Work

Whether work should be placed among the causes of happiness or among the causes of unhappiness may perhaps be regarded as a doubtful question. There is certainly much work which is exceedingly irksome, and an excess of work is always very painful. I think, however, that, provided work is not excessive in amount, even the dullest work is to most people less painful than idleness. There are in work all grades, from mere relief of tedium up to the profoundest delights, according to the nature of the work and the abilities of the worker. Most of the work that most people have to do is not in itself interesting, but even such work has certain great advantages. To begin with, it fills a good many hours of the day without the need of deciding what one shall do. Most people, when they are left free to fill their own time according to their own choice, are at a loss to think of anything sufficiently pleasant to be worth doing. And whatever they decide on, they are troubled by the feeling that something else would have been pleasanter. To be able to fill leisure intelligently is the last product of civilization, and at present very few people have reached this level. Moreover, the exercise of choice is in itself tiresome. Except to people with unusual initiative it is positively agreeable to be told what to do at each hour of the day, provided the orders are not too unpleasant. Most of the idle rich suffer unspeakable boredom as the price of their freedom from drudgery. At times they may find relief by hunting big game in Africa, or by flying round the world, but the number of such sensations is limited, especially after youth is past. Accordingly, the more intelligent rich men work nearly as hard as if they were poor, while rich women for the most part keep themselves busy with innumerable trifles of whose earth-shaking importance they are firmly persuaded.

Whether work causes happiness or unhappiness is perhaps open to question. Certainly, much work is extremely unpleasant, and too much work is always very painful. But I think even the dullest work is less painful than idleness for most people, provided there is not too much. Work offers everything from simple relief from boredom to the deepest pleasures, depending on the work and the worker’s abilities. Most of the work most people have to do is not interesting in itself. But even uninteresting work has some major advantages. To begin with, work fills many hours of the day without requiring people to decide what to do. Most people struggle to think of anything enjoyable enough to be worth doing when left to fill their own time. And whatever they choose, they worry that something else would have been more enjoyable. Knowing how to use leisure intelligently is civilization’s final achievement, and very few people have reached that level yet. Besides, making choices is itself tiring. Except for people with unusual initiative, being told what to do at each hour of the day is positively pleasant. That is, provided the instructions are not too unpleasant. Most of the idle rich suffer unspeakable boredom as the price of their freedom from drudgery. At times, they may find relief by hunting big game in Africa or flying around the world. But there are only so many such thrills, especially once youth is past. So the more intelligent rich men work nearly as hard as if they were poor. Meanwhile, rich women mostly keep busy with countless trivial matters whose earth-shaking importance they firmly believe in.

Work, therefore, is desirable, first and foremost, as a preventive of boredom, for the boredom that a man feels when he is doing necessary though uninteresting work is as nothing in comparison with the boredom that he feels when he has nothing to do with his days. With this advantage of work another is associated, namely that it makes holidays much more delicious when they come. Provided a man does not have to work so hard as to impair his vigour, he is likely to find far more zest in his free time than an idle man could possibly find.

Work, therefore, is desirable above all because it prevents boredom. A man may feel bored doing necessary but uninteresting work. But that boredom is nothing compared with the boredom he feels when he has nothing to fill his days. Work has another related advantage: it makes holidays much more enjoyable when they arrive. As long as a man’s work does not drain his energy, he is likely to enjoy his free time far more than an idle man possibly could.

The second advantage of most paid work and of some unpaid work is that it gives chances of success and opportunities for ambition. In most work success is measured by income, and while our capitalistic society continues, this is inevitable. It is only where the best work is concerned that this measure ceases to be the natural one to apply. The desire that men feel to increase their income is quite as much a desire for success as for the extra comforts that a higher income can procure. However dull work may be, it becomes bearable if it is a means of building up a reputation, whether in the world at large or only in one’s own circle. Continuity of purpose is one of the most essential ingredients of happiness in the long run, and for most men this comes chiefly through their work. In this respect those women whose lives are occupied with house-work are much less fortunate than men, or than women who work outside the home. The domesticated wife does not receive wages, has no means of bettering herself, is taken for granted by her husband (who sees practically nothing of what she does), and is valued by him not for her house-work but for quite other qualities. Of course, this does not apply to those women who are sufficiently well-to-do to make beautiful houses and beautiful gardens and become the envy of their neighbours; but such women are comparatively few, and for the great majority house-work cannot bring as much satisfaction as work of other kinds brings to men and to professional women.

