Читать книгу Making Light Work - David A. Spencer - Страница 8

Work is an obligation that very few of us can avoid. Work is what we do to earn wages. It provides the means for us to live. In modern society, we cannot escape work without facing some material hardship. The lack of work is associated with distress mainly because it is linked to the loss of income. Most of us work, in this respect, because we have to, not because we necessarily want to.

But work is also an activity that means something to us. We value certain aspects of the work we do and sometimes work longer than we need to. While many of us lament the time work takes and the restrictions it places on our lives, we also find reasons to keep working that are independent of the income that work brings. Work has a hold over us, even while it remains something we have to perform.

Various examples confirm this fact. Lottery winners keep on working when they can afford to stop. John Doherty, from Renfrewshire, Scotland, won a £14m lottery jackpot in 2016, but decided to continue his job as a plumber. Asked why he wanted to continue working despite having the money not to, he replied that he would be bored staying at home and did not want to let down his loyal customers.¹

Those nearing retirement worry about the prospect of not working. Indeed, many retired people miss their former jobs and often seek a return to paid work. In addition, many people volunteer to work in their communities – tasks that attract payment in the formal economy are undertaken for free. Finally, the unemployed strive to work for reasons beyond the need for income.

The positive features of work encompass not just the opportunity to interact socially but also the scope to develop and use valued skills and to gain self-esteem. Work matters because it offers the potential for activity that enables us to be and do things in our lives that we value. We work for pay, but we also seek other things in work that add to our well-being.

Of course, in reality, work often falls short of our expectations and needs. Work can be – and frequently is – a burden and source of pain in itself. Its costs extend not just to the lack of opportunity for progress in work but also to the exposure to mind-numbing work activities. We rightly deplore sweatshops not only because they are linked to chronic low pay but also because they are associated with harsh and life-limiting work conditions. The deprivations of work, in this case, challenge our views about what work should be like.

Money matters, again, to the extent that it can buy us freedom from bad work. The richer a person is, the less likely she is to work in a sweatshop. The benefit of a lottery win is that it buys us the freedom to quit our present jobs if we dislike or hate them. But winning the lottery also creates the potential to undertake different and more pleasurable work – it appeals to the idea of working better, not quitting work altogether.² For some retired people, with the safety net of a pension, there is the option to choose work that is satisfying – perhaps to a greater extent than the kinds that were undertaken before retirement.

Nonetheless, beyond money, all of us have a craving and need for work that matches with our potential and meets our innermost desires. Our participation in voluntary work indicates how we desire work for intrinsic reasons. Indeed, voluntary work may offer compensation for the lack of enjoyment we derive from paid work. Unemployment, too, for all its material costs, is harmful partly because it deprives us of the opportunity to gain the direct benefits of work. Some of the fear associated with unemployment derives from a concern about the negative experience of a life without work.

Work, in short, has meaning in itself. In the present, it might be undertaken to pay the bills and service outstanding debt. But it is also an activity that shapes us – for good and for ill – and it remains an activity that we care about, even when it does not necessarily allow us to live well.

This book is concerned with the different roles that work can, does and should play in human life. In the book, I reflect on how modern work, in its myriad forms, prevents well-being. I am clear that work is a problem in contemporary society. I support the argument that work is harmful to the lives of many people. I also actively support the view that work exerts a too dominant influence in human life and that we should strive, as a society, to work less. I back, for example, the case for a shorter working week – the reduction of work time should be a key demand of a progressive society. Yet, at the same time, I argue that work should be changed. The possibility of changing work – of lightening it, in a quantitative and qualitative sense – lies at the heart of this book and inspires the critical arguments made in support of reform in society.

The book engages with ideas from past and present literatures on work. The account is not necessarily exhaustive (e.g. it largely ignores consideration of forms of unpaid work). But it is, hopefully, useful and instructive in setting out some key areas of debate and controversy in the study of work. A distinctive aspect is the attention given to the costs as well as benefits of work, not as contingent features, but as system-wide outcomes. I make the point that capitalism, as a system, creates alienating forms of work. At the same time, however, I argue for change in the system of work, not just to negate alienation linked to work, but also to create the conditions for non-alienating work in the future. The goal of creating a different future of work – one where work is human, as opposed to an alienating activity – drives the arguments in the book.

