Puritan Conceptions of Work Ethic - Slavery & Equality | Eva Pruitt
In her first chapter, Anderson outlines the Puritan work ethic. First, she discusses the idea that all work is inherently "God's work," and therefore carries inherent value- at every level. Each person is essentially given a particular calling, which they are obliged to fulfill and work towards in labor. Under this theory, idleness is a sin and rest is solely a reward for labor. There is an emphasis against wasting labor or property (reminded me of Locke's proviso for just property acquisition that all property by used and not lay to waste). Also under this theory lies the interpretation that this type of work ethic is "inherently antagonistic to the interests of workers," (16). Anderson walks us through this understanding, which essentially states that a theory emphasizing the value of labor and sinfulness of laziness goes against workers' interests and promotes the spirit of capitalism. She cites several passages that show religious support for the value of work, justifying material inequality and punishing those who will not work. The passages even go so far as to condemn "able-bodied beggars as parasites," who should be physically brutalized (16).
However, Anderson also acknowledges the limits to this reading: "Puritans tempered even their harshest claims on workers - sometimes, to the point of contradiction," (16). She cites the major differences between chattel slavery and the slavery permitted by Baxter. At the top of page 17, she discusses the Puritan understanding of what masters owe their slaves in allowable slavery. "Masters even owe more to their slaves than to their free servants," which is supported by the argument that masters and slaves are still equal by nature (17). This seemed like a slight contradiction to me because I don't understand how equality and a power structure such as slavery are supposed to coexist. I understand that Puritans only accept a certain type of slavery, but I think that any power structure inherently creates an inequality, even if it is just slight. The response to this question might be a distinction between natural and inherent equality and material or power equality, but I'm not sure.
Another interpretation of the work ethic, which I personally find very antagonistic to workers' interests, is the idea that "Everyone who engages in honest labor, however menial, is doing God's work," (17). Anderson brings up a clock analogy, which illustrates how each piece in a machine is vital and important, implying "a kind of egalitarianism in the value of work from God's point of view," (17). This revaluation of different roles in the labor force is supposed to emphasize the equality and dignity shared by all people. I am not entirely convinced by this argument, though, because it rests on an assumption that all workers are in their specific "calling" or profession of choice. Yet, I think that a hierarchy of jobs is inevitable and that more educated or higher class individuals will "choose" the most profitable or appealing jobs. It seems to me that perpetuating a theory of all jobs are equally valuable is important and I agree, but I think that needs to be shown through pay, treatment, and workers' conditions- not through a theory based on religious equality. I could easily see this theory being used to support the gatekeeping of certain jobs to the upper echelon individuals by forcing other individuals into undesired jobs in a theory of "all jobs are equal." I would imagine that the interpretation of work ethic is contingent upon these societal changes, otherwise the theory seems to create a system of justifying inequality under a guise of equality.
Hi Eva!
ReplyDeleteI think you put the Puritan work ethic theory perfectly in stating that “the theory seems to create a system of justifying inequality under a guise of equality.” Under this theory, lower-income people are supposed to accept lower-paying and likely less desirable jobs because they will be rewarded by God for contributing to society. However, when this theory treats all jobs as equally important, but simultaneously justifies compensating workers drastically differently, it rings hollow.
Your comment also made me wonder how the Puritan work ethic theory accounts for the origins of each individual’s calling. According to Locke, children of the idle poor “should be removed from their homes and sent to ‘working schools,’ which are little more than putting out factories (Anderson 56). The Puritan work ethic theory similarly advocates for all able-bodied individuals to be given charity only when a person “has no means to subsist otherside,” meaning that individuals should be put to work in order to make a living before being supported by the state (54). Would proponents of the Puritan work ethic theory argue that individuals who are born poor are “destined” to work in lower-paying, lower-skilled jobs? Similarly, are wealthy individuals destined to have the most comfortable and profitable jobs? As you wrote, Eva, the Puritan work ethic theory seems to justify the limitation of social mobility, and the perpetuation of economic hierarchies, under the guise of equality.
The Puritan work ethic theory also seems flawed in terms of its assumption that the only legitimate barriers to participation in the workforce are physical or mental disabilities. I would argue that lack of a good education or positive role models during one’s upbringing can hinder future participation in the workforce. Often, people that grow up with less money receive lower quality education, thus depriving them of many of the skills necessary to get a well-paying job. I would argue that skills such as time-management, work-ethic, and discipline are not always intrinsic, but are developed during our upbringings. If individuals aren’t given the tools to develop these skills, it might make it difficult to find or maintain work later on. Furthermore, traits like this are harder to instill in individuals when they are older. Thus, fixing the “idleness” of the poor, as Locke puts it, cannot be solved by simply putting unemployed people to work. It requires more systemic change, like greater equality in education.
Eva and Jemma,
ReplyDeleteI was really drawn to this discussion because when I was first reading about the Puritan work ethic, the concept of doing God's work is really interesting to me. For someone that is religious and in a job doing menial labor and working long and difficult hours, the prospect of doing God's work and being rewarded in heaven is extremely powerful. It gives work meaning and "uplifts the dignity of the lowest work" (17). And honestly, I see great value in this. All people deserve to feel dignified and just because you are working an undesirable, unskilled job, this doesn't mean you have to feel discontent with your lot in life. While there are secular methods to do this, religious beliefs can help serve this purpose very well.
