In "The Western Idea of Work and Leisure: Traditions, Transformations, and the Future," Charles Sylvester highlights the changing thought of work and freedom by pointing up the notions of Plato and Aristotle in Classical Greek thought, the Judeo Christian view, and the views of Locke and Marx. A normal objection might be made against all of these views in that they present an absolutist interpretation of work or freedom based on justifying the conditions that exist in the present and advocating that this is what the work-leisure discrepancy should be. These views don't recognize the relativist position that might be obtained through the anthropological study of the role of freedom in other societies with distinct public structures or cultures.
For example, both Plato and Aristotle reflect a view that supports the value of the freedom engaged in by members of the upper aristocracy in a hierarchical society, where the work of the many in case,granted support for an elite that did not have to work. Thus, Plato could by comparison the existence of this class by claiming that the best class of citizens were the "philosopher kings" and that freedom enabled individuals to perform the good life which was "knowing truth and living agreeing to true knowledge." Similarly, Aristotle argued that there was a divinely ordered hierarchy in which god was at the top, and those who were freed from work were the "finest human beings", who could "discover truth, govern wisely, and generate culture."
Maya Bay
However, one could undoubtedly object to this view on two major grounds. First, this view derives from a particular public context in which there was a very small elite class. So Plato and Aristotle are justifying the existence of this class and its capability to engage in intellectual philosophizing with no instrumental value. However, from the Judaeo-Christian perspective, which developed as a religion that helped to bring solace to the poor and everyday workers and which located a high value on work as part of God's plan, such philosophizing would be viewed as idleness. While some Christian thinkers, such as Aquinas, supported the ideal of the contemplative life (p. 26), the Protestant Reformation emphasized the virtue of work, and so did Locke, who saw the idleness of both the poor and rich as immoral. Secondly, one might object to this classical Greek view from an anthropological perspective in that it reflects and supports a particular hierarchical culture, which required a large number of individuals to support a small elite through their labor. However, as community changed and democratizing military undermined this elite and spread power, this view that freedom was the entitlement of this small class was no longer valid.
At the same time, one can object to Locke's discrepancy in the middle of effective labor, as all that is good, indispensable and the essence of personality, and leisure, unless designed to be recreative industry, which is immoral. Locke developed his view at a time when the wealthy asset owners were being challenged by a growing class of merchants and artisans, and his view was used to support the accumulation of property.
Maya Bay
But his view similarly is a product of his times, and does not recognize the way work and freedom can be integrated into everyday culture or the way freedom can become the essence of personality. For example, in customary cultures, such as the Aztec, Inca, and Maya, farmers have days of celebration and ritual when they are not working, and those times of freedom are what are seen as most good and indispensable in that culture. And today, many population see work as something they do to support themselves, while their customary source of identity comes from their freedom activities, which they engage in for self-fulfillment, learning, and fun.
Western Ideas of Work and leisure
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น