Bertrand Russell: "In Praise of Idleness"

Thanks to mg's an the url for Bush's speech on work, I also found
this great piece of social thinking by Bertrand Russell. Thanks so
much, mg! Here are the first few paragraphs and then the last two
paragraphs from this long essay.
Elaine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Praise of Idleness
Like most of my generation, I was brought up on the saying:
'Satan finds some mischief for idle hands to do.' Being a highly
virtuous child, I believed all that I was told, and acquired a
conscience which has kept me working hard down to the present moment.
But although my conscience has controlled my actions, my opinions have
undergone a revolution. I think that there is far too much work done
in the world, that immense harm is caused by the belief that work is
virtuous, and that what needs to be preached in modern industrial
countries is quite different from what always has been preached.
Everyone knows the story of the traveler in Naples who saw twelve
beggars lying in the sun (it was before the days of Mussolini), and
offered a lira to the laziest of them. Eleven of them jumped up to
claim it, so he gave it to the twelfth. this traveler was on the right
lines. But in countries which do not enjoy Mediterranean sunshine
idleness is more difficult, and a great public propaganda will be
required to inaugurate it. I hope that, after reading the following
pages, the leaders of the YMCA will start a campaign to induce good
young men to do nothing. If so, I shall not have lived in vain.

Before advancing my own arguments for laziness, I must dispose of one
which I cannot accept. Whenever a person who already has enough to
live on proposes to engage in some everyday kind of job, such as
school-teaching or typing, he or she is told that such conduct takes
the bread out of other people's mouths, and is therefore wicked. If
this argument were valid, it would only be necessary for us all to be
idle in order that we should all have our mouths full of bread. What
people who say such things forget is that what a man earns he usually
spends, and in spending he gives employment. As long as a man spends
his income, he puts just as much bread into people's mouths in
spending as he takes out of other people's mouths in earning. The real
villain, from this point of view, is the man who saves. If he merely
puts his savings in a stocking, like the proverbial French peasant, it
is obvious that they do not give employment. If he invests his
savings, the matter is less obvious, and different cases arise.

One of the commonest things to do with savings is to lend them to some
Government. In view of the fact that the bulk of the public
expenditure of most civilized Governments consists in payment for past
wars or preparation for future wars, the man who lends his money to a
Government is in the same position as the bad men in Shakespeare who
hire murderers. The net result of the man's economical habits is to
increase the armed forces of the State to which he lends his savings.
Obviously it would be better if he spent the money, even if he spent
it in drink or gambling.

But, I shall be told, the case is quite different when savings are
invested in industrial enterprises. When such enterprises succeed, and
produce something useful, this may be conceded. In these days,
however, no one will deny that most enterprises fail. That means that
a large amount of human labor, which might have been devoted to
producing something that could be enjoyed, was expended on producing
machines which, when produced, lay idle and did no good to anyone. The
man who invests his savings in a concern that goes bankrupt is
therefore injuring others as well as himself. If he spent his money,
say, in giving parties for his friends, they (we may hope) would get
pleasure, and so would all those upon whom he spent money, such as the
butcher, the baker, and the bootlegger. But if he spends it (let us
say) upon laying down rails for surface card in some place where
surface cars turn out not to be wanted, he has diverted a mass of
labor into channels where it gives pleasure to no one. Nevertheless,
when he becomes poor through failure of his investment he will be
regarded as a victim of undeserved misfortune, whereas the gay
spendthrift, who has spent his money philanthropically, will be
despised as a fool and a frivolous person.

All this is only preliminary. I want to say, in all seriousness, that
a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in
the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and
prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work.

First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the
position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other
such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is
unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The
second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only
those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders
should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given
simultaneously by two organized bodies of men; this is called
politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of
the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of
persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising.

Throughout Europe, though not in America, there is a third class of
men, more respected than either of the classes of workers. There are
men who, through ownership of land, are able to make others pay for
the privilege of being allowed to exist and to work. These landowners
are idle, and I might therefore be expected to praise them.
Unfortunately, their idleness is only rendered possible by the
industry of others; indeed their desire for comfortable idleness is
historically the source of the whole gospel of work. The last thing
they have ever wished is that others should follow their example.
- - - - - -
Russell's last two paragraphs are:
- - - - - -
In a world where no one is compelled to work more than four
hours a day, every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be
able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without
starving, however excellent his pictures may be. Young writers will
not be obliged to draw attention to themselves by sensational pot-
boilers, with a view to acquiring the economic independence needed for
monumental works, for which, when the time at last comes, they will
have lost the taste and capacity. Men who, in their professional work,
have become interested in some phase of economics or government, will
be able to develop their ideas without the academic detachment that
makes the work of university economists often seem lacking in reality.
Medical men will have the time to learn about the progress of
medicine, teachers will not be exasperatedly struggling to teach by
routine methods things which they learnt in their youth, which may, in
the interval, have been proved to be untrue.

Above all, there will be happiness and joy of life, instead of frayed
nerves, weariness, and dyspepsia. The work exacted will be enough to
make leisure delightful, but not enough to produce exhaustion. Since
men will not be tired in their spare time, they will not demand only
such amusements as are passive and vapid. At least one per cent will
probably devote the time not spent in professional work to pursuits of
some public importance, and, since they will not depend upon these
pursuits for their livelihood, their originality will be unhampered,
and there will be no need to conform to the standards set by elderly
pundits. But it is not only in these exceptional cases that the
advantages of leisure will appear. Ordinary men and women, having the
opportunity of a happy life, will become more kindly and less
persecuting and less inclined to view others with suspicion. The taste
for war will die out, partly for this reason, and partly because it
will involve long and severe work for all. Good nature is, of all
moral qualities, the one that the world needs most, and good nature is
the result of ease and security, not of a life of arduous struggle.
Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and
security for all; we have chosen, instead, to have overwork for some
and starvation for others. Hitherto we have continued to be as
energetic as we were before there were machines; in this we have been
foolish, but there is no reason to go on being foolish forever.
(1932)

http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/praiseidleness_5.htm
.

Loading