On Work and Utopias

Happy MLK day!

Not long ago, I had a discussion with a professor in another field. She was telling me about using book in class that included an argument that we should work 17 hours/week (I may be misremembering the actual number). My response was one of disbelief: who would be happy with that? What would they do with the rest of their time?

My reaction may be unusual. Some may think the idea, if actualized, would be heaven on earth: time to rest, time to play, time for family, friends, and hobbies, etc. I’m sympathetic to that but doubt the overall view.

Consider the following claims:

• Claim 1: There is a human nature. This is the set of characteristics shared by all human persons. It is universal and unchanging.

• Claim 2: We all wish to be productive, whether materially or otherwise.

I think both claims are true. I also think that humans have individual and cultural characteristics that are not part of, but additions to, human nature. While I think all human persons are (to some degree) instrumentally rational and self-interested, I think some are athletic, visually creative, etc. Perhaps some are aggressive, domineering, private, conciliatory, etc.

There are, of course, debates about what is part of human nature and I won’t try to provide a full account. I do think that wishing to be productive is part of human nature. I believe that even those who don’t think about being productive want to be—remembering that this is not limited to material productivity. Of course, I may be wrong about this. If Claims 1 and 2 are false, we ought to work toward making Claim 2 true.

I may be more committed to Claim 1 than Claim 2. Perhaps this is because political philosophers have advocated for some version of Claim 1 for centuries and my reading of those authors has influenced me. Importantly, the claims are independent. Claim 2 could be true because the desire to be productive is part of human nature or it could be true for other reasons if Claim 1 is false. It’s not as if no past political thinkers reject Claim 1. Marx does.

On Marx’s view, humankind can be socialized in ways that would change our nature—which is to say we have no essential nature. This is how Marx thinks utopia is possible: after we’ve increased the means of production so that all could be provided for, we ought to change socialization processes so that all want to contribute to the welfare of others. Once that (re)socialization process is complete, we can have a society that takes “from each according to his ability, [and provides] to each according to his needs.” Marx realized that human beings as they were before that needed re-socialization (which never occurred) were not so charitable.

Say Marx is right about the malleability of human beings. Say, that is, we could be made to want to provide for everyone. If that is the case, we could also be socialized to wish to be productive, as I already think we are (Claim 2). What this means is that a rejection of Claim 1 doesn’t threaten my position that we ought to work toward making Claim 2 true if its not. If there is no such thing as human nature and we are thus not all by nature desirous of being productive, we could be socialized to be desirous of being productive. We might, of course, have debate about (a) whether we should be socialized to wish to be productive—or charitable, or something else—and (b) what methods we could use to accomplish such socialization. I have nothing to offer regarding how to go about answering (b), but think (a) is best answered by saying “absent a human nature, we should seek to socialize people to wish to be productive.”

Why should we want people to wish to be productive? First, simply bring in all the standard economics. If people are productive, they will make more than they need for themselves, creating a surplus that others can use. If all do this, there will be more of everything for everyone. Also, though, realize that this is in fact the world we live in: people have been productive so there is more of everything for everyone. At least since the Industrial Revolution, the wealth of the world has dramatically increased. That is evidence of productivity—and, I think, of the wish to be productive.

Say I am wrong about that. Say, that is, you still doubt Claim 2. For my second argument here, ask yourself what you would do without work. I imagine people will say they’d spend time with loved ones, playing, and engaged in hobbies, presumably including arts, crafts, literature, etc. What follows? I’d suggest that people would fill their time doing things they enjoy and are good at, including crafts, etc. I’d suggest, in fact, that people would do their favored activities so much that they would end up with an excess of whatever it is that results from those activities. People would be productive, of their own accord—because they would do what they desire. This might mean producing extra paintings, sculptures, writings, or extra pieces of jewelry, clothing, food items, etc. What would they do with the extras? Give some away, certainly. Trade them for things made by others. Simply sell some. In short, we’d exchange them and reap the benefits. Tada! The hobby became “work.” To suggest we should not want this is to suggest that people should not be allowed to do what they want. Of course we should want Claim 2 to be true (whether or not it is now).

Note, of course, that the created goods do not have to be physical items like artwork, jewelry, or food stuffs—the productivity need not be material productivity. You may love reading and so end up exchanging a reading service for other things. Or you enjoy learning and so provide teaching services. Or you enjoy delving into individual’s psychology and provide therapy services. Or you enjoy considering the divine and so offer religious services. The list is endless.

To return to the idea that we would be unhappy only working 17 hours per week, some may argue that the sort of productivity I am a fan of is something other than “work,” because it would entail doing what we enjoy. This is a fair point given that in contemporary society we seem to look at “work” as something we do merely to earn enough to do what we really like. But that, on my view, is an unfortunate factor of contemporary society. I tell my students I hope they will all be able to make a living doing things they enjoy. Enjoying what one does for a living does not mean it’s not work (if it does, we simply need another term; perhaps “vocation”). I love discussing social, political, and economic issues from a standpoint embedded in PPE. I consider myself incredibly fortunate that I can get paid to do so. I do so when I teach, I do so when I write, I do so when I give talks. (I sometimes imagine having pursued different careers, some of which may also have made me happy—like being a plumber.)

I realize not everyone is as fortunate as I am. If we want to improve the world, I would suggest we should not seek to improve it by getting rid of work, but by making it more likely that people can earn livings doing what they enjoy. That, I think, would be a utopia worth working toward!