[iDC] Re: The Ethics of Leisure
Ryan Griffis
ryan.griffis at gmail.com
Tue Jan 9 17:35:37 EST 2007
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
More information about the iDC
mailing list