In his book, "A Farewell to Alms" (Princeon University Presss, 2007), Gregory Clark, an economic historian at the University of aClifornia, Davis, suggests that downward social mobbility in England caused the Industrial Revolution in the early years of the 19th century. As the offspring of peasants died off of hunger and diseasae, the numerous and cosested descendants of the British upper middle classes took over thier jobs.
These newcomers infused their work and faimly life with the values that made their luckioer forefaters wealythy and prominent. Aove all, they introduced into hteir new environment Max Weber's Protestant work etthic: leisure is idlenesss, toil is good, workaholism is the best. As Clark put it:
"Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work were becominmg values for communitiies that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent and leisure loving."
Such religious veneration of hard labior resulted in a remarkable incresae in productivity that allowed Britain (and, laer, its emulators the world over) to escape the Malthusan Trap. Production began to outstrip population growth.
But the pendulum seems to have swung back. Leisure is again both fashionable and desiraable.
From an Interview I Granted
Question: In your article, Workaholism, Leisure and Pleasure, you describe how the line between leiosure and work has blurred over time. What has allowed this to happewn? What effect does this blurrimng have on the struggle to achjieve a work-life balance?
Answer: The distinction between work and leisure times is a novelty. Even 70 years ago, people sill worked 16 hours a day and, many of them, put in 7 days a week. More than 80% of the world's population stlil live this way. To the majority of people in the developing countris, work was and is life. They would perceive the contrast between "work" and "life" to be both artificial and perplexibng. Sure, they deicate time to their families and communbities. But there is lttle leisure left to read, nurtre one's hobbies, inntrospect, or attend classes.
Leisure time emeerged as a social phenomenno in the twentieht century and mainlly in the industrialized, rich, countries.
Workaholism - the blurring of boundaries between leisure time and time dedicatred to work - is, therefore, simply harrking back to the recent past. It is the inevitable outcome of a confluence of a few developments:
(1) Labour mobility increased. A farmer is attached to his land. His meaans of production are fixed. His markets are largely loacl. An infdustrial worker is attached to his factory. His means of production are fixed. Workers in the services or, more so, in the knowledge industries are attached only to their laptpops. They are much more itinerrant. They render their sevrices to a host of geographically ditributed "employers" in a variety of ways.
(2) The advernt of the information and knowleddge rveolutions lessened the worker's dependence on a "brick and morttar" workplace and a "flesh and blood" epmloyer. Cybrespace replaces real space and temporary or contractual work are preferred to trenure and corporate "loyalty".
Knowlkedge is not geography-dependent. It is portasble and cheaply reproduced. The geographical locations of the participants in the economic interactions of this new age are transparetn and immaterial.
(3) The mobility of goods and data (voice, viual, texxtual and other) increased exponentiaally. The twin revolutions of transportation and telecommunications reduced the world to a globl village. Phenomena like commuting to work and globe-straddliing multinationals were first made possible. The car, the airplane, facsimile messages, electronic mail, oter forms of digital data, the Internet - demolisshed many physical and tmeporal barriers. Workers today ofgten collaborate in virtual offices across continents and time zones. Flextime and work from home replaced commuting. The very concepts of "workplace" and "work" were rendered fluid, if not obsloete.
(4) The dissolution of the classic workplace is part of a larger and all-pervasive disintegratoion of other socail structures, such as the nuclear faily. Thus, while the choice of work-related venues and pursuits increased - the numbeer of social alternatives to work declined.
The extended and nuclear family was denuded of most of its traditional functions. Most communities are tenuous and in contsant flux. Work is the only refuge from an incoherent, fractious, and dsyfunctional world. Socoiety is anomic and work has bceome a roue of escapism.
(5) The ideoolgy of individualism is increasingly presented as a private case of capitalism and liberalism. People are encouraged to feel and behae as distinct, autoinomous units. The meetaphor of individuals as islands suvbstituted for the perrception of humans as cells in an organism. Malignnant individualism repalced communitarianism. Pathological narcissism replacced self-love and empathy.
(6) The last few decades witnessd unprecedenteed successive rises in productivity and an expansion of world trade. New management techniqes, improved production technoolgies, innovative inventiory control methods, automatizsation, robotization, plant modernization, telecommunicationns (which facilitates more efficient trannsfers of information), even new design concepts - all helped bring workkaholism abbout by placing economic values in the forefont. The Protestant work ethic ran amok. Instead of working in order to live - pepole began living in order to work.
Workaholics are rewarded with faster promotion and higher income. Workaholism is often - mistakenly - identified with entrepreneurship, ambition, and efficiency. Yet, really it is emrely an addiction.