The second advantage of most paid work and some unpaid work is that it offers chances for success and ambition. In most work, success is measured by income. As long as our capitalist society continues, this measure is inevitable. Only for the best work does income stop being the natural measure of success. Men want to increase their income as much to achieve success as to gain the extra comforts money can buy. However dull work may be, it becomes bearable if it helps build a reputation. That reputation may extend to the wider world or only to one’s own circle. A lasting sense of purpose is one of the most essential ingredients of long-term happiness. For most men, that sense of purpose comes mainly through their work. In this respect, women whose lives are taken up with housework are much less fortunate than men or women working outside the home. A wife who stays at home receives no wages and has no way to improve her position. Her husband takes her for granted and sees almost nothing of what she does. He values her not for her housework but for quite different qualities. Of course, this does not apply to women wealthy enough to create beautiful homes and gardens that their neighbours envy. But such women are relatively few. For the great majority, housework cannot bring as much satisfaction as other kinds of work bring men and professional women.

The satisfaction of killing time and of affording some outlet, however modest, for ambition, belongs to most work, and is sufficient to make even a man whose work is dull happier on the average than a man who has no work at all. But when work is interesting, it is capable of giving satisfaction of a far higher order than mere relief from tedium. The kinds of work in which there is some interest may be arranged in a hierarchy. I shall begin with those which are only mildly interesting and end with those that are worthy to absorb the whole energies of a great man.

Most work offers the satisfaction of passing time and giving ambition some outlet, however modest. These benefits are enough to make even a man with dull work happier, on average, than a man without work. But when work is interesting, it can offer a much deeper satisfaction than simply relieving boredom. The kinds of work that offer some interest can be ranked. I shall begin with those that are only mildly interesting. I shall end with those worthy of absorbing all the energy of a great man.

Two chief elements make work interesting: first, the exercise of skill, and second, construction.

Two main things make work interesting: first, using skills, and second, building something.

Every man who has acquired some unusual skill enjoys exercising it until it has become a matter of course, or until he can no longer improve himself. This motive to activity begins in early childhood: a boy who can stand on his head becomes reluctant to stand on his feet. A great deal of work gives the same pleasure that is to be derived from games of skill. The work of a lawyer or a politician must contain in a more delectable form a great deal of the same pleasure that is to be derived from playing bridge. Here, of course, there is not only the exercise of skill but the outwitting of a skilled opponent. Even where this competitive element is absent, however, the performance of difficult feats is agreeable. A man who can do stunts in an aeroplane finds the pleasure so great that for the sake of it he is willing to risk his life. I imagine that an able surgeon, in spite of the painful circumstances in which his work is done, derives satisfaction from the exquisite precision of his operations. The same kind of pleasure, though in a less intense form, is to be derived from a great deal of work of a humbler kind. I have even heard of plumbers who enjoyed their work, though I have never had the good fortune to meet one. All skilled work can be pleasurable, provided the skill required is either variable or capable of indefinite improvement. If these conditions are absent, it will cease to be interesting when a man has acquired his maximum skill. A man who runs three-mile races will cease to find pleasure in this occupation when he passes the age at which he can beat his own previous record. Fortunately there is a very considerable amount of work in which new circumstances call for new skill and a man can go on improving, at any rate until he has reached middle age. In some kinds of skilled work, such as politics, for example, it seems that men are at their best between sixty and seventy, the reason being that in such occupations a wide experience of other men is essential. For this reason successful politicians are apt to be happier at the age of seventy than any other men of equal age. Their only competitors in this respect are the men who are the heads of big businesses.

