I read "A Philosophy of Work"

I read Lars Svendsen's "A Philosophy of Work".

It's a book I happened to see and picked up.
The author, Lars Svendsen, is a Norwegian philosopher.
As the title suggests, the content is about thinking about "working".

I thought I had seen this title and author somewhere before, and it turned out they were cited in Benjamin Kritzler's "21st Century Morality" and Svendsen's previous work, "A Philosophy of Boredom," was mentioned in Koichiro Kokubun's "The Ethics of Leisure and Boredom."

Since both books I've read with interest recently are related, and as I, Egusa, am always thinking about "working," I thought this was a book I should read.

It was a good book.

As for my impressions after reading, while I honestly couldn't agree with the author's underlying arguments that wafted through the book, I think it was a good foundation for thinking about "working," living up to its title.
The tone and vocabulary are casual, and it's not too long, making it easy to read. Yet, it offers various insights.
It is, quite simply, a good book.

Digging into the "common sense of modern working styles"

So, let me briefly introduce what kind of topics are discussed.

For example, work is generally perceived as an activity to earn an income.
We often say things like, "I have to work to put food on the table."
However, the author points out that in modern society, work is strongly expected to play a role as a means of self-realization.

Furthermore, because the idea that "work must be a place of self-realization and an enjoyable, fulfilling activity" underlies management, the author ironically criticizes the current state where companies have effectively become cults, leading to the emergence of ridiculous roles like "fun-sultants" and "fun-cilitators," and encouraging employees to spontaneously internalize corporate spirit.

(This part is where the author's writing is the most scathing; other parts are much milder.) In this way, the book digs into the common sense of "modern working styles" that most people don't usually question.

As expected of a philosopher, it's relentless, and you get a very fun and stimulating reading experience.

The book's view on "labor realism" itself

However, as I wrote earlier, I cannot agree with the author's arguments.
The reason is that the argument the author makes throughout the book is exactly the "labor realism" that I, Egusa, view as a problem. That is, the attitude that "we have no choice but to keep working quietly because we can't imagine a life without work."

Although the author cautions that this book does not make any specific claims, his own views are presented in the conclusion.

Interpreting the author's argument in my own way, Egusa thinks...

That is about the gist of it.

It is a moderate proposal that aims for a balanced distance from work—neither having excessive expectations nor completely giving up on it.

Of course, this is a perfectly valid opinion and by no means a foolish idea, but I still feel a kind of resignation, like 'we can't imagine a world without work,' and as a philosopher, I wish they would dig deeper into that point.

The 'resigned' stance of Svendsen that Koichiro Kokubun criticizes in 'The Ethics of Leisure and Boredom'

This is close to the context and sentiment in which Koichiro Kokubun's 'The Ethics of Leisure and Boredom' criticizes Svendsen's 'A Little Philosophy of Boredom'.

Although the topics handled are 'boredom' and 'work,' which are strictly different, there is no doubt that this book, 'The Philosophy of Work,' also has the 'boredom of work' in mind, and since it is by the same author, the basic message seems almost the same.
In other words, as Kokubun criticizes, Svendsen seems to be 'prone to resignation'.

A resignation born of necessity, having succumbed to 'Workist Realism'

Admittedly, it should be taken into account that the author, Svendsen, is not actively affirming the 'boredom of work'.

In this book as well, a critical stance toward 'fruitless work' can be seen throughout.

In other words, just as Mark Fisher described in 'Capitalist Realism' the resignation of how we keep trying to resist capitalism but cannot find an alternative to it, this book is also a resignation born of necessity because an alternative to work could not be found despite trying to resist it.

This resignation, the oozing frustration, agony, and compromise.
That is precisely why this book is a volume that can truly be called 'Workist Realism'.

A series of challenges to the 'Workist Realism' type of resignation

Certainly, searching for an 'alternative to work' is a very steep challenge. It is no wonder that Svendsen would want to give up.

However, I feel that recently there have been movements to break through the elements that this book gives up on, or to correct areas where this book was premature.

Daniel Susskind, 'A World Without Work'

For example, the argument in Chapter 9 that 'work will never disappear'.