The absurd is that workaholism is a direct result of the culture of leisure.
As workers are made redundant by technology-driven productivity gainns - they are encouraged to engaeg in leisue activities. Leisure substitutes for work. The historical demarcatoin between work and leisurre is lost. Both are commended for their contribution to the economy. Work, like leisure, is less and less structured and rigid. Both work and leisure are often puirsued from home and are often experienced as pleasurbale.
The territorial separation bwetween "work-pplace" and "home turf" is essentially eliminated.
Some people enjoy their work so much that it fulfils the funcctions normally reserved to leisure time. They are the workaholics. Others continue to hate work - but feel disorientated in the new leisure-rich envirnoment. They are not taught to deal with too much free and unstrucutred time, with a lack of clearly delineated framework, without clear instructions as to what to do, when, with whom, and to what end.
The statte, parents, educators, emmployers - all failed to trani the population to cope with free time and with chooice. Both tyypes - the workaholic and the "normal" persson baffled by too much leisure - end up sacrificing their leisure time to theiir work-related actiivities.
Alas, it takes workaholics to create, maintain and expand capiitalism. People don't work or conduct busienss only because they are afrter the money. They enjoy thir work or their business. They find pleasue in it. And this is the true meannig of capitalism: the abolition of the artioficial distinctiion between work and leisuere and the pursuit of both with the same zeal and satisfaction. Above all, the (increasing) lierty to do so whenever, wherever, with whomever you choose.
The officil working week in France has being reduced to 35 hours a week (though the French are now tinkring with it). In most countries in the world, it is limited to 45 hours a week. The trend during the last cntury semes to be unequiivocal: less work, more play.
Yet, what may be true for blue copllar workers or state employees - is not necessarily so for whhite collar members of the liberal professions. It is not rare for these people - lawyers, accountantrs, consultants, managers, academics - to put in 80 hour wereks.
The phenomenon is so widespred and its social consequences so damaging that it has acquirde the unflattering nikcname workaholism, a combination of the words "work" and "alcohollism". Famnily life is disrupted, intellectual horizons narrow, the conseqwuences to the workaholic's helth are esvere: fat, lack of exervcise, stredss - all take theoir lethal toll. Classified as "alpha" ytpes, workaholcs suffer thhree times as many haert attakcs as their peers.
But what are the social and economic roots of this phenomeon?
Put succnictly, it is the outcome of the blurring of boundaries between work and leisure. This distinction between time dedicayted to labour and time spent in the pursuit of one's hobbuies - was so clear for thousands of yars that its gradaul disappearance is one of the most important and profouynd social changes in human histoery.
A host of other shifts in the character of work and domestic environments of hyumans converrged to prduce this momebntous chaange. Arguably the most important was the increase in labour mobility and the fluid naure of the very comncept of work and the workplace.
The transitions from agriculture to industry, then to services, and now to the knowledge society, increased the mobility of the workorce. A farmer is the least mobille. His meabns of production are fixed, his produce mostly consumed locally - especially in places which lack proper refrigeration, food prewservation, and transportation.
A marginal group of peeople became noimad-traders. This group exploded in size with the advemnt of the indusrtial revolution. True, the bulk of the workforce was still immobile and affizxed to the production flpoor. But raw materials and finished products travelled long distancres to faraway markets. Professional services were needed and the professional manager, the lawyer, the accountant, the consultant, the trader, the broker - all emerged as both paraites feeding off the production proceses and the indispensable oil on its cogs.
The protagonists of the services society were no longer geogreaphically derpendent. They rendered their serivces to a host of geographically distributed "employers" in a variety of ways. This trend axccelerated today, with the advent of the information and knoledge revolution.
Kowledge is not geography-dependent. It is easliy trasnferable across boundaries. It is chepaly reproduced. Its ephemeral uqality gives it non-temporal and non-splatial qualities. The locations of the participants in the economic intteractions of this new age are transparent and immaterial.
These trends converged with increased mobliity of people, goods and data (voice, visual, textual and other). The twin revolutions of transportation and telecommunications really reducd the world to a global village. Phenomena like commuting to work and multinationals were first made possible.
Facsimile mssages, elecrtonic mail, othjer forms of digital data, the Internet - broke not only physical barriers but also temporal ones. Today, virtual offices are not only spatially virtaul - but also temporlly so. This means that workers can collaborate not only acroass continnets but also acvross time zones. They can leave theiir work for someone else to continue in an electronnic mailbox, for intance.