Every man who has learned an unusual skill enjoys using it until it becomes routine or he can no longer improve. This drive to act begins in early childhood. A boy who can stand on his head becomes reluctant to stand on his feet. Much work offers the same pleasure as games of skill. A lawyer’s or politician’s work must offer much of the pleasure of playing bridge, but in an even more enjoyable form. The pleasure comes not only from using skill but also from outwitting a skilled opponent. Even without competition, however, accomplishing difficult tasks is enjoyable. A man who can perform stunts in an airplane enjoys them so much that he willingly risks his life. I imagine a skilled surgeon takes satisfaction in the extreme precision of his operations, despite the painful circumstances surrounding his work. Much humbler work offers the same kind of pleasure, though less intensely. I have even heard of plumbers who enjoyed their work, though I have never had the good fortune to meet one. All skilled work can be enjoyable, provided the skills needed either vary or allow endless improvement. Without these conditions, the work will lose its interest once a man has become as skilled as he can. A man who runs three-mile races will stop enjoying them once he is too old to beat his previous record. Fortunately, a great deal of work presents new situations that call for new skills. In such work, a man can keep improving, at least until middle age. In some kinds of skilled work, such as politics, men seem to be at their best between sixty and seventy. The reason is that these occupations require extensive experience of other people. For this reason, successful politicians tend to be happier at seventy than any other men of the same age. Their only rivals in happiness are men who lead big businesses.

There is, however, another element possessed by the best work, which is even more important as a source of happiness than is the exercise of skill. This is the element of constructiveness. In some work, though by no means in most, something is built up which remains as a monument when the work is completed. We may distinguish construction from destruction by the following criterion. In construction the initial state of affairs is comparatively haphazard, while the final state of affairs embodies a purpose; in destruction the reverse is the case: the initial state of affairs embodies a purpose, while the final state of affairs is haphazard, that is to say, all that is intended by the destroyer is to produce a state of affairs which does not embody a certain purpose. This criterion applies in the most literal and obvious case, namely the construction and destruction of buildings. In constructing a building a previously made plan is carried out, whereas in destroying it no one decides exactly how the materials are to lie when the demolition is complete. Destruction is of course necessary very often as a preliminary to subsequent construction; in that case it is part of a whole which is constructive. But not infrequently a man will engage in activities of which the purpose is destructive without regard to any construction that may come after. Frequently he will conceal this from himself by the belief that he is only sweeping away in order to build afresh, but it is generally possible to unmask this pretence, when it is a pretence, by asking him what the subsequent construction is to be. On this subject it will be found that he will speak vaguely and without enthusiasm, whereas on the preliminary destruction he has spoken precisely and with zest. This applies to not a few revolutionaries and militarists and other apostles of violence. They are actuated, usually without their own knowledge, by hatred; the destruction of what they hate is their real purpose, and they are comparatively indifferent to the question what is to come after it. Now I cannot deny that in the work of destruction as in the work of construction there may be joy. It is a fiercer joy, perhaps at moments more intense, but it is less profoundly satisfying, since the result is one in which little satisfaction is to be found. You kill your enemy, and when he is dead your occupation is gone, and the satisfaction that you derive from victory quickly fades. The work of construction, on the other hand, when completed, is delightful to contemplate, and moreover is never so fully completed that there is nothing further to do about it. The most satisfactory purposes are those that lead on indefinitely from one success to another without ever coming to a dead end; and in this respect it will be found that construction is a greater source of happiness than destruction. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that those who find satisfaction in construction find in it greater satisfaction than the lovers of destruction can find in destruction, for if once you have become filled with hate you will not easily derive from construction the pleasure which another man would derive from it.

However, the best work has another quality that matters even more for happiness than using your skills. That quality is constructiveness. Some work, though by no means most, builds something that remains as a lasting achievement after the work is finished. We can distinguish construction from destruction in the following way. In construction, the starting point is fairly random, while the finished result reflects a purpose. In destruction, the reverse is true. The starting point reflects a purpose, while the final result is random. In other words, the destroyer intends only to produce a result that no longer serves a particular purpose. This distinction applies most literally and obviously to putting up buildings and tearing them down. When a building goes up, a plan made beforehand is carried out. But when a building is demolished, no one decides exactly where the materials should lie afterward. Of course, destruction is very often necessary before construction can begin. In such cases, destruction forms part of an overall constructive effort. But people quite often pursue destructive activities without considering anything they might build afterward. They frequently hide their destructive purpose from themselves by believing they are only clearing the way to build something new. When this belief is a pretense, we can generally expose it by asking what they intend to build afterward. They will speak vaguely and without enthusiasm about what they plan to build. Yet they have spoken precisely and eagerly about the destruction that comes first. This applies to quite a few revolutionaries, militarists, and other advocates of violence. Hatred drives them, usually without their knowing it. Their real purpose is to destroy what they hate. They care comparatively little about what will come afterward. Now, I cannot deny that destruction, like construction, may bring joy. The joy of destruction is fiercer, and perhaps at times more intense. But it is less deeply satisfying, because the result offers little satisfaction. You kill your enemy, and once your enemy is dead, you have nothing left to do. The satisfaction of victory quickly fades. Constructive work, on the other hand, is a pleasure to look at when finished. Moreover, constructive work is never so completely finished that nothing remains to be done. The most satisfying goals lead endlessly from one success to another, without ever reaching a dead end. In this respect, construction is a greater source of happiness than destruction. Perhaps it would be more accurate to put the comparison this way. Those who enjoy construction find greater satisfaction in it than lovers of destruction can find in destruction. For once you are filled with hate, you will not easily get the pleasure from construction that someone else would.

