Essay 30.11.09: The Value of Work

Thousands of years ago, some cultures in the «cradle of civilization» (Mesopotamia) viewed looking physically strong as a sign of low status. Work was something that had to be done to survive, and to serve others. Looking «well» did not entail fitness, rather it was the opposite, closely linked with prestige, class and power. In some rich countries today there is talk of how work should be «rewarding», and perhaps also interesting. In some circles showing signs of having performed physical labor is an advantage. But if something is chosen because of fascination, can it really be called «work»? It is clear that the perceptions, purposes and functions of work are not static.

When discussing the value of work, there are several interpretations. In the material sense, it can sometimes be justified as actions undertaken to satisfy basic material requirements. The word could then have negative connotations. In George Orwell's (Eric Arthur Blair) Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), the narrator is forced to work out of necessity. His work is not enjoyable. The working conditions often seem intolerable, and life as a plongeur is unrewarding. For the narrator however, boredom is one the worst things about poverty. Idling is a terrible fate, and in this sense work has a more psychological value for him. The narrator is performing «waged labor», sometimes called «waged slavery», a term that seems appropriate when looking at the jobs described in Down and Out. When mentioning slavery, it is interesting to view arguments made by slave owners in the US not very long ago, especially in the context of the slave-free North. The reasoning was that we «own» the slaves, and we take care of our «property», «it» can be treated well. They argued that the workers of the North were worse off, perhaps because you may have some responsibilites for your property, but not for those forced to sell their labor. Work is here just a value in terms of profit.

But perhaps the word «value» is associated with social conditions rather than strictly the material ones (although they are obviously related). In wealthy western societies, work can be viewed as a pleasure, something enjoyable. This is not possible in conditions reminscent of slavery in South-African mines, it requires a certain material standard. Work can contribute to society, but it also has a social function. It is sometimes claimed that work can fulfil oneself as a person, in a more «spiritual» sense. We now discuss the idea of meaningful work, not as a means of survival, but in the context of a personal «purpose». We have the «right» to work, but perhaps not the duty. It could become a moral judgement on the basis of contributing to society, but morality is a very relative word. Sometimes «success» in perhaps especially western capitalist societies is the equivalent of being rich – meaning successfull. One does not have to work if money is not an issue. If wealth is not granted by heritage, the justification for working hard may be to avoid work altogether in the future. Sometimes it is argued that one should strive to «liberate» man from work, for example through technology. This is not done to achieve a state of constant laxity, but to change the very perception of «work», perhaps defined as meaningless and repetative. In Down and Out the dishwasher's continue their work day in and day out, some of them year after year. It feels absurd and devoid of any purpose, it is easy to become disillusioned by the prospect of such an existence. The narrator finds that he has no time to do much else besides working. No time for study, research, expanding horizons, progress or change. Perhaps this is at the core of «liberating» man from work. We could be more «free», there would be time to pursue other interests, people could «want» to work and contribute. If a population is constantly tied up in work, how can contemporary society change? There is no «freedom», and perhaps no time to think, and the rich minority maintain their power. Much of the reason for a constant shortage of basic materials in Orwell's 1984 is explained in a similar way. In the dreaded «Golstein's book» it is argued that if the material wealth was higher, and people were no longer forced to work most of their waking hours, they might realize how useless the leadership was. This is similar to Marxism and the proletarian revolution. The narrator in Down and Out is only concerned with the next meal when poor, he does not consider the future. He is forced to devote all his time to job-hunting and then tiresome work. Keep them busy and distracted, and you keep them docile. In 1984, technology exists as it does in our own society to eliminate hunger, provide shelter for the world's refugees and so on, it would make many boring and seemingly pointless jobs dissapear, but this potential is not exploited.

As a student I might do some homework, but it is not supposed to be done because something is interesting or useful, knowledge has no value in itself, contrary to what a greek philosopher once claimed. I am not even supposed to learn because understanding the world could be important, but because i «have» to do it. It gets me a number, or perhaps even a letter, called a «grade», and that should be my motivation. Later in life these numbers/letters will get me a job, so that I can work to make a living. Any congenital curiosity is by then probably killed off. I think we should carefully consider exactly what values and functions specific jobs and professions actually provide. We should also critically examine what society is telling us our motivations should be. The plot in Down and Out takes place in the 1920s, and the working conditions of the earlier industrial revolution have been improved, at least «here» in the west. Unfortunately, pointless jobs and meaningsless work still exists, as does slavery, in more «traditional forms» in addition to what is sometimes called «cheap/inexpensive labor». As work can be viewed as a very positive thing, talk of removing certain jobs is difficult, but we should be very careful when judging what is valuable in work, and what is simply limiting our capacity to develop.