The changing nature of work, leisure and involvement in society: some possible ideas from an old philosopher

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Aristotle said [an opening phrase that is surely guaranteed to put off 75% of the Journal of Mental Health’s readers] that the end of all other forms of society is simply “life,” but the end of the polis is “good life.” [Politics 1252 b]. By the “end” Aristotle meant the perfect form, and by the polis he meant the organised urban community, hereinafter abbreviated to “the community.”

It may seem odd quoting an ancient philosopher in a modern mental health journal, but when considered carefully it is “surprising how modern and progressive he was… discussing issues such as terrorism, inequality and the dangers of excessive greed in a small class of wealthy individuals… ideals that could arguably have been expressed by activists in the west today” Qvoretrup (2016). I would add that, in the Nichomachean Ethics, he gives us the basis of applied psychology – a discussion of how the individual can live a “good life” (i.e. a sane, happy and virtuous life) in a civil society.

There have been three arguments against regarding Aristotle as a guide to modern life, [for an excellent late-Victorian summary see Fowler (1893): Firstly, Aristotle regarded a viable community as being small enough to be seen from a high point. Modern states are too large for his conception. This was true until recently, but now most of us carry in our pockets devices that allow us to see what our friends are doing from a distance – devices that were the stuff of wildest fantasy when Tolkein was writing about them in the days of my childhood. The modern community can be much larger than the classic polis.

Secondly Aristotle was writing for a readership with no belief in an afterlife so the benefits of virtue had to be seen in this life. As Dr Johnson (1782) put it “When the thoughts are extended to a future state, the present life seems hardly worthy of all those principles of conduct…” Victorian critics may have firmly believed that they would be rewarded in an individual hell or heaven, but only a minority of modern westerners even pay lip service to such ideas, thus being much closer to the classic Greek attitude.

Thirdly, and most tellingly, Aristotle was writing for a slave-owning society. Citizens could have time to serve the community because much of the routine work was being done for them. This has been a valid criticism, but we have now reached a position where it is reliably predicted that anywhere between 20% and 40% of jobs are likely to be taken over by robots in the near future, with little chance of replacement. In an equitable society, citizens should have plenty of time to serve the community. It is therefore arguable that Aristotle’s ideas of the sort of society we ought to be planning for are now much more relevant than they have been for millennia.

Liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness

Modern neoliberal economists distrust happiness or only regard it from the utilitarian point of view of increasing productivity Guha & Carson (2014); Guha & Carson in McHugh, forthcoming 2017]. Aristotle took the reverse view: individual happiness is part of the good society: increased productivity is merely a step towards achieving this. Aristotle was clear that the greatest happiness of the greatest number could best be achieved in an egalitarian community, where there was no sharp difference between rich and poor [Politics 1297 b]. Kelly (2017) has explored levels of happiness [‘jollity’] in 21 European countries. More comparative research is needed but it is already clear that average happiness levels are higher in more egalitarian countries.

It is arguable that the neoliberal economic system died in 2008 and has been kept going on a life support system of quantitative easing and unsustainably low interest rates. Knight (2017) has come surprisingly close to Aristotle in saying “the existing narrative has so far failed to achieve equality. An increasingly wealthy and increasingly small minority flourish, the middle range are increasingly insecure, and around 20% experience real poverty” thus diametrically opposing Aristotle’s statement that “if liberty and equality… are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to their utmost” [Politics 1280-1282]. Modern experience confirms that “more equal societies almost always do better” Wilkinson & Pickett (2009).

Knight suggests that a key solution is bottom-up planning, to increase people’s sense of agency. The lack of this sense of agency explains, perhaps, some of the appeal of both the Brexit campaign in Britain and the rise of Donald Trump in America. Both called on their followers to ‘take back control.’ The fact that both these political upheavals are likely to have completely the opposite effect does not obviate the appeal of the slogan. The feeling of a world out of control and the pressure of current events obviously has an effect on the mental states of ordinary citizens Lipczynska (2017).

The fact of people living in poverty, and, especially in debt, is a crying indictment of the system. Pre-Solonic Athens was described in the Treatise on the Athenian Constitution [translated in Fowler (1893) as “The whole country was in the hands of a few persons, and if the tenants failed to pay their rent… their whole persons were mortgaged to their creditors… but the hardest and bitterest part of the conditions of the masses was the fact that they had no share in the offices then existing under the constitution.” Back in 1909 Beatrice Webb said “it is now possible to abolish destitution” [Royal Commission on the Poor Laws & Relief of Distress, 1909]. It may be possible, but it has not been done, and does not look like being done. Poverty, the stresses caused by debt, and, alienation have, of course, well-recognised links with the prevalence of mental disorder.