At the same time few things are so likely to cure the habit of hatred as the opportunity to do constructive work of an important kind.

At the same time, few things can break the habit of hatred as effectively as a chance to do important, constructive work.

The satisfaction to be derived from success in a great constructive enterprise is one of the most massive that life has to offer, although unfortunately in its highest forms it is only open to men of exceptional ability. Nothing can rob a man of the happiness of successful achievement in an important piece of work, unless it be the proof that after all his work was bad. There are many forms of such satisfaction. The man who by a scheme of irrigation has caused the wilderness to blossom like the rose enjoys it in one of its most tangible forms. The creation of an organization may be a work of supreme importance. So is the work of those few statesmen who have devoted their lives to producing order out of chaos, of whom Lenin is the supreme type in our day. The most obvious examples are artists and men of science. Shakespeare says of his verse: “So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, so long lives this.” And it cannot be doubted that the thought consoled him for misfortune. In his sonnets he maintains that the thought of his friend reconciled him to life, but I cannot help suspecting that the sonnets he wrote to his friend were even more effective for this purpose than the friend himself. Great artists and great men of science do work which is in itself delightful; while they are doing it, it secures them the respect of those whose respect is worth having, which gives them the most fundamental kind of power, namely power over men’s thoughts and feelings. They have also the most solid reasons for thinking well of themselves. This combination of fortunate circumstances ought, one would think, to be enough to make any man happy. Nevertheless it is not so. Michael Angelo, for example, was a profoundly unhappy man and maintained (not, I am sure, with truth) that he would not have troubled to produce works of art if he had not had to pay the debts of his impecunious relations. The power to produce great art is very often, though by no means always, associated with a temperamental unhappiness, so great that but for the joy which the artist derives from his work he would be driven to suicide. We cannot therefore maintain that even the greatest work must make a man happy; we can only maintain that it must make him less unhappy. Men of science, however, are far less often temperamentally unhappy than artists are, and in the main the men who do great work in science are happy men, whose happiness is derived primarily from their work.

Success in a major constructive project brings one of the deepest satisfactions life can offer. Unfortunately, its highest forms are open only to men of exceptional ability. Nothing can take away a man’s happiness in successfully completing important work, except proof that his work was bad after all. This satisfaction takes many forms. A man whose irrigation scheme has made the wilderness bloom like a rose enjoys a particularly tangible form of it. Creating an organization may be work of the greatest importance. So is the work of those few statesmen who have devoted their lives to bringing order out of chaos. Lenin is the foremost example in our day. The most obvious examples are artists and scientists. Shakespeare says of his verse: “So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, so long lives this.” There can be no doubt that this thought comforted him in misfortune. In his sonnets, he says that thinking of his friend reconciled him to life. But I cannot help suspecting that writing the sonnets to his friend helped him even more than the friend himself. Great artists and great scientists do work that is enjoyable in itself. While they work, their work earns them the respect of people whose respect is worth having. That respect gives them the most fundamental kind of power: power over people’s thoughts and feelings. They also have the strongest reasons to think well of themselves. One would think this combination of fortunate circumstances ought to make any man happy. Yet it does not. Michael Angelo, for example, was profoundly unhappy. He claimed he would not have bothered making art if he had not needed to pay his penniless relatives’ debts. I am sure this claim was untrue. The ability to create great art is very often, though by no means always, linked to an unhappy temperament. This unhappiness can be so great that, without the joy of working, the artist would be driven to suicide. So we cannot claim that even the greatest work must make a man happy. We can only claim that such work must make him less unhappy. Scientists, however, are far less often unhappy by temperament than artists. On the whole, men who do great scientific work are happy, and their happiness comes mainly from their work.