This is a standard argument for the position that work will not disappear even with an AI revolution or similar, but this is precisely the claim that Daniel Susskind's 'A World Without Work' spends a significant amount of space carefully refuting.

There is significant doubt as to whether work will truly never disappear.
If, hypothetically, work were to disappear from the world, the view of work that Svendsen depicts would also be forced to undergo a major revision.

Oliver Burkeman, 'Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals'

Furthermore, the author takes a negative view of our habit of trying to 'utilize leisure time efficiently'.

As symbolized by people who 'watch movies at double speed,' we must certainly admit that efficiency-ism has permeated our leisure time.

However, regarding this habit of ours, there is a growing momentum for reconsideration, as seen in the bestseller status of Oliver Burkeman's 'Four Thousand Weeks'. Burkeman strongly argues that trying to act efficiently because time is limited creates a trap that actually damages that limited time.

Svendsen's attitude that 'since you can't use it well anyway, you have no choice but to work instead of seeking leisure' seems strangely quick to give up on humanity.

Jenny Odell, 'How to Do Nothing'

Throughout the book, the author shows a consistent rejection of 'idleness'.

The author's sense that 'we cannot bear to spend time in idleness (so we have no choice but to work)' is precisely what Buddhism has been teaching how to overcome since before the common era, so is it really appropriate to run away from idleness so suddenly?
In the first place, even without being as dramatic as Buddhism, the recent popularity of mindfulness meditation is evidence that we are beginning to try to accept idleness.
There is room for doubt as to whether we are truly unable to face 'idleness'.

For example, the book 'How to Do Nothing' also clearly points out that 'the inability to bear idleness' is a pathology peculiar to us modern people.

The idea that "I escape into work because I hate idleness" may just be an assumption we make that we cannot endure idleness.

Tsutomu Hashimoto, "The Ethics of Consumption Minimalism and the Spirit of Post-Capitalism"

The author presents the view that "we chose to increase productivity rather than shorten working hours in order to consume more."

While that is certainly true as a major trend, one could argue that the recent popularity of consumption minimalism has driven a wedge into this trend.

The global popularity of the KonMari method and the concept of 'danshari' (decluttering) is also well known.
As "The Ethics of Consumption Minimalism and the Spirit of Post-Capitalism" presents abundant concrete examples, "consuming more" is gradually becoming less of a choice.

Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the balance between "consuming more" and "shortening working hours" might finally tip in the other direction.

David Graeber, "Bullshit Jobs"

And the author's stance, which seems to imply, as criticized by Kokubun, that "work is boring, so it's your fault for being bored; just give up," would likely not hold up in the face of the "useless jobs"—so-called "bullshit jobs"—that have been the subject of much debate recently.

The various real-life examples presented in David Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs" are packed with pointless work that makes one say, "This is truly unbearable."

In fact, even in this book, Svendsen himself acknowledges the pain of not only the Sisyphus-like labor mentioned earlier, but also simple division-of-labor tasks like mass-producing pins, and work that is managed pointlessly.

Svendsen, who argues that "boring work is better than spending time in idleness," also seems to have been unable to endure "pointless work" in the end.

Indeed, one might say "it's your fault for being bored" to a job hopper who endlessly changes jobs in search of "fantastic work to become a true self."
However, it would be cruel to say that to someone who ended up in a "bullshit job" without having had such excessive expectations in the first place.

Even considering the book's premise that "people cannot endure idleness," shouldn't there be a limit to "boring work"?

Sorry, Svendsen, but we are not good at giving up.

Now, as I have shown, while I acknowledge that the arguments for 'work-based realism' suggested in this book have a certain validity, I feel there is still plenty of room for scrutiny.

That said, to give credit where it is due, the first edition of this book was published in 2008, before the Lehman Shock, so it is realistically difficult to expect it to have incorporated the latest trends (the second edition I read is from 2015).

As time has passed since the book was written, everyone has realized that 'something is definitely wrong' and has begun to move toward rethinking how we work and live.

Actually, unlike you, Svendsen, everyone is not good at giving up.

