[iDC] Re: The Ethics of Leisure

[Ryan Griffis]

On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:52 PM, Michael Garcia Novak wrote:

> We live in a world that requires people to work for a living, at  
> least for the most of us. But even those who don´t need to work in  
> order to survive, seem to be happier once they find a cause,  
> something that they feel good at, gives purpose to their lives. I  
> think it is a human condition to have a natural  need to find  
> purpose and a sense of belonging in order understand the reason for  
> living. People who have the privilege to find that at their jobs  
> become passionate about it, that is when that blurring between work  
> and life takes place, and it tends to become an obsession because  
> it validates our existence!
>
> I think the world needs more people engaged with their work as a  
> means of self realization and positive contribution to the  
> development of our civilization!

i received your email offlist, not sure if that was intentional.
do you not find "purpose" and "belonging" in your family  
relationships? sure, the truism that we have to "work" to survive is  
hard to argue with. but one thing that Rojek and those he debates  
with point out, is that most of the "work" being done now has little  
to do with actual survival, yet remains predominantly alienating  
(i.e . not something to be "passionate" about). Your point that work  
becomes "an obsession because it validates out existence" is exactly  
what they are trying to grapple with among other things, and what i  
was trying to unpack with my question about internalized and  
externally materialized desire.
leisure is one place that "passion" can find an outlet where work  
often doesn't fit the bill - this is why Rojek calls for an ethics of  
leisure. if one's work is no longer directly tied to subsistence, but  
it remains alienating, what do you do? obviously, the best case  
scenario is people finding fulfilling leisure activities, but often  
it's various forms of self-destructive behavior instead. so there  
must be something else to the "human condition" as well as the need  
for purpose. Rojek cites the role of distraction in both work and  
leisure... perhaps as a substitute for what you're calling purpose.
your suggestion that the "world needs more people engaged with their  
work..." - sure, but are you suggesting that people working jobs  
they're not passionate about can just go out and get one?
Isn't this classic Marx?
i don't mean to come across argumentative here, so i apologize if i  
do... but your points raise some interesting concerns that i think  
can be unpacked.
best,
ryan