In Praise of Idleness

In Praise of Idleness is a thoughtful essay written by the renowned author, Bertrand

Russel and is not as outlandish as it sounds in the title. The author expresses his disagreement
with the modern worlds belief in the virtuousness of work and he says that the road to
happiness and prosperity lies in an organised diminution of work. He explains how work can
be defined. The work can be of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the
earths surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first
kind is unpleasant and ill-paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is
capable of indefinite extension of work: there are not only those give orders, but those to give
advice as to what orders should be given. He comments that usually two opposite kinds of
advices are given simultaneously by two organized bodies of men which is called politics.
According to the author, the skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the
subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of persuasive speaking and writing. He
adds that throughout in Europe, though not in America, there is a third class of men, more
respected than either of the classes of workers. These landowners are idle but through
ownership of land, are able to make others pay for the privilege of being allowed to exist and
to work.
Russel observes that from the beginning of civilization until the industrial revolution,
a man could, as a rule, produce by hard work little more than was required for the subsistence
of himself and his family, although his family members too worked at least as hard as him.
The small surplus, above bare necessaries, was not left to those who produced it, but was
appropriated by warriors and priests. In times of famine, even though there was no surplus,
the warriors and priests still secured as much as at other times, with the result that many of
the workers died of hunger. He explains the post-industrial revolution scenario around the
world and arrives at a conclusion that modern technique has made it possible for leisure,
within limits, to be not the prerogative of small privileged classes, but a right evenly
distributed throughout the community.
I personally agree with the author in the fact that leisure is essential to a civilization. It
helps to balance the work pressure and in former times leisure for only few was rendered
possible by the labours of the many. But now, the modern technologies made it possible to
diminish enormously the amount of labour required to secure the necessaries of life for
everyone. With the help of mechanisation, we can reduce both the working time as well as the
amount of labour required. Author suggests a proposal where the working time may be
halved to four hours per day and a labour-shift system may be introduced in which the
unemployment can be rectified globally. A man can spend these extra four hours creatively.
But, in our society, this scenario will be a fiasco. The author himself foresees that in the
actual world, this idea would be thought demoralizing. The employees still work eight hours,
the production doubles, half the men will be thrown out of work. There is in the end, as much
leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked.

The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich. The
rich are the propagators of virtuousness of hard work in our society. The rich preached the
dignity of labour, while taking care themselves to remain undignified in this respect!
I strongly agree that the wise use of leisure is a product of civilization and education.
A man who has worked long hours all his life will become bored if he becomes suddenly idle.
He cannot decide what to do and how to achieve happiness by leisure. But without a
considerable amount of leisure a man is cut off from many of the best things. Our society
respects only those persons who either are rich or enjoy the aristocratic status. It insists each
and every one to work hard to attain this social status. The working men consider work as a
necessary means to a livelihood and it is from their leisure that they derive whatever
happiness they may enjoy. Though a little leisure is pleasant, men would not know how to fill
their days if they had only four hours of work out of the twenty-four!
When the author suggests that working hours should be reduced to four, he does not
imply that all the remaining time should necessarily be spent in pure frivolity. He says that
four hours work a day should entitle a man to the necessities and elementary comforts of life,
and he should dedicate the rest of his time to leisure. The author dreams of a world where no
one is compelled to work more than four hours a day, every person can pursue his passion.
There will be happiness and joy of life, instead of stressful routine. The work exacted will be
enough to make leisure delightful, but not enough to produce exhaustion. The author puts
forward a suggestion to make our world much happier and joyful. Even if we are not able to
reduce the working time to four hours a day practically, we can try giving some time to
leisure and find the road to happiness.