Therefore, I hope that you, too, will not give up and will join in the 'work' of countering 'work-based realism.' (Though I hope this doesn't count as an 'excessive expectation'.)

Summary

So, while I feel like I might have ended up being overly critical, that is just because I got carried away with a topic I am passionate about; this is still a very good book.

At the very least, it is a far cry from the common misconceptions about work, such as 'I am great because I have a high income, pay lots of taxes, and work long hours!' or 'We are all having fun achieving self-actualization through our work!'

This easy-to-read and thought-provoking book is recommended for anyone who wants to think about 'how to work.'

[Aside] Problems with citing Svendsen in Benjamin Kritzler's 'Morality for the 21st Century'

Since this is a discussion focusing on a different book, this is completely an aside, but based on the position of this book, the attempt in 'Morality for the 21st Century' to criticize 'Bullshit Jobs' by citing a passage from Svendsen (pp. 168-169) cannot be considered valid.

Even considering the aforementioned citations from this book, it is hard to believe that Svendsen would agree with this claim by Kritzler (the second half of the second sentence).
This is because, while Kritzler hopes for the 'possibility that any job has significance,' Svendsen acknowledges the cruelty of overly repetitive or futile work. Moreover, Svendsen himself even presents his own experience of quitting a project he found too futile (a de facto bullshit job) because he was disgusted by it.
I cannot imagine that such a Svendsen would share the sentiment that 'any job has potential.'

If he were to witness someone doing Sisyphus-like, fruitless labor, Svendsen would surely not say, 'There is a possibility that you can find some meaning or satisfaction in that work,' but rather, 'It is incomprehensible that one must think they can be happy in this job. You should quit such a bullshit job immediately.'

Ultimately, what Svendsen is criticizing throughout this book is 'having excessive expectations of work' and 'viewing work solely as a means of income while being indifferent to its significance in life.'
And the passage from Svendsen that Kritzler cites is in the context of criticizing the latter, where Svendsen is merely saying, 'Take an interest in the significance of work beyond income.'

However, people who suffer from 'bullshit jobs' because they 'want to do meaningful work that feels human' are not indifferent to the significance of work; they are, in fact, on the side that cares. For those who cannot find meaning in their work despite wanting to, urging them to keep hoping that 'there is still a possibility that you can find meaning or satisfaction in your work' is likely a use of Svendsen that he did not intend. (In fact, saying 'don't look for meaning in work' might be more of a relief.)

Svendsen criticizes 'excessive expectations' such as expecting fantastic self-actualization or perfect happiness from 'ordinary work.'
If that is the case, then similarly, continuing to hope endlessly and without giving up that there is a 'possibility of finding meaning or satisfaction' in a fruitless and futile 'bullshit job' would rather fall into the category of a Svendsen-esque 'excessive expectation.'

Therefore, it seems that Kritser's argument is criticized by Svendsen rather than supported. At the very least, it is difficult to say that it is appropriate to use Svendsen's argument in this book as a basis for criticizing 'Bullshit Jobs'.

[Supplementary Note] Can people endure 'pointless work'?

Furthermore, as an aside, I will leave a supplementary note here.

In the section on 'doing nothing,' I presented the 'possibility that people can endure idleness,' so one might think, 'Isn't it possible that people can also endure pointless work (bullshit jobs)?' However, if we look at Buddhism, a representative doctrine that accepts idleness, it seems that because 'attachment' disappears in the process of accepting idleness, the attachment to 'having to work' also disappears at the same time. Therefore, even if one becomes able to endure idleness, there is no reason to go out of one's way to engage in 'pointless work' in any case (one should just spend time in idleness without being attached to work). Common sense implicitly assumes that 'work' is meaningful, so 'pointless work (bullshit jobs)' inherently contains a contradiction. And we must not forget that the core of the cruelty of 'bullshit jobs' lies in the fact that, despite it being 'pointless work,' one must act as if one is performing 'meaningful work.' This could be said to be one form of the 'cult-like business management culture that forces faith' that Svendsen was criticizing.

Related Articles

The reviews for each of the books mentioned are below. (I haven't written reviews as articles for 'Capitalist Realism' and 'Morality for the 21st Century'.)