Here I seek inspiration in the writings of some prominent critical thinkers, notably Karl Marx and William Morris. Marx’s ideas on the alienation of work under capitalism are relatively well known – however, as I will argue, his broader vision of negating work alienation and of returning meaning to work in a post-capitalist future have tended to be overlooked in debate, including in some radical circles. An aim of this book is to restate and revive this vision as part of a broader critical analysis of work.

William Morris – the nineteenth-century artist and socialist – is much less well known than Marx. Yet his writings on the costs of work and on the possibilities for recreating work beyond capitalism match with those of Marx. Indeed, Morris’s own thoughts on the present and future of society were directly inspired by Marx. I will draw on Morris’s ideas to show the scope for transforming work and creating a future society where meaning as well as pleasure can be returned to work.

Politically, the book sides with arguments that seek radical change. I argue against the view that capitalism is the end of history or the best of all possible systems. Instead, I put forward the argument for a world beyond capitalism. Following Marx and Morris, I see capitalism as a barrier, not just to more time away from work, but also to more rewarding and meaningful work. The agenda for change which the book supports aims to secure a society that enables everyone not only to work fewer hours, but also to work better. I argue that such a society cannot be realized while capitalism remains in place, and that a new system will be required to bring forth the forms of work and life that are compatible with wider goals of economic sustainability and human flourishing.

In writing this book, I am conscious of a number of recent books on the subject of work. These range from general histories of work (the idea and activity) through to direct critiques of work.³ Prominent in critical discourse are perspectives promoting a ‘post-work’ politics. These perspectives side with the view that work should be rejected and ultimately eliminated. They also feed broader narratives about the need to secure a post-capitalist future – one where we work as little as possible and enjoy our lives with a minimal exposure to work.⁴

Interest in work has also been fuelled by new debate on the progress of technology and the possibilities for automation. Several books now predict that work for wages will decline in the future.⁵ This decline is linked to rapid and seemingly unstoppable advances in new digital technologies. For some, there is the prospect of a ‘world without work’. This prospect is met with both fear and hope and is used to support alternative policy proposals. For example, it has led to calls for a ‘universal basic income’ (UBI) and a four-day work week.

I address critically contributions to the post-work literature as well as to the modern debate on automation and the future of work. I take an opposing position. In terms of post-work ideas, I argue for the transformation of work, as opposed to its negation. The idea of negating work betrays a lack of imagination about how work can be recreated in the future. On the topic of automation, I debate whether society would be better or worse off by using technology to replace human labour. Here I suggest that a progressive case for reform must embrace the goal of putting technology to use in reducing work hours while enhancing the quality of work. In this case, moves can and should be made to achieve both less and better work.

There are other notable aspects of the book. One aspect relates to the coverage of ideas. Given my background as an economist, there will be references to the economics literature. This reflects partly on how economics has influenced the wider understanding of work – in particular, economics has helped to promote an understanding of work as an instrumental activity that is performed mainly for money. Economics has also presented work as a cost and sought to elevate the benefits of higher consumption – in this respect, it has embedded an ideology in support of higher economic growth. I will take issue with this way of thinking about work and will point to the need to look beyond economics in understanding the meaning and role of work. Given my wider concern for interdisciplinary research, there will also be an integration of ideas from different disciplines and subject areas. Broadly, the book can be seen as a contribution to the development of a political economy approach to the study of work.

In a previous book, I developed ideas towards a political economy of work – in particular, I examined how ideas about work had evolved and changed in economics, both past and present.⁶ The present book pushes the debate a stage further, by examining how work might be studied differently and reimagined in the future.

This book is written at a time of crisis, not only of work, but of society in general. This crisis has been created by COVID-19. To be sure, work was not working for the majority before the onset of the pandemic. In the UK as well as the US, for example, problems of in-work poverty have coincided with issues of unequal pay and long work hours. But COVID-19 has magnified and deepened the problems of work, in part by adding to unemployment, but also by increasing workloads and creating new dangers for those in work. So-called ‘key workers’ (e.g. in health services) have felt particular pressure, being required to work excessive hours and under conditions that present direct harms to their health.

