Chapter III: Labor

[Thomas]

My grasp of political and economic philosophy is a little tenuous, and this chapter is full of references to Marx, Locke, Smith and Co., so I'm hoping we have some political philosophers out there. She begins by saying that she is going to criticize Marx, like this might upset some people.

§11 But maybe it's impossible to talk about labor without Marx lurking in the shadows. The overarching question for me is: What is labor, and how is it different from work? More importantly, why does this distinction matter?

§12 What is the "Thing-character" of the world? Why is permanence such a big issue, so much that it seems that human activity that doesn't produce something tangible, or that makes something that is consumed, is less worthy than a product?

§13 Arendt appears to be setting up a dichotomy between labor and work. Labor pertains to the life process and is evident in nature and the cycle of life. Is there something unnatural about work products?

§ 14: How does Arendt come to this conclusion:

“The blessing of life as a whole, inherent in nature, can never be found in work…there is no lasting happiness outside the prescribed cycle of painful exhaustion and pleasurable regeneration. “

Does durability not count for anything? Or is labor so ingrained in the human condition that durable products and the achievements of “work” simply aren’t enough to sustain happiness?

§15: Is "private property" a contradiction in terms for Arendt? I don't think she's opposed to either privacy or property per se, but it seems like she wants to separate them, intellectually at least.

§16 What was the role of slave labor in ancient societies, and what does that have to do with modern life? She suggests that today's automation plays the same role for us today as slaves did in antiquity. Is this a good thing or is it just another indication of how we have lost touch with our natural state? And what do we lose by that, if anything?

§17 I think it's true that modern people are almost entirely focused on "making a living," though I don't think that focus excludes or minimizes what they actually do for a living. I think she does make a point though when she says that we have become a society focused on consumption -- is this what makes us a "laboring" society?

[David]

It is interesting to recall the act of giving birth is called labor. It seems to fit into Arendt's definition by being an ephemeral biological necessity that humans must infinitely repeat.

[Jassmine]

David wrote: "It is interesting to recall the act of giving birth is called labor. It seems to fit into Arendt's definition by being an ephemeral biological necessity that humans must infinitely repeat."

If I remember correctly, she mentions that somewhere in the notes, but I'm just hopelessly behind in my reading...

[Mike]

Section 17 for me hit on something I’ve been thinking about for a while, there was a joke on The Simpons last year about how most show on streaming platforms do not actually exist because no one has enough time to consume them anyway. If you think about the entertainment industry as a whole and take television shows or music, we have enough today that we could stop creating any more and we would have enough content in existence that no one could possibly consume even a small percentage of it all. I think this is the very heart of what section 17 is all about. We have 24 hour news stations in which the vast majority of the programming are opinion shows. It is like politics itself has become a consumable good.

[Alexey]

Thomas wrote: "The overarching question for me is: What is labor, and how is it different from work? More importantly, why does this distinction matter?"

My edition treats work as the act of creation, and labour as the human activity of using their labour faculties as best as I can formulate this. It seems to feet what Arendt wrote in this chapter.

[Roger]

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding what Arendt is getting at, especially this distinction between labor and work. Labor is disparaged and work is exalted, I guess. Labor is expended for consumables, and for life's simple requirements. Work is for durables, and for higher things. So which is giving a massage? Digging a ditch? Singing an opera? Making a hoe?

[Thomas]

Roger wrote: "I have a great deal of difficulty understanding what Arendt is getting at, especially this distinction between labor and work. Labor is disparaged and work is exalted, I guess. Labor is expended fo..."

I suppose one has to ask what purpose the activity serves. If it is for the sustenance of life, it is labor. Some activities seem like labor but are in the service of art -- digging a ditch certainly sounds like labor, and for the laborer who is earning a wage to feed himself, it is. But if the ditch is for laying power lines for a major project, it could be considered work. It could be either or both, depending on the perspective.

I wonder about the things we do for fun. And what about intellectual pursuits? Reading for fun, or what we do in this group? We aren't creating a product, and no one is sustaining themselves by participating. (Maybe this is what is meant by "schole" in the classical sense of leisure, which we only have because our bodily needs are satisfied?)

[Thomas]

Mike wrote: "Section 17 for me hit on something I’ve been thinking about for a while, there was a joke on The Simpons last year about how most show on streaming platforms do not actually exist because no one ha..."

I just read this comment from the NYT and thought of your post:

Maybe not all shows need second seasons — but many get one anyway. “The philosophy today is that if you can give people more of what they liked, then don’t waste time pondering whether you should,” the TV critic James Poniewozik writes.

[Jen]

Thomas wrote: What is labor, and how is it different from work? More importantly, why does this distinction matter?

I like the comparison she makes: baking bread is labour, but building the table where you sit and eat the bread is work.

To me, she seems to think that labour is what you do every day to sustain yourself, whereas work is putting more durable things into the world. However, it also seems to me that making a living making tables is also pretty routine and boring, and that you could say that of quite a lot of jobs. I live with a philosophy professor, and even then, the only part of the job that can be different every day or year is writing papers for publication. So the distinction is still not clear, unless she really means to say that work is only a tiny fraction of any person's day, if it happens at all.