Without Work, There Can Be No Leisure - Literature review Example

Without work, there can be no leisure – Discuss. ‘All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy’ according to an old English proverb. In a Business Day (2014) article, Obinna Emelike observes that there is a need to step-up one’s work-leisure balance because, “life work without leisure is life without a balance” (p.1). Work and leisure appear to be opposites of each other while actually they are complementary and essential for one to lead a rich and wholesome life. However, with globalization of economies, transformed business ethics and paradigms, the concept of leisure has changed as much as work itself. This essay shall discuss the various issues that revolve around work-leisure dichotomy and trace the origins of work-leisure dialogue from pre-historic times to the current day. In the process, the Protestant work-ethic its influence on the western work-culture, combined with the impacts of the industrial revolution, shall also be explained. The essay shall argue that, while in prehistoric periods, there was not separate time for work and leisure, in the current capitalist dominated world of economics, leisure has largely become a commodified product. It lures people into consuming it and makes people work harder and longer, to sponsor their continued consumption of leisure products. In the end neither is leisure enjoyed as leisure in the true sense, nor does it benefit people as much as it should; therefore it may be more apt to say, “there is more work, with little leisure”. Every individual has to find his/her own work-leisure balance in order to avoid the above, and lead a fulfilled life. The word ‘leisure’ comes from the Latin ‘leisir’ which is the ‘opportunity to do something’ and also ‘time at one’s disposal’ (Harper 2014). Human-beings have come a long way from their nomadic existence of their prehistoric past. They have transformed their living conditions into more conducive and comfortable environments through constant work and innovations, to reduce the burden of labour and enjoy leisure. In order to effectively understand the statement ‘without work there can be no leisure’, one has to understand the evolution and definitions of leisure and work. Work in the form of hunting and gathering food, cover for bodies and shelter was essential to existence for pre-historic human beings. Since threats to life ever present in the form of predators, enemies, natural calamities and sometimes sheer starvation, work – though unorganized and non-commercial, occupied much of their time. Gender roles did not increase or decrease the amount of labour; but did divide labour for the males and females of the species. Everyone had a role to play including children and domesticated animals, in the survival of the society as can be understood from anthropological research of hunter-gatherer tribes like the Waorani (Nomads of the Rainforest, 1984). Leisure was enjoyed whenever they were together, even when they were involved in life sustaining jobs like de-skinning hunted animals or preparing food of the members or teaching the children the skills of hunting and nuances of animal calls. For example, in the video showing the life of the Waorani tribes, children girls were encouraged to learn to make complicated patterns to weave hammocks, while boys are seen playing with spears imitating hunting techniques of elders (Nomads of the Rainforest, 1984). Similarly, the native inhabitants of Australia, the Australian aborigines too had a developed concept of leisure and recreation, though it often overlapped with their work for survival. These natives “only needed to spend about 4-5 hours per day working to ensure their survival. With such a large amount of leisure time available, they developed a rich and complex ritual life – language, customs, spirituality and the law – the heart of which was connection to the land” (Aboriginal Heritage, 2014). In prehistoric times, therefore, the statement that ‘without work there is no leisure’ is simply not applicable. Leisure and work overlapped each other even though activities of recreation evidently pointed to some free, disposable time, which emphasized kinship and cooperative activities. As human beings started leading more sedentary lives in settlements, their pre-occupation with day-to-day survival was largely reduced and they could allocate time for rest and recreation apart from the time they spent on earning a livelihood. The Roman ‘Otium’ and Greek ‘Schole’ (Veal 2012, pp. 8-9) indicate that the Greeks and the Romans gave serious consideration to the concepts of work and leisure, albeit differently. The concepts of ‘free-time’, ‘used for progress’, ‘rest and relaxation’, ‘rejuvenation’ still remain important aspects in the definitions of leisure experience and differ from any activity that is categorized as ‘work’. The Greeks held ‘Schole’ as a time that is to be spent in progressive thoughts for the betterment of the society, in more intellectual pursuits like reading, writing poetry and philosophy, and free-time. The other important thing is that they associated leisure with special worship associated with the Gods, like for example, the Olympic games were held in honour of the Gods (Veal 2012, p. 9); the ‘holy days’ have translated into holidays in modern times. The Roman concept also placed a lot of importance on leisure, as is evident from the numerous baths and stadia that they built to host their leisure activities. However, unlike the Greeks, they considered leisure as time solely meant for relaxation, from the day’s heavy work or discharge of duties. Hence, much of the Roman leisure consisted of drinking, circus, gladiator fights and hooliganism. Thus one can see the beginnings of the work-leisure dichotomy here in the Roman ideal of leisure. It was considered important in order to rejuvenate the soldiers and men for starting work again the next day (Juniu 2000, pp. 69-70), since without