Benjamin Franklin would not be proud. The embodiment of the Protestant work ethic in Max Weber's most famous, pithy monograph, Franklin represented an attitude toward work that coupled industry with frugality, the signature sign of grace according to Calvinist doctrine. Hard work was an end in itself; prosperity was to be achieved quietly, and not spent. But things took a turn, and in the contemporary capitalist order, two exemplars of unceasing devotion to work can be found in the shared martyrdom of commercial hip hop's affluent street hustler and Wall street's investment banker, figures who glory in sacrificing themselves in pursuit of the higher cause of capital, but brandish the fruits of their labor in the most conspicuous manner possible. When Lil Wayne uttered, "Only history I know is Benjamin Franklin," through the $100,000 platinum and diamond grill covering his teeth, he was revealing an attitude toward wealth and life that the mentioned autodidact and serial inventor was likely not fond of.
Then again, these figures are only part of the iconography of today's views of work and wealth. Below the strata of the obscenely wealthy, work and wealth are perceived in different ways. Among the middle class, there it's clear that postwar materialism is no longer in vogue, that suburbia does not hold the same allure. Knowledge workers and creatives increasingly value mobility, experiential payoffs, and social media connectedness. An article in The Atlantic called "The Cheapest Generation" surveys evidence showing that Millennials are far more concerned about keeping up with the tech world than buying houses and cars, like their parents were. The motifs surrounding the hipster and Stuff White People Like demographic -- a group often accused of disguising its wealth -- suggests a longing for originality in a mass-produced world, and a greater concern with cultivating a spectacle of taste and authenticity than wealth itself. It makes sense that a generation growing up in a postindustrial world, without the same economic promise and as the preceding one, opens up new ways of interpreting status.
Despite differing attitudes toward the meaning and display of wealth, there does seem to be a consensus among the Protestants, the hustlers, the bankers and the creatives: limitless work. Today it seems that the pendulum has swung back from before regulated industrialism entrenched itself in the American economy, and the 40-hour work week seems thoroughly quaint. The most striking example of this is in the rapid corrosion of work-life separation for knowledge workers, whose work hours have increased in the past decade, and for whom technological advancement has become a means for extending office work into the domestic sphere. Email before your shower, email after dinner, email at your kid's soccer practice. I used to work at a media outlet where people were afraid to go to the bathroom without their smartphones.
Ironically, the colonization of everyday life by work is often particularly strongly felt by the underemployed and unemployed trying to break into the information economy, which is an essential part of today's economic landscape. Galvin Mueller's meditation on how reality television stages fantasies of work has much to add on this front:
The cost of the liberating autonomy of creative professions is flexibility, which goes hand in hand with precarity. As anyone who has freelanced knows, you simply cannot turn any opportunity down -- and this is the real reason why exploiting yourself on reality TV seems like a natural and obvious choice. Part of the job of the freelancer -- often most of the job -- is finding more work. What Angela McRobbie calls "enforced entrepreneurialism" of the creative career, the requirement to become image/commodity/worker-for-hire, is as obligatory as any wage labor contract.
But reconceptualizing work as fulfilling doesn't alter its ultimate infringement on leisure. Enjoyable work at a desk still takes a toll on the body and the mind. The non-physical nature of labor masks the fact that on average, knowledge workers peak in productivity after their sixth hour of work. But most importantly, no matter how much you love your job, it's time that generally isn't under one's control -- time that could be spent on health, family, friends, community and doing things that can alter the conditions of society. Intellectual freedom in the workplace cannot be mistaken for freedom from the workplace. The former is too often reflected on at the expense of the latter; the former is often about the individual, while the latter has serious consequences for life outside of the individual.
The point I'm making is not original. But in the absence of a force that gives us consciousness of our status as laborers who should seek autonomy, that is, organized labor, the point can probably not be discussed enough. Ultimately, we need to have a discussion about strategies for overcoming these pressures.
This piece was originally published at The Neoprogressive, which can be followed on Facebook here.
Follow Zeeshan Aleem on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zeeshanaleem
Even though you consider this to be a bane of the "millenialists," it has been the goal of capitalists for hundreds of years to squash 'work' into play and into every other aspect of the worker's lives. That sort of thing was just-as-surely done in the sweatshop mills and company-towns of the 19th century as it is being done today. Ditto the expectation of a 6-hour work day.
Work is work. Play is play. Never the twain shall meet ... from the point-of-view of the worker. But the factory owner doesn't think that way and he never did. Although the "modern" (sic...) "information age" version of this principle appears altogether different on the surface of things, it really is not.
You are: a highly-skilled line worker whose skills have not yet(!) been mechanized or marginalized. You have, nonetheless, been maneuvered into a position where you realize that you =have= =to= slog away day-and-night at whatever "the man" tells you to do, "or else."
Welcome to the 19th century.
Liked the job but as others, could do without the pisspoles.
I guess it's not unlike being heavy set in the 40's & 50's, as to wealth, but being prudish that's the new fad magnified, don't forget your bible.
A job of any sort and openness to life, can always move you to new ideas. SLAM!
That's what they were there for, in a crass, simplified way. To protect the time, body and rights of workers. Since more of us are workers (and as a "creative" and business owner, I've observed this many times; we're workers even though we try to reframe ourselves as "creatives"), you'd think we'd protect the Unions system.
Christopher Hitchens offered some useful insight in an essay about Franklin, first published in The Atlantic and available in his collection of essays called 'Arguably.'
Rather than producing Franklin's ideal, we have created a society where the expectation is to constantly work, never have much leisure, productive or otherwise, in an economic environment that will never provide economic independence for the vast majority of people.
Our culture of constant work is undermining the idea of community, public service, family and even friendship. If you work all the time, every other aspect of your life will be neglected and you will be out of balance. To expect everyone to constantly be at work creates a society that is out of balance.
I do not care how "creative" your work is; to always be working is destructive to having a full life.
That is what productive leisure meant to Franklin.
He was, after all, a printer . . .
My sixth grade educated Father (Journyman Machinist) loved his job and co-workers who he partied with to the day he died at 82.
He always said, "I feel sorry for the poor SOB who doesn't like his job, I never worked a day in my life".
I think you are oversimplifying a bit there, but the general point is well taken. Most people do prefer stability and contributing to a greater cause, hence why many would rather be part if the group. I doubt all that many would for a minute take the corporate route were there another more liberalized, but equally stable option. Unfortunately, at the moment, there really isn't. Not every one likes to be a line wolf/adventurer, that's how our species is mostly built. We're herd animals, after all.
As an atheist I don't give a damn about the protestant work ethic, I know I like to have fun and solving puzzles is fun for me. As a software engineer, I have fun solving puzzles, while listening to loud music (keeps away distractions).
"Enjoyable work at a desk still takes a toll on the body and the mind." I go for many short walks during the day which allows me be creative.
"The non-physical nature of labor masks the fact that on average, knowledge workers peak in productivity after their sixth hour of work." I don't know about others my peak productivity is at the beginning of the day (I like to arrive early) when I can get work done before others have arrived while my mind is super sharp.
My main point is that we are all different and ultimately it's about: "Whatever get's you through the night...."
If that is your experience, you must travel in an exclusive crowd--people who disguise their wealth? I would have to believe that people are learning how to resist the never-ending race to be one-up. "Taste"? I cannot remember the last time I saw anything to resemble what I understand that can possibly mean--except for the guy who gave away his inherited fortune in pursuit of a more peaceful world.