Bertrand Russell famously argued in defence of idleness, depicting work as a necessary evil. It had no intrinsic value. Instead, we should look at what we produce for its own sake: literature, art and philosophy. The value of these achievements is revealed in their very uselessness and it is only when we have adequate leisure that we can turn to their creation (Russell, In Praise of Idleness, 1935).

But Russell’s view can be resisted. There is value, too, in what Russell dismissed as mere useful work. Russell’s argument reveals an aristocratic view of what counts as work and unreasonably relegates the value of certain forms of human activity to worthlessness.

Work is a necessity, Russell argues, only because nature is unkind to us, failing to provide easily all that we need in order to survive, bringing the occasional famine too. Even so, it is still up to us what social arrangements are put in place to ensure such work as is necessary is properly conducted and rationally apportioned.

Here, we have failed to deliver a happy solution. Most people are doing far more work than they fairly should have to, while at the same time, and not merely by coincidence, we support a leisured aristocracy. Furthermore, some are worked near to death while others are unemployed and starving. If instead we all worked just four hours a day, not only would there be work for everyone but there would also be equal leisure time in which we all could contribute to human knowledge and culture, enhancing the development of civilisation. It is this that Russell really values.  Thus far, everything that we call civilisation has had to come from those fortunate leisured few. Imagine, though, how much the sciences, arts and humanities would develop if everyone had the free time to fulfil their potential in that respect.

___

"If we all worked just four hours a day, not only would there be work for everyone but there would also be equal leisure time in which we all could contribute to human knowledge and culture, enhancing the development of civilisation."

__

Was Russell right, however, to claim that all work is bad? Doesn’t that depict us all as fools or victims for doing it, especially when we perform work willingly?

To answer this, we need to understand what Russell took work to be. Fortunately, he offered us a clear definition. ‘Work is of two kinds’, said Russell, ‘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.’ Specifically, he did not take novelists, historians or physicists to be engaged in work. Theirs were activities of a higher order. They were advancing civilisation, not merely conducting the necessary evil.

We can challenge Russell’s division from two directions. First, is one really not engaged in work when one is contributing to civilisation? Try telling that to the beleaguered academic scientist or philosopher, or a writer who slaves for a meagre royalty, and see what a reply you will receive. Second, is what Russell calls work really devoid of intrinsic value?