sufficient rest and rejuvenation success in the following day’s duties may be retarded. Interestingly, domestic work was not considered work at all and thus women were not given the privileges of leisure. In modern times, one of the definitions of leisure is given as “the time which an individual has free from work or other duties and which may be utilised for the purposes of relaxation, diversion, social achievement, or personal development” (Gist & Fava 1964, p. 411). Work-leisure dichotomy may have originated during the post-industrial revolution, when time became trifurcated between work, rest and leisure in order to maximize industrial output. While this definition addresses work in relation to leisure, it does not mention anything regarding the economic implications of leisure, which is crucial in the modern world. Max Kaplan’s (1975) definition is more comprehensive and includes the monetary dimensions too; “Leisure” according to this definition, “consists of relatively self-determined activity-experience that falls into one's economically free-time roles, that is seen as leisure by participants, that is psychologically pleasant in anticipation and recollection, that potentially covers the whole range of commitment and intensity, that contains characteristic norms and constraints, and that provides opportunities for recreation, personal growth and service to others” (p. 26). If leisure is deduced as any activity or non-activity, chosen by the individual as a way of spending free-time that is available after dispensing off one’s duties, and is chosen by the individual’s own volition without monetary considerations, then work can be considered as time-bound, measurable productivity that the individual is capable of, which earn a monetary consideration, with which the individual sustains him/herself. Emelike (2014) in an article “Taking Leisure Seriously” in the Business Day comments that, “A rewarding leisure life is the biggest predictor of one’s overall quality of life. It provides the balance you need to better handle non-leisure activities and enhances resilience and life satisfaction. Over a lifetime, one will spend more time at leisure than sleeping or working” (p. 1). This again points to the inter-dependant nature of work and leisure. Modern concepts of leisure have been commodified greatly, to the extent that leisure no longer merely means activity or non-activity which is chosen of free-will during free-time. Leisure has become almost synonymous with consumption of leisure products. Two major events influenced changes in western societies and their ideas of work and leisure. The first is the Reformation movement and the Protestant work-ethic put forth by the reformist Martin Luther in 1517 (Veal 2012, p. 11) and the industrial revolution and the spread of capitalism that has consequently led to commodification leisure. Born in protest to the corrupt practices of the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation principles emphasized work and only working towards discharging one’s earthly duties as the way to salvation. This had deep and long-standing impacts on the concepts of work-leisure in much of Europe and the west. “Not leisure and enjoyment, but only activity serves to increase the glory of God . . . Waste of time is thus the first and in principle the deadliest of sins. Loss of time through sociability idle talk, luxury, even more sleep than is necessary for health. . . is worthy of absolute moral condemnation. (Weber, 1930, p. 157). In effect, leisure in the eyes of the puritans came to be considered wasteful and immoral. Industrialization increased production rates and hence required a disciplined work force with clock-work precision to keep the production units going at optimum levels. While work, industry and thriftiness were praised as pathways to attaining salvation, “leisure as in idleness, free time, sociability and 'unproductive' activity, took on connotations of evil and guilt” (Veal 2012, p. 12). Omay and Gur (2011) critically point out that during “the old ages when time was uncontrolled time was perceived as a whole so, there was no leisure or working time. So, working time was not separated from other things” (p. 2). Furthermore, the concept of working at time-bound discipline was quite new to Europe and much of the world and hence it had to be inculcated; this was possible only by demeaning leisure. Veal (2012) cites Edward Thompson to point out that the inculcation of “new time sense” has taken place through various means, “the use of bells, time keepers, the threat of unemployment, schooling, religion, supervision of labour, fines, the division of labour, wider money incentives, and the suppression of fairs and certain sports” (p. 12). Capitalism intensified this force of work-time discipline. In Australia too as in other parts of the world, the underlying ideology of capitalism has become so evident that it has gained “the power to control and to dominate the life cycle” and pertinently, “time has become a domination factor of Capitalism” (Omay and Gur 2011, p. 1). Initially capitalism controlled time and demanded disciplined work-time to measure productivity; then gradually, the focus on materialism and profit-making which is inherent to the principle has now made it mandatory to promote large-scale consumption, to help sustain profitable capitalism. Hence, not only should one work during the work hours, but also play the role of an active consumer during non-work hours in order to sustain economy.  