Religion

RUSSELL MU IRHE A D

Ju st Work

In thi s early selection from his 2004 boo k. Ju st Wo~k, ent itled " D~mocracy and the Value of Work," the Harvard poli tical theorist Rus sell Muirhead ex• plores the qu estion of why our wor k is ~o cl~~e ly bound _up_ with our ident i• ties in democratic societies. M uirhead 1s writing from wit hin wha t we have descnbed as t he traditio n of Democr acy, and he is at the same time seek- ing to advance th at tra dition. He offers us here int imatio~s of what makes for ~j ust work" in a democracy in the form of several points that he la ter elaborates throug h careful arg umen t during the cou rse of hi s boo k.

Muirh ea d begin s his discussi on by rem ind ing us of a theme that will run through many of th e rea din gs in th is anthology: our freedom to forge an identity is constrained. Th us , th ou gh we can, within limits that differ from person to person, ch oose from a va riety of role s the ones we wish to play in life, we ourselves did not create or select the roles themselves. Rather, the repe rto ire of ro les set be for e us was created through long, his• tor1cal processes that we si mply inher ited . We must remember th is when we consider the proper place of wor k in our live s.

Muirhead also cha ll enges us to reco gn iz e th at the relat ionship between who we are and what we do to ea rn a livi ng is more co mplicated th an it may at first seem. On the one hand, ou r ch ara cter de te rm ines to a great degree our choice of occupatio n. But on th e ot her ha nd, what we do to earn a livin g will determine to a great extent our character. Can you think of conc rete ways in wh ich, say, practicing law makes a lawye r in to a certa in kind of hu - man being? Can you think of ways in which some of th e jobs you have done have begun to shape you into a certai n kind of hu ma n be in g?

from R1.mell !1-tuirhead, Jusi Work (Cambndgc: Harvard Uni ver sity Pre ss, 2004), pp. 26-1 9 .

188

R USS ELL MU IRH EA D • Just Work

Politics in the la rges t se nse is about the lives individuals ca n choose und er pa rt ic ular co ndit ions, and the lives they arc impelled to li ve or eve n choose in a particular society and regime. These lives arc composed of roles: parent , spouse, worker, co name a few. It matters that we choose these roles for our- selves. But the ch o ices we make run only so deep, for the rol es themselves exis t independent of our choice. They come to us on a limited m enu, one that is car ried by social conventions and beliefs that in turn are sustained and buttressed by families, voluntary associations, traditions, and laws. Fro m the perspective of consent, what matters mos t is that these roles are o pen to all, that no one is either forced into th em or excl uded from th em. Thu s we need to ensure th at people have th e freedo m co choos e among roles and to exit, when they wish , 1hose they have assumed. But this does not ex- haust th e qu es tions we ought to as k about such roles, even fro m a concern wi1h justice. We ought to inquire, too, abo ul th e conditions of choi ce, the so rts of choices individuals are imp elled to make under constraints, as well as the quality and variety of the options available for peo ple to choose from.

This is es pecially so when it comes 10 work. As a de scri ptive matter and (if we reject a guaranteed minimum income as paras itic) as a normati ve matter, the working life is so mething that citi ze ns necessa ril y share. The working life is our life, As we have see n, th e necessit y or obligatory character of work is in tension wi1h the liberal ideal that citizens should be free (not only formally but effectively) co form and act from their own conception of the good, Yet work is o ne of the most commo n and inescapable constra ints on our freedom. This raises a crucial question: ca n th e regulati ve ideal s that concern work be mod eled entirely on the liberal values of freedom and equality? Or will th ey at times follow a different cue, one that more fully rec- og ni zes the reality that wo rk itself is a kind of re straint, a sort of di scipline?

Any fu ll account o f th e justice of work would certainly need somehow to reco nci le the work people do (a nd at so me level have to do) with their free- dom. It would take stock of how work m ig ht look if its fo rm resulted solely from our cho ices. Yet since work as it appears in th e world ,viii reflect not o nly o ur freedo m but also ou r need, since it docs not and probably cannot re- flect o ur choices precisely, ii remains something to which we often need to a11une o r acco mm oda te or eve n reco ncile o urselves. The ideal of fitting work recognizes th e co ns trained chara c1er of freedom. It ac knowledges our free- dom, since fitting work is work we might more likely endorse. At th e sa me time, the concept of fit acknow ledges that freedom in the world of work is al- ways circ umscrib ed. The category of fit thu s allo ws for the possibility th at even when work is good, it is so mething we h ave to m ake our peace with.