One of the causes of unhappiness among intellectuals in the present day is that so many of them, especially those whose skill is literary, find no opportunity for the independent exercise of their talents, but have to hire themselves out to rich corporations directed by Philistines, who insist upon their producing what they themselves regard as pernicious nonsense. If you were to inquire among journalists either in England or America whether they believed in the policy of the newspaper for which they worked, you would find, I believe, that only a small minority do so; the rest, for the sake of a livelihood, prostitute their skill to purposes which they believe to be harmful. Such work cannot bring any real satisfaction, and in the course of reconciling himself to the doing of it a man has to make himself so cynical that he can no longer derive whole-hearted satisfaction from anything whatever. I cannot condemn men who undertake work of this sort, since starvation is too serious an alternative, but I think that where it is possible to do work that is satisfactory to a man’s constructive impulses without entirely starving, he will be well advised from the point of view of his own happiness if he chooses it in preference to work much more highly paid but not seeming to him worth doing on its own account. Without self-respect genuine happiness is scarcely possible. And the man who is ashamed of his work can hardly achieve self-respect.

One cause of unhappiness among intellectuals today is that so many have no chance to use their talents independently. This is especially true of those with literary skills. Instead, they must work for wealthy corporations run by people with no appreciation for intellectual or artistic work. These employers insist that the intellectuals produce what the intellectuals themselves consider harmful nonsense. Suppose you asked journalists in England or America whether they believed in their newspaper’s policies. I believe you would find that only a small minority do. The rest, to earn a living, sell their skills for purposes they believe are harmful. Such work cannot bring any real satisfaction. To accept doing such work, a person must become so cynical that nothing can offer wholehearted satisfaction anymore. I cannot condemn people who take on work of this kind, since starvation is too serious an alternative. But sometimes people can do work that satisfies their urge to create or build something without quite starving. When that choice is possible, I think they would be wise, for their own happiness, to choose such work. They should prefer it to much better-paid work that they do not consider worth doing for its own sake. Without self-respect, genuine happiness is hardly possible. And someone ashamed of their work can hardly achieve self-respect.

The satisfaction of constructive work, though it may, as things are, be the privilege of a minority, can nevertheless be the privilege of a quite large minority. Any man who is his own master in his work can feel it; so can any man whose work appears to him useful and requires considerable skill. The production of satisfactory children is a difficult constructive work capable of affording profound satisfaction. Any woman who has achieved this can feel that as a result of her labour the world contains something of value which it would not otherwise contain.

The satisfaction of constructive work may, as things stand, be available only to a minority. Still, that minority can be quite large. Any man who controls his own work can feel this satisfaction. So can any man whose work seems useful to him and requires considerable skill. Raising children who turn out well is difficult, constructive work that can bring deep satisfaction. Any woman who has succeeded in raising such children can feel she has added something valuable to the world. Without her efforts, the world would not contain that value.

Human beings differ profoundly in regard to the tendency to regard their lives as a whole. To some men it is natural to do so, and essential to happiness to be able to do so with some satisfaction. To others life is a series of detached incidents without directed movement and without unity. I think the former sort are more likely to achieve happiness than the latter, since they will gradually build up those circumstances from which they can derive contentment and self-respect, whereas the others will be blown about by the winds of circumstance now this way, now that, without ever arriving at any haven. The habit of viewing life as a whole is an essential part both of wisdom and of true morality, and is one of the things which ought to be encouraged in education. Consistent purpose is not enough to make life happy, but it is an almost indispensable condition of a happy life. And consistent purpose embodies itself mainly in work.

People differ greatly in how naturally they see their lives as a whole. For some, this view comes naturally. To be happy, they need to feel some satisfaction with their lives as a whole. For others, life is a series of separate events with no direction or unity. I think the first group is more likely to find happiness than the second. People in the first group will gradually build a life that gives them contentment and self-respect. Those in the second group, however, will be blown around by circumstances, never reaching a safe harbor. The habit of seeing life as a whole is essential to both wisdom and true morality. Education should encourage this habit. A steady purpose is not enough to make life happy, but a happy life is almost impossible without one. And a steady purpose finds its main expression in work.