However, as you both point out correctly, such a doctrine can be antagonistic to workers' interests. This encourages people to stay in their jobs and that there is really no point in moving up in the work force because everyone is doing God's work equally. While this can be nice to hear for some people, it also discourages ambition, socially mobility, and can function as gatekeeping of high paying jobs. While this Puritan mentality guarantees equality in the next life, it still allows incredible discrepancies in this life. Interestingly, an important part of Puritan work ethic is to not waste our "time and talents". If a genius, creative, innovative person is contently toiling away in an unskilled job, this waste of talent isn't the fault of the person, but the fault of the system for not promoting advancement and keeping workers complacent. One concept that is also antagonistic to workers is the idea that working all the time is not only to stop the sin of laziness, but also just to stop you from sinning. Rather than developing virtue, or some other method, Puritans instead promote working and keeping yourself busy to not sin. I imagine this isn't the most effective strategy and it kind of takes diminishes the capability of people and expects very little of us.
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteI want to defend the Puritan Work Ethic, as Anderson accounts it. Your concerns are legitimate and show a contradiction that inherently exists within the faith due to the nature of the self-determination dogma. The Puritans, however, do not expressly condemn members of the lower class advancing themselves, and I would say that, for the time, they held pretty radical beliefs regarding social mobility.
Anderson states that the 17th-century English economy evolved to contain an ever-growing class of "masterless men." The Puritans turned the freedom of these men to pursue whatever work they pleased into a religious duty with the work ethic. They attained spiritual grace and fulfilled their duties through positive worldly acts, which included the pursuit of fruitful work and productive investment (15 & 27). The religious necessity to maximize your potential becomes an essential point when addressing your arguments about pre-determinism and the work ethic being used to solidify unjust societal structures. These structures would be upheld by a lack of access to resources, such as education, allowing the lower class to advance themselves, justifying low-income jobs with poor working conditions as divine fate.
By considering the conditions of the English economy and the need to find the most fruitful and productive employment available so one can contribute to bettering God's creation, as well as thriving and multiplying, we can assert that Locke's political philosophy was meant to raise the lower-classes to more significant standing, both politically and economically. The question remains, how would this have been done?
Locke was a member of the Whig party and primarily advocated for their constituents, who were part of this growing class of masterless men (33). This is why Locke advocated appropriating MPs in proportion to the district population and regular elections (39). This reform would allow them to have greater access to the large sum of taxes they pay the crown as their representatives would be far more likely to appropriate these taxes to the benefit of their constituents, and since they lived within the communities, their own homes. Getting the money out of London and aristocrats' pockets would allow these middle and working-class areas to flourish, and it is feasible that public works and infrastructure would allow for social mobility on their own. There is an argument that such wealth would make education, or "better" work, more accessible. Locke believed that 90-99% of the income (GDP) that workers generate should return to the workers, increasing living conditions and providing better opportunities.
There also should be some consideration that Locke would not prioritize education as an essential economic tool for social mobility since upward movement could be achieved through skilled trades and commerce in the 17th century. I believe that the Protestants would have supported social mobility to a degree, and if given the chance to enact Locke’s philosophy we might have seen faster progress. I cannot justify Locke’s writings on the poor houses or hard labor for children, but I believe we can assert that the unpopularity of these ideas, which can be inferred from Anderson stating that Locke’s contemporaries found them too cruel (45), would ensure they were not enacted.
Hi everyone, I think this is a really interesting discussion. Even though I agree with a lot of what you all said, I would like to push back on certain points.
ReplyDeleteEva, you argued that the idea that “everyone who engages in honest labor, however menial, is doing God's work" (17) is “very antagonistic to workers' interests.” Similarly, Jemma, you argued that “when this theory treats all jobs as equally important, but simultaneously justifies compensating workers drastically differently, it rings hollow.” You both took issue with the fact that the equality of jobs (or the “egalitarianism in the value of work from God’s point of view” (17) as Anderson would say) is not reflected in terms of wages. However, I do not think the egalitarianism, considering Puritan beliefs, needs to be reflected in those metrics: the egalitarianism is in God’s eyes, and the benefit therefore is supposed to come in the form of salvation (as Walsh pointed out). Wages on the other hand, reflect not the value of one’s labor to God, but value of one’s labor to the market and other humans. It seems reasonable to suggest that God and humans might value a commodity (in the economics sense of the word), such as labor, quite differently. Finally, applying Puritan beliefs perfectly to the labor markets results in a system in which inequalities are at least partially rectified by charity, as those who make a lot of money are condemned for their “covetousness” (16) as defined by Baxter and those who work hard and have reverence for God but don’t make a lot are still deserving of charity. In fact, Anderson actually notes that the sanctification of work as an activity that glorifies God led to the uplifting of workers (23), and that it was rather the Puritan’s treatment of labor also as “ascetic discipline” that was antagonistic to workers labor.
Walsh, I wanted to quickly respond to your point that “One concept that is also antagonistic to workers is the idea that working all the time is not only to stop the sin of laziness, but also just to stop you from sinning. Rather than developing virtue, or some other method, Puritans instead promote working and keeping yourself busy to not sin. I imagine this isn't the most effective strategy and it kind of takes diminishes the capability of people and expects very little of us.” In a Christian sense, ever since the Fall, there is no insult to assume that individuals will sometimes sin when confronted with temptation. The Puritan argument is simply that when one is not working, they are more prone to temptation (which in many ways, is an empirical fact). They certainly would also rely on personal virtue as well to keep oneself from sinning.