to ‘find
work’, the individual is free to pursue objectives that do not generate income.
Perhaps you do not want a standard job, but want to volunteer full time for a
service agency. This would be possible. There are many legitimate reasons for
wanting to opt out of the standard workaday world.
So who is going to pay for all this?
Well, it will have to be paid from the surplus of the economy as a whole. Would
this prevent some individuals from becoming wealthy beyond belief? The answer
is probably ‘yes’, but none of them are likely to end up in the poor house. And
besides, the money credited to those opting out of the work force will go right
back into the economy. It is a problem, I agree, but unless we start working
for a workless world, we will continue to attempt the impossible, striving for
full employment in an economy that does its best to put people out of work.
No comments:
Post a Comment