WORK AS VOCATION, TOIL AS IN LOVE, PURSUIT AS IN MEANING
|
Much of our daily time is spent at work. Is it possible to derive genuine enjoyment from our labor, or is that simply a romanticized ideal?
In a “Question Concerning Technology,” Heidegger argues that technology is a “mode of revealing. Technology comes to presence in the realm where revealing and concealment take place where aletheia, truth, happens.” For Heidegger, technology is not simply the tools humans invent, build, and exploit but rather the kind of reasoning that defines being for modern man. In removing oneself from the incessant buzzing of everyday life, one realizes the truth in Heidegger’s thinking. Technology is not only omnipresent, but it also defines the way in which man lives. One place where the impact of technology on humans can be clearly observed is with work. Thanks to the proliferation of technology which has only accelerated in recent years, the nature of work and its meaning appears to be changing. But is this ostensible shift truly a significant departure from work’s inherent purpose? And if so, in what ways has it altered the human experience? Are men and women alike more concerned with the aspects of work that create celebrity? Happiness? The maximization of wealth? I argue that though the aspects related to work may change, the true nature regarding its value remains the same, to provide bounty.
Peasants Harvesting Potatoes During the Flood of the Rhine by Gustave Brion (1852)
At a basic level, work is an existential enterprise. A continuous fight to eke out an existence for oneself and one’s dependents. In other words, work primarily serves to place a roof over one’s head and food on one’s table. And, if one is so lucky to receive surplus to enjoy other benefits, ancillary yet prized, one has achieved some level of “success”. Here, work is seen as a necessity for some valued outcome, inextricably tied to the formula of gain. Taken one step further, the laborer is bound to the social contract embedded within a capitalistic society. The laborer’s input creates an output that is then rewarded by some outcome for the laborer. An outcome rooted in need that is satisfactory enough for him to continue this cycle in perpetuity. The work itself is not necessarily enjoyable, vocation has no use here, the job must simply be completed and support the cycle of materialism that supports it. This view holds some merit, especially in parts of our society today. Nevertheless, the idea that work is some closed circuit limited to the satiation of basic human needs does not capture the entire essence of work’s nature.
There exists something beyond this interchange that defines work better that captures its essence more fully revealing some fundamental truth of the human condition. And perhaps this truth is in flux affected by the state of technology.
In today’s increasingly digitized world, our lives are increasingly lived through a screen peering into an ostensible reality. In this world, society values those who cultivate a following, those who create an attractive persona worthy enough of continuous momentary glances at our devices. Celebrity appears to be the nexus by which man appears to ascribe value. So, is this way of life, this way of approaching work worthy of pursuit? According to Roman philosopher, Boethius, the answer to this question is quite simple: “But you are wrong if you think Fortune has changed towards you. Change is her normal behavior, her true nature. In the very act of changing she has preserved her own particular kind of constancy towards you. She was exactly the same when she was flattering you and luring you with enticements of a false kind of happiness. You have discovered the changing faces of the random goddess.” Celebrity, much like fortune, is inherently unstable. Here one moment and gone the next, evanescence is her true nature making her pursuit an imprudent way to approach work as it is not a reliable measure of fulfillment. In sum, fortune is fleeting, subject to the whims of chance.
Gare Saint-Lazare by Claude Money (1877)
Though technology’s grip is manifold and is changing the way in which man experiences his built environment, the nature of work remains unchanged. Its nature remains the same because work is defined and engendered by the human condition. As political beings, man is bound to his fellow man. This sense of duty is what ultimately props communities together, the understanding that together men can aggregate learning, experience, and capital to achieve unimaginable objectives if left to our own devices. This kind of communal human flourishing defines the concept of bounty and its relation to work. It is the ability to not only fulfill the societal need to form community but also to deliver value. How that value is ultimately determined is left for society to decide. For every society, of any age, conceives of itself in an ideal. For example, the newly founded republic of the United States of America, under the leadership of the framers, valued liberty above any other value. Tired of the oppression of Great Britain, they decided to rebel and risk their lives for their freedom. This ideal, however, is never in stasis. It is dynamic, the balance between the ideal and society’s reflection of itself are never in harmony, one always lags behind the other. Therefore, the value assigned to labor may change. As humans and as laborers, this disconnect causes discomfort because value is ostensibly subjective even if its true weight is objective. So, in an ever developing world where technology is increasing the rate at which society changes, perhaps the unequivocable conception of bounty supersedes the assigned value from society and instead derives its value from the intrinsic satisfaction one receives from fulfilling his duty.
