Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness

In his brilliant and timely 1935 essay In Praise of Idleness, the philosopher Bertrand Russell suggests that “a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work…”

Our “capacity for lightheartedness and play,” Russell writes, “has been… inhibited by the cult of efficiency”:

The modern person thinks that everything ought to be done for the sake of something else, and never for its own sake.

In other words: productivity is our guiding star. We do things to get things. We rarely devote our intellectual energies to doing anything simply for the sake of doing it.

Accordingly, Russell suggests, our only diversions from work become rather brainless:

The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in which they took an active part.

Consider, for instance, what would occur if people only had to work four hours a day. In such a world, Russell writes,

every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without starving, however excellent their pictures may be…

Such a world may seem a utopian dream, but Russsell thinks modern methods of production could grant more leisure time for all.

We’ve opted instead for another path: to double down on the value, virtue, and necessity of work.

The value of hard work

No one likes a slacker: no one likes someone who doesn’t contribute to the general pot. But while industriousness is important and valuable in certain contexts, Russell thinks we must be careful not to glorify work at the expense of all else. Other ways of being human are available.

Besides, the idea that work is virtuous is a tale told since time immemorial: perhaps we should consider whom it serves.

If most people believe that one’s work ethic indicates one’s value as a human being, who benefits?

Well, Russell reflects, it’s always been a rather convenient narrative for those with power. Workers are incentivized to keep their heads down and do the work:

the rich, for thousands of years, [have] preach[ed] the dignity of labor, while taking care themselves to remain undignified in this respect.

Aristocracies throughout history spent their days primarily in leisure, subsisting on the labor of others:

The leisure class enjoyed advantages for which there was no basis in social justice; this necessarily made it oppressive, limited its sympathies, and caused it to invent theories by which to justify its privileges.

But, despite the injustice of its privilege, despite not laboring very hard, Russell claims the leisure class nevertheless “contributed nearly the whole of what we call civilization”:

It cultivated the arts and discovered the sciences; it wrote the books, invented the philosophies, and refined social relations. Even the liberation of the oppressed has usually been inaugurated from above.

Crucially, Russell suggests, this is not because the aristocracy was somehow better or more enlightened than the workers; it is because the aristocracy had access to leisure:

Leisure is essential to civilization, and in former times leisure for the few was only rendered possible by the labors of the many. But their labors were valuable, not because work is good, but because leisure is good.

The many had to labor tirelessly to produce leisure for a few; but today, modern methods of production mean that everyone could be granted more leisure time.

In other words, we have an opportunity to create a leisure class without the accompanying social injustice. A leisure class that includes everyone.

Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, Russell thinks society’s opted for another path. While we could have a more even distribution of leisure for all, we’ve instead embraced the profit motive to double down on the value of work.

Employment for some, leisure for none

To illustrate the ridiculousness of our situation, Russell asks us to imagine a scenario regarding the manufacture of pins. Suppose the world’s pin supply was adequately met by those in the industry working eight hours a day. Say someone then invents a tool that doubles the efficiency of every worker. What do we think would happen?

“In a sensible world,” Russell answers, “everybody concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything would go on as before. But in the actual world…

The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work.

Rather than give everyone more leisure time, we keep some people employed and give the others not leisure, but full-time ‘unemployment’:

There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?

Times have changed, but the underlying ethic remains: the lives of workers are dignified, justified, and made meaningful only through work.

Can we imagine a world with more leisure for all?

In a world of more leisure, Russell says, the race for material ‘success’ would become less important. People would be able to carry more energy into their own artistic, intellectual, and social endeavours. Humans might even be kinder to one another:

Ordinary men and women, having the opportunity of a happy life, will become more kindly and less persecuting and less inclined to view others with suspicion… Good nature is, of all moral qualities, the one that the world needs most, and good nature is the result of ease and security, not of a life of arduous struggle.

More leisure is crucial not just for our individual happiness, however, but for humanity’s collective future.

Without leisure, citizens will become increasingly specialized in their own industries, and lose the imaginative capacity needed for progressing society.

New ideas, new values, new philosophies — who will offer them, if climbing the ranks of employment is humanity’s only goal?

If the vast majority of us focus all our energies on work, in whose hands do we leave our future?

Russell’s In Praise of Idleness is less a practical guide of solutions, and more a challenge to our existing values.

Rather than tacitly endorse work as the most useful, meaningful, and fulfilling way to spend our time, perhaps we should all start wondering what else humanity might be for.

As Russell concludes his essay:

Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and security for all; we have chosen, instead, to have overwork for some and starvation for the others. Hitherto we have continued to be as energetic as we were before there were machines; in this we have been foolish, but there is no reason to go on being foolish forever.

What do you make of Russell’s analysis?

• Do you agree with Russell’s endorsement of leisure? What about his view that only ‘a leisure class’ has the space needed to advance civilization?
• Do you think society will ever promote more leisure for all? Or will the powerful always try to retain their privileges?
• Do you feel the need to always be productive? Or do you recognize the importance of active leisure?

To inform your answers, you might enjoy the following related articles:

• Byung-Chul Han’s Burnout Society: Our Only Imperative is to Achieve
• Aristotle On Why Leisure Defines Us More than Work
• Hannah Arendt on the Human Condition: Productivity Will Replace Meaning
• Elizabeth Anderson on the Tyranny of Being Employed

Get one famous philosophical idea in your inbox each Sunday

If you enjoyed this article, you might like my free Sunday breakdown. I distill one piece of wisdom from philosophy each week; you get the summary delivered straight to your email inbox, and are invited to share your view. Consider joining 17,000+ subscribers and signing up below: