What Makes work Meaningful? - by Dr. Steve Palmquist

Philosophy Posted September 20, 2000
Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe

Summary of the August 29th meeting of the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe

Topic: "What Makes work Meaningful?"

Introduced by: Daniel Star

Moderated by: Steve Palmquist

Daniel began by handing out copies of the notes he had prepared on the topic. He then provided a synopsis of the notes. Daniel tabled four philosophical ideas on what makes work meaningful, namely:-

1. Pleasure Makes Work Meaningful (the Utilitarian Solution)
a. Where the total quantity of pleasure is what matters (Bentham), or
b. Where qualitative differences between pleasure are taken into account (Mill)

2. Subjective Attitude (the Existentialist Solution) (Camus)

3. Objective Material and Social Conditions (the Marxist Solution)

4. The Development of Virtues/Excellencies of Character that Constitute the Happiness / Flourishing (eudaimonia) of socially embedded individuals (the Neo-Aristotelian Solution) (MacIntyre)

Steve, in his role as moderator, asked for clarificatory questions before, in view of the large number in attendance (over 40), we begin discussing these or other related issues in small groups.

Clifford asked "What is Work?" to which Daniel responded that he felt that work had it's own social settings. Each of the four ideas treated work in different ways. He hoped that each group could come up with it's own definitions based upon which of the four ideas, if any, it felt best described work.

Steve sought to clarify the term Utilitarianism, which he felt may be confusing some people. Daniel described it as an idea whereby pleasure is of the greatest importance.

Kay asked if we were constrained to keep within the four ideas, to which Daniel replied that we were not.

One person asked whether an example quoted, of a Carpenter's work, was used because of the development of body and mind. Daniel replied no. He hoped that groups could come up with their own examples and definitions.

Kenneth expressed interest in the fourth option and asked what "Values" means. Daniel responded that the fourth option was not the only one that appealed to values or beliefs. The idea expressed in each option roots meaningful work, respectively, in a value or belief in:

1. Pleasure
2. Individual Choice
3. Objective Factors
4. Happiness or Flourishing deriving from Action

One person asked why "meaningful" was used instead of "happiness". Daniel responded that in fact these terms can refer to the same thing, In some circumstances a "meaningful" experience could be thought of as a sophisticated form of happiness, particularly in the case of Utilitarianism.

Steve urged everyone to be critical but open-minded during the small group discussions and not necessarily to be constrained by the four ideas tabled.

+++

After returning from the group discussions Steve began by introducing a definition of work his group had come up with, which he felt could help to focus our discussions. It was "the principle goal directed activity in a person's life."

Jeff added that it should also have purpose and be productive but asked who decides such matters: the individual or society? Steve felt that it could be either.

Joern reported that his group had also considered the above question about who decides on purpose and productivity. He cited the example of the Auschwitz concentration camp, over the entrance of which, were written the words "Arbeit
Macht Frei" (Work makes [you] free). He observed that, in this case, from the authority's point of view, work was intended to be alienating or dehumanising-- i.e., not to have any meaning. But Daniel supported the idea that still the inmates were able to make the work meaningful on a micro-scale in order to survive. Life seems to need meaning even in this absurd abstraction.

Steve asked whether work should make us free and suggested that attitude plays a part (cf. idea 2). Others felt that there was a paradox here. Work could be individually meaningful and socially meaningless, or vice versa. One lady felt that concentration on work can make you free by acting as a relief for your mind, but she also acknowledged the tension in Joern's example. Joern responded that the cynicism of the slave owner does not lower the dignity of the slave. Christine asked what dignity has to do with work? Steve preferred the word "freedom" over "dignity".

Amanda claimed that the answer lay in the glorification of God. She felt that purpose and freedom could be found by working hard to fulfill God's purpose(s). Graham asked whether this argument supported the hard working concentration camp
guard? He had purpose, maybe, but was his belief in hard work justifiable in God's eyes? Amanda responded that as a camp guard she would ask why God had tasked her to do this.

Another gentleman felt that each individual has a philosophical faith which is not necessarily dependent on the material situation (contra idea 3). Jeff acknowledged that faith is important as a survival tool, especially in this example, but felt that individual attitude is the strongest determinant of meaning. The ability to be able to make a choice is significant (cf. idea 2).

Steve felt that Ethics is a much bigger question and, in referring to his group's definition of work as a "the principle goal directed activity in life", asked particularly what makes work meaningful? Janice was particularly concerned that voluntary work had not been discussed as it raises yet more questions

Daniel felt that the contrast between Camus and Marx's positions dealt with the issues of absurd or voluntary work very well. He reminded us that Camus' position was that each individual's subjective attitude is important, while Marx's was that the meaningfulness work is determined by objective conditions. Could it not be both subjective and objective conditions? (cf. ideas 2 and 3) Daniel himself expressed reservations about the notion that work must generate money (for leisure) before it can be meaningful. These, he felt, are two different issues: not all work is directed to leisure, as utilitarian's would claim (cf. idea 1). This is why he favoured the fourth idea. Steve then asked Daniel to clarify exactly how the fourth idea helps to clarify how work gets its meaning.

Daniel replied that MacIntyre's approach views modern practices of work as alienating because they do not allow for the development of excellencies (creative faculties); too much of modern work is mechanical. Daniel regarded this as a social as well as an individual problem.

Sally proposed that a proper attitude can overcome the problem of work being mechanistic--i.e., work that gives you no choices or ability for creative expression. She felt that improper attitude management can blind people to the vista of new possibilities in their lives (cf. idea 2). Jeff, in agreeing, cited a personal experience where he had been given a difficult work detail in the army. After a few weeks of hating the job, the group members found ways to enjoy the work . Life became easier and time passed quicker. He believed the group members had realized that is was they who were making the work painful. This
state and it's resolution are attidudinal. One lady expressed a similar point, claiming that consciousness is the key. Daniel agreed with Sally's criticism of the fourth idea inasmuch as it has huge potential to devalue the need to improve working conditions.

Steve still felt that we had not addressed the issue of whether objective conditions or subjective attitudes play the primary role in making work meaningful. He cited the case of Hilter's Germany: could these conditions be described as objective, or could individual attitudes have changed things? Were there any significant objective factors? The group debated this idea hotly and
eventually sought to describe the issues as one of individual subjectivity versus social subjectivity (as opposed to objective conditions).

Dave cited his experiences of many communities from around the world, particularly in China, where meaningful communities have formed around apparently meaningless tasks. Daniel described this as salvaging meaning from meaninglessness, but others felt that in some sense the meaninglessness has given these groups meaning. Christine agreed that work could also be
collectively as well as individually meaningful (idea 4).

Julian proposed another position: that there is no meaning in work. Human beings are basically lazy and only work for money in order to achieve riches so that they will eventually not need to work. He described some of his observations of Amazonian Indian tribes, and related this to the everyday life of those in modern western cultures. Work did not seem to be the principle consideration for the Indians, from his external white middle class perspective, and neither is it for us--though we may sometimes pretend it is.

++++

Steve reported that the HKPC Executive Committee had agreed that meeting topics should henceforth be planned two months in advance, and Steve announced that David Camacho will introduce the next HKPC meeting, to be held on Monday September 11th, on a topic relating to the validity of Cultural Identity. The following topics were then suggested for the October meeting:

"Diversity in Unity" or "Unity in Diversity"
"Is there any (common) purpose or meaning in our different ways of life?"
"What is the Value of Championships"
"A Formula for Happiness"
"The Philosophy of Nature" (or: Does nature have an objective meaning?)

After a brief discussion of these options, we settled on the latter, with introducer and meeting date to be decided later.