As the result, many things associated with leisure, even feelings like happiness or excitement are packaged as products; like for example, you go to Disneyland and become and re-experience the wonderment of childhood; or you own the latest i5 cell phone to feel at the top of the world. Here the experience of being Disneyland is marketed not merely as a leisure activity – it is marketed as a passport of experiencing the ‘wonderment of childhood’; owning a i5 cell phone is not merely to communicate, it is a status symbol – similar to leisure becoming a symbol of nobility in the middle ages, now, leisure products have become commodities that are to be consumed, in order to enjoy leisure. One may argue that it is still possible to reject the products of consumption couched in the name of leisure; but the advancement in marketing and packaging methods adopted by the interested stake-holders lure prospective individuals and subtly force them to consume such products of leisure with the promise of enjoyment, for a justifiable sum, of course. What one does not realize here is that, while holidays and all the benefits of leisure can still be enjoyed at little or no costs, such options fail to attract us amidst the hue and cry of promoted products of leisure. To illustrate with an example, a long week-end can be spent in a simple family trip to a nearby beach-resort, with a few close friends; alternatively, one can devote a part of the time to fund-raising activities. But such activities are not commonly seen promoted as glamourous or glitzy in any social media; an exciting holiday must involve a trip abroad to an exotic place, or a grand party with music and dance or the likes of it. Over a period of time, capitalist interests have skilfully established associations between consumption of leisure and the social culture, subtly and carefully affecting choices as holiday destinations, choosing types of shopping, or even in the choice of watching programmes on the TV. “It means that, individuals who take a part in the production are led to consumption, which, in turn, is another duty of the individuals to keep the economic system alive” (Omay and Gur 2011, p. 1). Unconsciously then, argues Omay and Gur (2011), even in leisure, one continues to “work for the economic system” the capitalist system in other words, by not only producing in work, but by consuming products at leisure as well (p. 1). Some sections of the society may argue that there are economic benefits to be reaped from this trend. However, it cannot be denied that rampant commercialization has largely altered the meanings of leisure by commodifying all associated things. Thus people have to earn more by working longer and harder hours in order to earn leisure (as promoted by capitalist forces). Work may enable people to possess the purchasing power of leisure, but the idea of ‘leisure’ itself has shifted and has become “associated with a materialistic style of life, and a means of social control” (Juniu 2000, pp. 70-1). ‘Consumerism’ according to Hemmingway (1996, cited in Juniu 2000, p. 71) is a reflection of modernization in which leisure produces ‘culture consumption’ rather than ‘culture creation’. Leisure is supposed to be intrinsically motivating, meaning it is an end in itself, requiring no other incentive to enjoy it; however, at present, leisure has become “a means to an end, making use of both subjects and objects” (Juniu 2000, p. 71). It is a trap because, the economic principles behind commodification demands constant consumption with increased value-additions to take place to sustain itself and profit from it, and constant consumption requires increasing value payments which has to be funded through earnings from increased work. This in turn may render one with little or no time for leisure, ironically; this is why it may be more apt to state that “there is more work with little leisure” rather than, “without work there can be no leisure”. As Juniu (2000) rightly points out, consciously deciding to ‘downshift’ one’s life-style and “voluntary simplicity” can “help regain the essence of leisure” (p. 71). This does not mean sacrificing work or spending; this means that one has to prioritize one’s preferences and consciously choose to understand what leisure means to oneself and focus the quality rather than quantity of experience or enjoyment of leisure. In sum, the concept of work-leisure relationship has undergone great changes over the period of time. While in prehistoric times there wasn’t clear demarcation of time between work and leisure, notions of a relationship between the two may have originated during historic times with the development of nation-states. In modern times however, the Protestant work ethic and industrial capitalism have transformed the relationship between work and leisure. Now it can be said that “there is more work with little leisure” instead of “without work there is no leisure”. The discussion has helped understand the ways in which capitalism works to commodify things and the necessity to simplify lives by reducing consumption and the importance of prioritizing quality of experiences rather than the quantity. References Aboriginal Heritage 2014, Available from ‹http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/history/history/› Emelike, Obinna 2014, Taking Leisure Seriously in Business Day 19 October, 2014. Available from ‹http://businessdayonline.com/2014/10/taking-leisure-seriously/#.VEsmF_mUeAU› Gist, N. P & Fava, S. F. 1964, Urban Society. New York, Crowell, p. 411. Harper, Douglas 2014, Leisure in Online Etymology Dictionary. Available from ‹http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=leisure› Juniu, Susana 2000, Downshifting: Regaining the Essence of Leisure in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 32, (1), Pp. 69-73. Kaplan, Max 1975, Leisure: Theory and Practice. New York, John Wiley, p. 26. Nomads of the Rainforest 1984, PBS Nova. Available from ‹https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn8gk67s6YM› Omay, Umut and Gur, Gultuvin Esma 2011, The Leisure Time Illusion: A Theoretical Analysis for the Reciprocal Connection Between Work and Leisure Time. Online article Available from ‹http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ogunvpaper.pdf› Veal, A. J. 2012, Australian Leisure. Fourth Edition. ISBN 9781442541474. Weber, M 1930 (1976), The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen & Unwin. Read More