Meaningful Toil: Hopeful Workers in a Capitalist Society

Perhaps some of the most whole-hearted believers and influencers of particular dogmas are aware that they stand not in the center of what is right and true, but in one nondescript place, observing what they see from their firmly rooted position. Here they stand, with only minor gravitational pull, observing as they wait for their ideas to be either affirmed or contradicted by the course of human behavior.

Adam Smith, for example, was unyielding in his belief that human beings were not meant to enjoy work. Smith was resolute in his theory that monetary compensation was the only reward that could render daily work do-able in any sense of the word. This belief, which helped to establish his reputation as the “Father of Modern Capitalism,” was based on Smith’s experience and observations at the time (which, by the way, was the 18th century).

Did Smith want these observations to be true, or was he simply observing what seemed true at the time? Smith was not a preacher, a heretic, or a lunatic. He was an economic philosopher, a spearheading figure of the Enlightenment, and a voice of observed truth for his generation in Western Europe. His theory simply held a mirror up to the ideals of his compatriots; ideals regarding the expectations of public and private life, of toil and repose, of the good things in life and the necessary evils which balance out that same existence. His theory was true, and the longevity with which capitalism has since flourished is proof of his observational accuracy. However, there is another sort of motivation that gives rise to a very significant facet of work; productivity.

In The New York Times on Sunday, Barry Schwartz contended Smith’s traditional capitalist work theory by introducing contemporary observations and research. Schwartz argued that although human beings are unlikely to work without compensation, they are likely to work harder if they find meaning and enjoyment in their jobs, however “menial” they may seem.

This argument does not refute Smith’s, but it does manage to soften a hard-edged cynicism innate in true Capitalist theory. It romanticizes Smith’s cold hard truth with the additions of humanity and hope. Schwartz’s view celebrates the evolved human psyche by presenting studies which suggest that people desire challenges, fulfillment, and meaningful engagement in their work. He goes so far as to suggest that people “may even be willing to take home a thinner pay envelope to get [this fulfillment].” While we all know that direct deposits render the pay envelope metaphor obsolete, the meaning still rings true.

Regardless of job description, capable men and women in the workforce find ways to motivate themselves by seeing the higher purpose in their work. One example given in Schwartz’s piece illustrates the ways in which a janitor at one particular hospital surpasses his defined job duties by interacting with patients. His daily goals are not only the ones he is compensated for, but the ones he sees as important to the wellbeing and functioning of hospital patients and staff as well. He finds ways to make patients laugh, to calm them, and to comfort them. All without any additional monetary compensation, all while performing his routine duties.

An exocentric understanding of one’s own effect on the world, based on how duties are performed, is a trait possibly not readily available to working folk in the 1700’s. Perhaps it is the soft, cushiony life we lead that allows us brain capacity for such higher levels of moralistic altruism (was that redundant? Good, I was being stylistically exorbitant to send my point home). In the context of what many philosophers of the modern era call “post-industrialism,” questions of class divides have ceased to embody any sort of structure. Class systems based on lineage, name, race, and financial status- which once decided who had time to read books or think deeply and who would toil only for menial wages and dirty bread before an early death- are no longer existent. Now, it is everyone’s individual duty to find personal fulfillment in whichever profession they decide best fits their own interests and ideals.

Does this mean that as a result each individual chooses to lead his best life, thereby exuding only loveliness and goodness into the world? Probably not, but let’s not get pessimistic here. Let’s end on a Schwartzian note with a little hope for our post-Capitalist, post-modern, post-industrial society. (Post-society? Eh, who knows.)