Having grown up in the 50's and 60's, I got the message from our culture that as we approached the 21st century, we could look forward to more leisure time and a better Iifestyle as the miracle of technology made work easier and shorter. The dull and mundane aspects of work would be replaced by machines, and the humans who formerly did the tasks could then be freed up to do more important and meaningful things with their time both in their personal lives and at work. 

Over the last several decades, it has become clear that this message is a fantasy and a myth. No one I know is living a life in concert with this image. People seem to be working longer and harder. Their jobs are more and more demanding, and the pressure to do more and more seems to be increasing infinitely. At the end of the day people are spent from working hard, so the evening is about grabbing a bite to eat, vegging in front of the television, and going to sleep only to awake the next morning to do it all over again. 

Today I do not know people who work and truly have leisure time—large quantities of focused time for deeper spiritual pursuits, the arts, friends, family and community. When people are not working at jobs, they are working at home, running errands, chauffeuring children to and from activities, finding a way to put dinner on the table, pay bills and keep things together as the demands of their schedules threaten to spin out of control.

How did this way of life come to be? What happened to the early 20th century dream of the 20-hour work week? When did work change from something we did to meet our physical needs so that our primary focus was on truly human pursuits (raising children, spiritual practice, creative arts and community building) to an all-encompassing, yet unconscious religion?

In order to gain insight into these questions, I spoke with historian Benjamin Hunnicutt, Professor of Leisure Studies at the University of Iowa, and community activist Barbara Brandt, founder of the Shorter Work-Time Group in Somerville, Massachusetts.

The Loss of Leisure and the Secularization of Work  

Over the past 100 years a series of political and economic factors have dramatically changed the way we live and work. We actually work more, not less, and no longer experience leisure as it existed 100 years ago. 

In the 19th century, work was part of traditional religions and part and parcel of a larger view of life. Work was important, but had a subservient place in a larger view of the world. People referred to their vocation, which meant their spiritual Calling. Work was something that God called you to do. 

In the 20th century, theology was dispensed with and work became a central focus without a larger vision. Previously, work existed to provide for necessities. Necessities were finite. People thought you could acquire enough, and move on to something better, like what was formerly known as leisure. Overall, work existed to serve larger human purposes outside of work itself, and outside of the 
marketplace and consumerism. 

Benjamin Hunnicutt notes that the evaluation of our modern concept of work subordinated the former meaning and experience of leisure. "Leisure changed from a place where you experienced your humanity to a time to lose your humanity. Rather than a time to be with family and a time to do things important in and of themselves, like community, spiritual and artistic pursuits, leisure became a time to be fully passive. Now, people watch sporting events and consume. Leisure is seen as down time, a time to cease being human rather than a time to be. fully human. Today, leisure is as foreign to us as is time outside of the marketplace." 

Barbara Brandt cited a series of political and economic factors that have contributed to the change in our quality of life and the way we live. "This change has not necessarily been for the better." 

The decline of the labor movement in the 1960's and 1970's contributed to a decline in the value of wages. With a weakened labor movement and anti-labor legislation, no one was looking out for the best interests of the American worker. Also, the active participation of women in the workplace 
contributed to the decline in the value of wages. Women were paid less than men for their work. 

Since the 1970's, families have been putting more hours into the paid workplace than in the 50's or 60's to compensate for the drop in the value of wages. Brandt noted that 70% of  families have both partners in the paid workplace. If two parents must work to assure the family survives, who has time for the children? 

Finally, without protection for paid workers, the composition of the workforce has changed. The corporate trend of downsizing to increase profits has created two large categories of workers: more workers working longer hours and more contract or temporary workers (known as contingent workers). Contingent workers don't want to be trapped in corporate jobs. They escape this trap, but lack 
employee benefits and job security. Brandt noted that 30% of the workforce is contingent and that a lot of people are working several part-time jobs adding up to more than 40 hours per week with no benefits. Those left behind after downsizing work more hours for the same pay to make up for the cuts.

As a result of all of the above, "people are working terrible schedules and going crazy. Those hit hardest are families with both parents in the workplace, lower class families (people of color and immigrants), and white collar professionals (like computer people) who are expected to do more work for the same pay." 

Addicted to Work  

Brandt also acknowledges that it is hard for people to say "no" to work as it is practiced, "if one person tries to work out special arrangements, other employees are resentful and let it be known that these people are slacking. We live in an addictive culture, so it is hard to say 'no.' We have to say 'yes' to be addicted to consumption. There is a feeling that 'I am an American, so I can do anything.' Realistically, people don't know how to set limits and boundaries. This is exacerbated by the New Age belief that you can create your own reality. We've been trained culturally to feel guilty if we say 'no' to our paid work.

Downsizing has created speed ups (a faster pace of work and life), longer hours or both. Because this country is economically addicted, we think anything that enables people to make money is good. Therefore, if an employer has to overwork you to make a profit, that is considered valid because we look at the money, not at people's quality of life. Brandt notes that this pattern is not limited only to the for-profit sector of the economy. "The pattern holds in a lot of government jobs and non-profits. Non-profits are some of the worst offenders. People trying to save the world have a hard time saying 'no.'" 

Trading "Luxuries" for Leisure 

The advertising industry colludes with organizations to promote work addiction. We are told that because we work twelve-hour days, we should buy the next material possession, imbued with an image or meaning. After all, when we work so hard, we deserve it. 

