Work, Labor, and Play
So far as I know, Miss Hannah Arendt was the first person to define the essential difference between work and labor. To be happy, a man must feel, firstly, free and, secondly, important. He cannot be really happy if he is compelled by society to do what he does not enjoy doing, or if what he enjoys doing is ignored by society as of no value or importance. In a society where slavery in the strict sense has been abolished, the sign that what a man does is of social value is that he is paid money to do it, but a laborer today can rightly be called a wage slave. A man is a laborer if the job society offers him is of no interest to himself but he is compelled to take it by the necessity of earning a living and supporting his family.
The antithesis to labor is play. When we play a game, we enjoy what we are doing, otherwise we should not play it, but it is a purely private activity; society could not care less whether we play it or not.
Between labor and play stands work. A man is a worker if he is personally interested in the job which society pays him to do; what from the point of view of society is necessary labor is from his own point of view voluntary play. Whether a job is to be classified as labor or work depends, not on the job itself, but on the tastes of the individual who undertakes it. The difference does not, for example, coincide with the difference between a manual and a mental job; a gardener or a cobbler may be a worker, a bank clerk a laborer. Which a man is can be seen from his attitude toward leisure. To a worker, leisure means simply the hours he needs to relax and rest in order to work efficiently. He is therefore more likely to take too little leisure than too much; workers die of coronaries and forget their wives' birthdays. To the laborer, on the other hand, leisure means freedom from compulsion, so that it is natural for him to imagine that the fewer hours he has to spend laboring, and the more hours he is free to play, the better.
What percentage of the population in a modern technological society are, like myself, in the fortunate position of being workers?
At a guess I would say sixteen per cent, and I do not think that figure is likely to get bigger in the future.
Technology and the division of labor have done two things: by eliminating in many fields the need for special strength or skill, they have made a very large number of paid occupations which formerly were enjoyable work into boring labor, and by increasing productivity they have reduced the number of necessary laboring hours. It is already possible to imagine a society in which the majority of the population, that is to say, its laborers, will have almost as much leisure as in ear5lier times was enjoyed by the aristocracy. When one recalls how aristocracies in the past actually behaved, the prospect is not cheerful. Indeed, the problem of dealing with boredom may be even more difficult for such a future mass society than it was for aristocracies. The latter, for example, ritualized their time; there was a season to shoot grouse, a season to spend in town, etc. The masses are more likely to replace an unchanging ritual by fashion which it will be in the economic interest of certain people to change as often as possible. Again, the masses cannot go in for hunting, for very soon there would be no animals left to hunt. For other aristocratic amusements like gambling, dueling, and warfare, it may be only too easy to find equivalents in dangerous driving, drug-taking, and senseless acts of violence. Workers seldom commit acts of violence, because they can put their aggression into their work, be it physical like the work of a smith, or mental like the work of a scientist or an artist. The role of aggression into their work, be it physical like the work of a smith, or mental like the work of a scientist or an artist. The role of aggression in mental work is aptly expressed by the phrase "getting one's teeth into a problem."
工作，勞作和娛樂
據我所知，漢納·阿倫特小姐是第一個給予工作和勞作之間本質區別的人。一個人要高興，首先要感到自由，其次是感到重要。如果他被社會強迫做他不愿做的事，或者他喜歡做的事被社會忽視，被認為無價值和不重要，他就不會真正高興。在一個從嚴格意義上來說奴隸制已被廢除的社會里，一個人所做的事情具有社會價值的樗是他的工作得到了報酬。但今天的勞動者可以恰當地稱為薪金的奴隸。如果他對社會提供給他的工作不感興趣，但出于謀生和養家而被迫接受，這個人就稱為勞作者。
與勞作相對的是玩，當玩耍時我們在享受，否則是不會去玩的，不過這純粹是私人活動，社會對你玩或不玩是極不關心的。
處于勞作和玩之間的是工作。如果一個人對社會付酬給他的工作感興趣的話，他就是工作者；從社會的觀點看，工作是必要的勞作也是個人心目中自愿的玩。例如：這個區別不同于體力勞動和腦力勞動之間的區別；一個園藝工人或一個補鞋匠可能是工作者，一個銀行職員可能是勞作者。一個人屬于哪一種可以從他對休閑的態度看出來。對于工作者來說，休閑只是他為了有效地工作而放松和休息的時間，所以他可能少休息而不是多休閑。工作者可能致于冠狀動脈血栓癥，忘記妻子的生日。反之，對于勞作者來說，休閑意味著從強迫中的擺脫，因此他們會很自然地想花在工作上的時間越少，自由自在玩的時間越多就越好。
像我這樣，幸運地成為工作者的人現代技術社會里占多大比例呢？我猜測為60%并且我認為這個數字將來不可能變大。
技術和勞動分工已產生了兩點影響：通過在許多領域里減少對特殊力量和技巧的需求，它們使大量曾經愉快的有償勞動變成了使人厭煩的工作，通過提高提高生產率減少了一些必要的勞動時間。已經有可能去設想這樣一個社會：大多數人，即勞作者，將擁有幾乎與早期貴州所享有的一樣多的休閑。當一個人回憶過去貴族的所作所為，前景就不會樂觀了。的確對于這樣一個未來群眾社會，應付無聊的問題比起來貴族們可能更困難。例如：后者使他們的時間儀式化，有射獵松雞的季節、有鎮上度日的季節等。群眾更可能用時尚取代千篇一律的程式，而盡可能經常地改變時尚也符合某些人的經濟利益。同樣，群眾也不能都有打獵的愛好，因為很快就會沒有動物可供射獵。對于其他貴族娛樂活動，像賭博、決斗和戰爭，可能很容易在危險駕駛、吸毒和愚蠢的暴力行為中找到等價物。工作者很少有暴力行為，因為他們能把進取心放在他們的工作上，不管是鐵匠從事的體力勞動，還是科學家或藝術家從事的腦力勞動。"把牙到某個問題中"這條習語很貼切地表示出進取心在智力工作中的作用。 |