Solon’s solution was to create a body of laws [Aristotle defined a just law as “reason without passion” – Politics 1287a] combining social, economic and political reform. Not merely were existing debts cancelled but he tried, with some success, to prevent the recurrence of debt at such frightening levels, a new coinage was introduced, startling inequalities of wealth were reduced, and, though the wealthier classes inevitably retained more political power, the poorer classes had an over-riding vote in the assembly, and every class of citizen had a say, and was expected to play some sort of role in society – as members of the assembly, as councillors chosen by lot, as jurors [including some of the roles taken in in modern society by judges, public prosecutors etc], civil service and even military authority. Every Athenian citizen was expected to devote a considerable amount of time to community service [by which I mean service to society rather than a euphemism for a form of punishment for offenders against society.]

One curious symptom of the collapse of the modern neoliberal economy has been a desperate attempt to harness almost any form of human activity to the goal of increasing economic productivity:– happiness; yoga see Gelles (2015), or see especially, Work From Om - http://www.workfromom.com/]; sleep Pang (2016); drug micro-dosing Fadiman (2011); mindfulness Chapman-Clarke (2016) etc. When interviewed, Graham Allcott, an all-round enthusiast for increasing productivity Allcott (2016), was unable to think of any human activity which he could not twist into a tool for increasing economic efficiency Cocozza (2017). I am not sure what Aristotle would have thought of micro-dosing on LSD, but it seems likely, on the face of it, that he would have regarded most of the others as part of the good life, and increased productivity merely as one of the means towards that end – “To seek utility everywhere is unsuited for free men.” [Politics 1338 b]. “If a harp-player, to play the harp. If a good harp-player, to play the harp well” seems to me to be very close to “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” as an ideal.

On education

It is unfortunate that Aristotle’s writings on education and child development have only come down to us in a confused and fragmentary form, rather than in a companion volume to Ethics and Politics. It is clear however that he had very different views from his predecessors [and teachers] Socrates, whose main aim was to inculcate logical thinking, and Plato, who said that the aim of education was to attain knowledge – something more akin to the Gradgrind approach favoured by some current politicians. Aristotle said that the function of education was to help in the attainment of virtue [‘arete’] – a combination of happiness and goodness, by training and by practice. We now take for granted that the aim of education is to allow every child to reach his or her maximum potential. It is disconcerting to find that Aristotle’s aim seems to have been to ensure that every child was educated to the point where he [not she – Aristotle does not seem to have noticed half the population] could play his most effective role in the good society. Curren (2000) says that the surviving writings indicate that Aristotle felt that public supervision of education is a necessary condition for a good society, it should not be left in private hands.

Implications for mental health

Current economic theory is based on the idea that people do not wish to work and have to be penalised for not doing so, or provided with incentives for doing so. There is, however, clear evidence that people, including people with mental disorders, wish to work. Boycott et al. (2015) actually called their paper “Work is good for me.” A recent study Besse et al. (2017) found that most people with severe mental illness would like to be employed. They noted, however, concerns among practitioners that the competitive nature of most “productive” jobs might prove too stressful. Boycott et al [op cit] had, similarly found it necessary to extend their study of employment to include voluntary work – working for the good of society rather than for profit, though they still saw this as a step towards competitive employment rather than as a good in itself.

Allan et al. (2016) distinguished between work as mere paid employment and ‘meaningful work’ – work that is significant, facilitates personal growth and contributes to the greater good. They found that meaningful work can be linked to better mental health – “job satisfaction negatively predicted depression and stress.” This has important implications for the growing de-skilling of work. A car mechanic trained to solve complex technical problems whose role has been reduced to plugging in a diagnostic computer and then ordering whatever replacement part it tells him is needed, is not merely an obvious target for replacement by a robot but will inevitably feel less job satisfaction. A cashier who’s every keystroke is monitored, not by a human supervisor but by an algorithm running on a remote computer, is bound to feel alienated. Frischmann & Selinger (2017) suggest that “making human beings behave like simple machines might deliver greater efficiency. But… fail to capture the value of being human.” Given that humans benefit mentally from making a meaningful contribution to society, then some means of doing so other than pressuring them to undertake competitive employment will become necessary. “To seek utility everwhere is unsuited for free men” [Politics 1338 b]

People benefit from feeling that they can play an active part in decisions that affect their lives. To quote just a handful of examples from this journal: Csipke et al. (2016) found that participation in ward design “had a positive impact on inpatients’ lives.” Rosenberg et al. (2017) noted “the importance of shared decision-making on users’ satisfaction with care and quality in health care decisions,” and Salkeld et al. (2013) found that a training group comprised of service users together with the practitioners who normally worked with them and would continue to do so “helped create a safe space for collaborative learning.” Clearly a good society will find ways of involving all its members in decision-making.

Summary

People tend to be happier in more egalitarian societies. Most people, including those with mental disorders, tend to benefit from taking part in activities which contribute to society. People benefit mentally from feeling that they have a say in decisions which affect their lives. Advances in robotics and the de-skilling of labour will decrease the opportunities for people to gain satisfaction from economic employment. “The organization of society in such a way as to maximise health by encouraging health equality cannot, of course, be brought about simply by philosophical argument” Guha (2014), but Aristotle’s writings at least suggest a philosophic framework upon which an alternative form of society might be built.