Our mythology is that we are better off because we have all this material stuff and we don't have to work as much. Not true, says Brandt. "We have a lot of stuff and we have to spend a lot of time creating and taking care of it. A lot of it we don't really need. Our spiritual, creative and imaginative lives are impoverished.

Hunnicutt traces the origins of how we have traded luxuries for leisure to three different sources: 

1. The emergence of commercialism in the 1920's. In his book Work Without End (Temple Press), Hunnicutt links consumerism with "the threat of leisure." The beginning of consumerism and the practice of advertising designed to generate consumerism is linked directly to this "threat." Henry Ford asked "How can we compete with leisure?" People valued their leisure time and wanted to work only as much as was necessary to enjoy it. 
2. Politics and how Roosevelt responded to the Great Depression. As a political maneuver to get out of the Great Depression, Roosevelt endorsed "the new gospel of consumption." He made it federal policy and came up with the strategy of "jobs, jobs, jobs." Roosevelt defined the government's primary 
domestic responsibility as finding new work for people to do. Prior to this time, people would have said, "Go away business and government. We'd rather have our time to do the things we are working for." 
3. A change in values and a change in our culture. Hunnicutt feels these changes have to do with the challenges we are facing as humanity in the 20th century. If you have gotten to the place where your needs are being met, then what? The changes ask us essentially religious questions, questions that in a secular society we would rather not think about. 

Work As Our Cultural Religion 

Work in the 20th century comes close to answering the three basic questions that under gird the world's religions: Who am I? (a question of identity); Where am I going? (a question of destiny, meaning or purpose); How do I get out of the mess that I'm in, meaning the human condition? (a question of salvation). 

"A lot of people profess not to have religions, but work fits the criteria for finding these answer in our culture," acknowledges Hunnicutt. "If there is a common morality in this culture, it is work. If you work hard, all your sins are forgiven. Work provides a high moral ground, allowing comments like, I work hard for my money. If people are starving, too bad for them.'" 

Hunnicutt believes it is unconscious in our culture how work has replaced traditional religions. "Some people still go to houses of worship including Catholics and Jews. However, work becomes a drug that replaces the struggles of prior generations around deeper questions: We're born from infinity and we'll go back to infinity—what does it mean? Work is the placebo, the unexamined answer. We don't have to think about the deeper things. 

There is a cultural attitude. If I work hard, I get my meaning. "Work is a passive religion. We don't think about it, but it soothes us into spiritual paralysis where we don't have to worry about these things." 

Saying No To Work 

The gulf between our expectations of what work should provide for us and what we actually find is growing. The popularity of the cartoon "Dilbert" is evidence that this is so. Hunnicutt believes the gulf will continue to grow. "A lot of stress will be put on work and how it eats us. How much of our humanity will we be willing to sacrifice on this altar?" 

Barbara Brandt founded the Shorter Work-Time Group in 1988 to encourage people to say no to overwork, to give people the courage to set boundaries and look at their quality of life. 

"People have a right to push for better quality of life and say no to work. If our values and political structures were different, we could have gone in a direction similar to Europe. There people work 30-35 hour weeks with 5-6 week vacations, and contemplate the idea of redoing work further because of unemployment." 

"In the U.S., when we meet someone at a party we ask them, ' What do you do?' meaning what is their paid work. In Europe this kind of exchange is considered discourteous. People talk about their hobbies." 

Can Leisure Be Restored? 

While it is a common experience, and in some circles a conscious experience that we are working ourselves to death, can we actually change our culture and restore the place of leisure in our lives? While there are subcultures trying to find a way to bring balance into life, including voluntary 
simplicity, becoming downwardly mobile, self-employment, and at-home-dad parenting, Hunnicutt is concerned that work has such a hold on our culture that it would take a revolution for leisure to be reinstated. "The way we spend our days, the way art and music are practiced, entertainment—these and many other things would have to change in fundamental ways. These kinds of changes in history are rare. To challenge the dominant cultural values would be truly revolutionary." 

While having a healthier cultural backdrop will certainly help tremendously, many decisions about work and quality of life are very personal and can be addressed even in small ways by each of us in our daily lives. We do need to come together with others who share our values and empower one another to say no to excess consumerism, overwork, and treadmill existence. Maybe it's time for a revolution. 

____________________

Linda Marks, MSM, has practiced heart-centered, psychospiritual body-centered psychotherapy for sixteen years.  She is founder of the Institute for Emotional-Kinesthetic Psychotherapy in Newton, and author of LIVING WITH VISION: RECLAIMING THE POWER OF THE HEART (Knowledge Systems, 1988).  She has taught and spoken nationally and internationally, and has been a leader in the emerging field of somatic psychology.  She lives in Newton, MA with her four year old son, Alexander.  Linda's new book EMBODYING THE SOUL: DANCING INTO LIFE is due for release in the spring of 2001.  You can contact her at (617)965-7846 or LSMHEART@aol.com

Click Here For Special Profile

This article was originally published in Spirit of Change Magazine—not to be confused with OfSpirit.com Holistic "Internet" Magazine & Resource. We thank Spirit of Change, New England's Premiere Holistic "Print" magazine, for allowing us to give new life to this article and share it with OfSpirit.com visitors for education, entertainment and empowerment.
Click here for more information on Spirit of Change.

Resources