In Praise Of Idleness Critique.docx

Bungsut 1 Lalchhanhimi Bungsut Krittika Bhattacharjee ICT Section 11 October 8th, 2018 In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell: A Critical Analysis In 1935, in the wake of World War I, Bertrand Russell wrote an article titled In Praise of Idleness that sought to redefine the common understanding of labor and the necessity for leisure. In the article, Russell argues that people need to limit work to four hours, increase consumption with the progress in technology and production, and focus on the things that bring pleasure rather than placing excessive importance on jobs. Russell’s arguments directly attack the culture that reveres labor and consequently denounces consumption. They also assume that people live in a world where work is revered whereas leisure is heavily frowned upon. The context in which Russell wrote the article greatly influences his arguments. In the wake of World War I, much of the labor and expenses were directed to war reparations and preparations. To Russell, the “economical habits” of the common people therefore went into supporting the Armed Forces and therefore supported war itself. This argument successfully justifies that people should use their labor and earned money on personal desires instead. To this however, Russell concedes that when savings are invested in enterprises that succeed, they are useful and denotes the limitation of his argument. Russell also bases his arguments on his observation of the technological progress that lead to a significantly more efficient way to produce things. To Russell, it seems more plausible that people work shorter hours to have more time for leisure due to the increased productivity of laborers in light of technological advances. However, he duly notes that people are still forced to work exceedingly long hours while many are left unemployed. The context in which he focuses his writing clearly warrants the necessity of his arguments as it proves that people are unnecessarily overworked while others are left jobless. It also justifies the reverence of labor that arose from such mindsets as labor became synonymous with success. The reverence of labor that Russell assumes in his argument based on his context rings true in contemporary society. Those who work long hours are praised to be hard-working, whereas those who spend their time consuming and pursuing their creative interests are deemed lazy. People lack the opportunity for leisure and pursuance of creativity as we live in a society

Bungsut 2 that worships hard work that noticeably benefits society and looks down upon those who want to enrich their lives through consumption and creativity. The existence of such notions in our society is highlighted by Joe Pinsker in his article ‘Ugh, I’m So Busy’: A Status Symbol for Our Time. In the article, Pinsker interviews Silvia Bellezza, a professor of marketing, regarding her research on the symbol of “busyness” as a status. Bellezza’s research found that “in the U.S., people think that the busier person must be of higher status” (Pinsker). This finding suggests the similarity between the context in which Russell writes and our contemporary society, strengthening the relevance and importance of his message.

Word Count: 500 words

Bungsut 3 Works Cited: Pinsker, Joe. “'Ugh, I'm So Busy': A Status Symbol for Our Time.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 1 Mar. 2017, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/busyness-status-symbol/518178/. Russell, Bertrand. In praise of idleness, and other essays. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1958.