I recognize that COVID-19 has hit some groups more than others – minorities, for example, have faced a higher death toll, partly because of their exposure to jobs in which risks of harm have been higher. Women, too, have faced higher burdens of work (both unpaid and paid). The pandemic has revealed starkly the inequities in society and the unfitness of the present capitalist system as a means to meet our collective and individual needs.⁷

But I will suggest through the pages of this book that a different future can and must be created. Contemporary debates focus on ‘building back better’ – creating a better, more robust future.⁸ These debates can have a hollow ring, in the sense that they can cloak a call for the restoration of the same system that existed before COVID-19 struck – one that left society exposed to the pandemic once it hit. Rather, my argument is that the crisis must be a moment for critical reflection on the present and future of society – that is, it should lead us to question the current order of things and to build a different system where we can all live and work in ways that not only protect our health, but also enable us to carry out activities (including in work) that bring meaning and pleasure to our lives.

In promoting alternatives beyond the crisis, this book supports the idea and goal of lightening work. I argue that the crisis linked to COVID-19 has shown how work must be shared out in society and how lighter work for all is a laudable and potentially achievable goal. But I also argue that the crisis reminds us of how work should be improved upon in qualitative terms. We need to discuss what essential work is and how it is to be directed and organized in our workplaces. In essence, if a better future of work and life is to be achieved, then we must make strides to lighten work, in terms of both the hours it occupies in the day and the quality of experience it offers in our lives. This book, then, seeks to promote the lightening of work as a specific political demand.

The ideas in the book are outlined across several chapters. Chapter 2 examines different meanings of work. Here I highlight the error of seeing work as perpetually bad or good and instead argue for a more nuanced approach that links the costs and benefits of work activities to the actual system of work. In advancing this argument, I invoke the ideas of Marx and Morris, including those on the scope for reclaiming work as a creative and pleasurable activity. Their vision of transforming work into something positive in human life is one I endorse. Indeed, this vision inspires ideas in the rest of the book.

Chapter 3 asks why work hours have stayed long under capitalism and why the quantitative lightening of work has remained elusive. Focusing on J. M. Keynes’s famous 1930 essay, ‘Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren’, I examine the barriers to, and benefits of, working less. I defend the argument that work hours should be reduced in society and promote the vision of a future where shorter work hours add to the quality of work and life.

Chapter 4 discusses some realities of modern work. I assess critically David Graeber’s ‘bullshit jobs’ thesis and evaluate other approaches that defend and criticize work in society. This discussion culminates in support for an objective definition of the quality of work. I focus on how the nature and system of work can limit workers’ ability to meet their needs, and I emphasize the importance of structural reform in delivering higher-quality work.

Chapter 5 asks whether high-quality work can be made available to all. I show how some economic and ethical arguments endorse the restriction of high-quality work to a minority in society – in effect, contending that society should accept the inevitability of a world where some people (perhaps even the majority) do low-quality work. I refute these arguments. Instead, I build a case for extending to all workers the opportunity for high-quality work.

Chapter 6 examines modern debate on the possibilities for automation and labour-saving technology. This debate is increasingly influential in shaping opinions about the future of work – indeed, it has led to predictions of the demise of work. I strike a sceptical note, pointing out limits to automation in the present. I also highlight how notions of automation have been linked to understandings of the meaning of work and how these notions have driven alternative agendas for change (some more radical than others). I argue that the modern debate on automation needs to tackle issues of ownership if it is to see the full potential for changing work in the future.

Chapter 7 examines issues of policy and politics. I raise questions in relation to current growth-based policies, the objective of full employment and the implementation of a UBI. Instead, I set out an alternative reform agenda. The latter encompasses support for a four-day work week, but also returns to ideas found in Marx and Morris on the requirement to change the nature of work. Change here includes shifts in the goals of work as well as in the ownership of workplaces. The vision of work transformation drives the reform agenda I propose.

Chapter 8 sets out the key conclusions and contributions of the book. In particular, it reiterates how less and better work can be realized jointly in a society beyond capitalism. I also reflect on how, given the occurrence of repeated crises, change has become a much more urgent and necessary task – one that we should seek to promote and help to bring into being. Visions of ‘building back better’, I conclude, are only credible if they include a direct commitment to reduce work hours while securing work tasks that are meaningful and pleasurable in themselves.