In “The Western Idea of ​​Work and Leisure: Traditions, Transformations, and the Future,” Charles Sylvester highlights the changing conception of work and leisure by pointing to Plato’s and Aristotle’s notions in classical Greek thought, the Judeo-Christian view, and the views of Locke and Marx. A general objection can be made against all of these views in the sense that they present an absolutist interpretation of work or leisure based on the justification of the conditions that currently exist and arguing that this is how the work-leisure distinction should be. These visions do not recognize the relativistic position that could be obtained through the anthropological study of the role of leisure in other societies with different social structures or cultures.

For example, both Plato and Aristotle reflect a view that supports the value of leisure spent by members of the high aristocracy in a hierarchical society, where the labor of many provided support for an elite that did not have to work. Thus, Plato could justify the existence of this class by stating that the best class of citizens were the “philosopher kings” and that leisure allowed individuals to achieve the good life that was “to know the truth and live according to true knowledge”. . Similarly, Aristotle argued that there was a divinely ordained hierarchy in which God was at the top, and those who were free from work were the “best human beings,” who could “discover the truth, rule wisely, and create culture.” “.

However, one could legitimately object to this view on two main grounds. First, this view derives from a particular social context in which there was a very small elite class. So Plato and Aristotle are justifying the existence of this class and its ability to engage in intellectual philosophizing without instrumental value. However, from the Judeo-Christian perspective, which developed as a religion that helped bring comfort to the poor and everyday workers and which placed a high value on work as part of God’s plan, such philosophizing would be seen as idleness. While some Christian thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas, supported the ideal of the contemplative life (p. 26), the Protestant Reformation emphasized the virtue of work, as did Locke, who saw the idleness of rich and poor alike. as immoral. Second, one might object to this classical Greek view from an anthropological perspective in that it reflects and supports a particular hierarchical culture, which required large numbers of individuals to support a small elite through their work. However, as society changed and democratizing forces undermined this elite and extended power, this view that leisure was the right of this small class was no longer valid.

At the same time, one may object to Locke’s distinction between productive work, as all that is good, valuable, and the essence of personality, and leisure, unless it is designed to be a recreational industry, which is immoral. . Locke developed his view at a time when wealthy property owners were being challenged by a growing class of merchants and artisans, and his view was used to support the accumulation of property.

But his vision is equally a product of his time, failing to recognize how work and play can be integrated into everyday culture or how play can become the essence of personality. For example, in traditional cultures such as the Aztec, Inca, and Maya, farmers have days of celebration and rituals when they are not working, and those moments of leisure are considered the most good and valuable in that culture. And today, many people see work as something they do to support themselves, while their main source of identity comes from their leisure activities, which they engage in for personal fulfilment, learning and fun.