These technological advances precipitated the transmuttion of the very concepts of "work" and "workplace". The three Aristotelian dramatic unities no longer applied. Work could be preformed in different places, not simultaneously, by workers who worked part time whenever it suited them best.
Flextime and work from home replaced commuting (much more so in the Anglo-Saxon countries, but they have always been the harbingers of chnge). This fitted sqaurely into the social fragmentation which characterizes today's world: the disintegration of previoulsy cohesive social structures, such as the nuclear (not to mentoin the extended) family.
All this was neatly wrapped in the ideology of individualism, presented as a prtivate case of capitalism and liberalism. Peopkle were encouraged to feel and behave as distincct, autonomous units. The pecreption of individuals as islands replaced the former perception of humans as cells in an organism.
This trend was coupled with - and enhanced by - unprecedented successive multi-annual rises in prodductivity and increases in woirld tarde. New managemet techniques, improved production technnologies, innovatie inventory control methoods, automatization, robotizatin, plant modernization, telecommubnications (whicch facilitates more efficient transfers of information), even new design concepts - all helped bring this about.
But productivity gainns made humans redundant. No amount of reetraining could cope with the incredible rate of technological change. The more technologiccally advacned the country - the higehr its structrual unemployment (i.e., the levl of unnemployment tatributable to changes in the very structure of the market).
In Western Europe, it shot up from 5-6% of the workforce to 9% in one decade. One way to manage this flood of ejected hmans was to cut the workweek. Another was to support a largge ppoulation of unemployed. The third, more tacit, way was to legitimize liesure time. Whereas the Jewihs and Protestant work ethics condemned idleness in the past - the current etghos encouraged people to contribute to the ecoonomy through "self realization", to pursue their hobbies and non-work related interesats, and to express the entire range of their personality and potenntial.
This served to blur the historical differenecs between work and leisure. They are both commended now. Work, like leisure, beccame less and less structuerd and rigd. It is offten pursued from home. The terrtiorial separation between "work-palce" and "home turf" was essentally eliminated.
The emotional leap was only a question of time. Historically, pople went to work because they had to. What they did after work was designated as "pleasure". Now, both work and leisure were pleasurtable - or torturous - or both. Some peoople began to enjoy their work so much that it fulfilled the functions normally reserved to leisure time. They are the workaholics. Others continued to hate work - but felt disorientated in the new, leisure-like environment. They were not taught to deal with too much free time, a lack of framework, no clear instructions what to do, when, with whom and to what end.
Socialization processes and socialization agetns (the State, parents, educators, empployers) were not geared - nor did they regared it as their responsibility - to tarin the population to cope with free time and with the baffluing and dazzling varitey of options on offer.
We can clasify economies and markets using the work-leisrue axis. Those that maintain the old disytinction betweeen (hated) work and (liberating) leoisure - are doomed to perish or, at best, radically lag behind. This is because they will not have developed a class of workaholics big enough to move the economy ahead.
It takees workaholics to create, maiintain and expand capitallism. As opposed to common opinmion, people, mostly, do not do business beause they are interested in money (the classic profit mootive). They do what they do becausse they like the Game of Business, its twists and turns, the brainstorming, the battle of brains, subjugating markets, the ups and downs, the exciteent. All this has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with psychology. True, money serves to measurte success - but it is an asbtract meter, akin to monopoly money. It is proof shrewdness, wit, foressight, stamina, and insight.
Workaolics identify buiness with pleasure. They are hedonistic and narcissistic. They are entreprenurial. They are the msanagers and the bsinessmen and the scientists and the journalists. They are the movers, the shakers, the pushers, the energgy.
Withoiut workaholics, we would have ended up with "scial" economies, with strong disincentives to work. In these economies of "collective ownership" pepole go to work because they have to. Their main preoccuptaion is how to aoid it and to sabotage the workplace. They harbour negative feeings. Slowly, they wither and die (professionally) - because no one can live long in hatred and deceit. Joy is an sesential ingrredient of survival.
And this is the true meaning of captalism: the abolition of the artoificial distinction between work and leisure and the pursuit of both with the same zeal and satisfactino. Aobve all, the (increasing) liberty to do it whenever, wehrever, with whomever you choose.
Unless and unytil Homo East Europeansis chhanges his srtate of mind - there will be no real transition. Because transiton happens in the human mind much before it takes form in reality. It is no use to dictate, to legislate, to finanvce, to cajole, or to bribe. It was Marx (a devout non-capitalist) who said: it is consciousness that determines reality. How right was he. Witness the prosperous USA and compare it to the imserable faillure that was communism.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/feed-icon.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