The ideal of fitting work also acknowledges the special kind of relati on-

Q UEST ION S O 2·

Muse )\,ly Job Be the Prima ry So urce of My ldeni ity?

hi that work invo lves. Along wilh fa mily and religion, ,~o ~k re main s one of :h: central activi1ics constituting everyday li fe: :vork is mstr.umcntal (we work to earn and spend), but is rarely only that: ~t _is also formati ve. Devoting the bulk of our waking hours to a particu lar aCtlVl?' ~ve r many y~ars has an effect on who we are. whether we like it or not. In a !muted buMt crucial way, we are what we do (M \Vhat do you do?M is a kind of shorth_and f~r Wh~ are yo u?l In one se nse, this reflects the way work position~ us_ m a kmd_ of hierarchy - both in the hierarchy of authority withi~ ~rga mzauons and m larger ~o- cial hierarchy represented by differences m mco~e and wea!th. If 1t is.often in- explicit. it is no secret that some jobs are adm,~d for t~eir authority, com- mand. gla mour. compensation in short , their prestige. And others are scorned. Our work makes mamfest where we fa ll - or ~here we have climbed_ in the social hie ra rc hy. Yet we are also what we do m a more con- stitutive sense. What we do all day habitua1 es and orients us in profound ways that over rime impress a pauern on our emotional and intellectual life. Work might make us more compassionale or more st ern , more decisive or more re- semful. more deft or more argumentative. The way we spend the bulk of our waking energy can e,•en come to inform our larger posture toward the world, depending on whether work prods us to ex perie nce the world as hostile or alien. compliant or beneficent. This is why for many work cannot be merely another oflife's rout ines but is rather a key so urce of 1heir identity.

The aspiration to work that fits us, as both individuals and as human be- ings. is one I locate in the public culture of American life, in the way many evaluate work. This as piration, widely if nol universally shared. in turn points 10 an ancien t unde rstanding of justice, whe re justice addresses wha t we as individuals mora lly deserve, and wha t we deserve depends on wha t fits us. Because it focuses on what we deserve, 1he jus1ice of flt is distinct from Rawls's justice as fairness, which concerns what we would acce pt un- der impartial conditions. Yet if they are in te nsio n with each other, they are not quite face -to-face rivals because they app ly at different levels. Justice as fairness mosr directly add resses constitu1ional essentials, while the justice of fit concerns "middle lcve\M regulative idea ls that operate in civil society. Each might infiucnce legislation, though in different ways. Justice as fair- ness_. i~ its way. addresses legislation from above by offering a model of im- partiaht~ that legislators can follow when basic principles of justice are at stake. It. is ~ost relevam whe n legislation is directly and obviously coercive. R~ulatrve idea ls like justice as fit influence leg islat ion from below, when !c?islators represent and advance the sort of ethical notions tha t their con- srn_ucms endo~se. It is most relevant when legislation addresses not consti- tutional essentials but the circumstances of everyday life.

190

DOROTHY L. SAYERS • "Wiry Workr

The regulative ideal of fi1 reflects the aspiratio~s_ people bring to the world of wor k, as i1 also elucidates the common op m1 on that work some; how supports human dignity. What would be requi red of us to fit our work. What would be required of work? What is the difference between a good fit and a bad one? Are there some useful jobs that cann ot be said to fit anyone very well? And if so. how should 1hese be_ all ocate_d? This book wi ll engage these questions and others in a way that will be at times uncomf~rtable, for I do not presuppose 1hat th e fa mili ar terms of equal opportunit y and free choice exhaust the categories with which we might evaluate the world of work. Yet uncomfortable categories are necessary if we are to understand the sources of pride and disappoim menl {and the sense of dignity and jus- tice) that our way of life contains.

DOROTHY L. SAYERS

"Why Work?"

Dorothy L. Sayers (1893-1957) was a British author and churchwoman who published play s, translations of medieval literatu re, a delightful series of detect ive novels, and theological essays like the one included here . It is said that she loved her work so much that writing filled almost all her wak• Ing hours. It is possible that the creat ive character of her own work had a strong influence on her thinking about work in general.

More than most other essays in th is anthology, this one makes a pow- erful case for our iden tities being wholly determined by our occupations. Sayers argues that we live in order to work, suggesting that those who work merely in order to live have, by choice or necessity, distorted the mean ing and significance of work in their lives. On what basis does she make such an argument? Is she writing in the language of authenticity, sugges ting that our work must be an authentic expression of our true

: ;~;~ _Doroth y l. Sayers. "Why Work ?" in Crud or Chaos? (Lon don: t-.kthucn & Co., 1947), pp.

191