Puritan Work Ethic and the foundations of Locke- Shaira
Puritan work ethic is based on the idea that working hard and disciplined labor is a form of showing faithfulness to God. The puritan argument begins by stating that God has gifted each individual with abilities. God-given abilities, therefore, cannot be wasted and must be used “in some ‘settled’ course of life, with reference to business, office, or employment” (Anderson 15). In other words, individuals must use their God-given gifts and abilities toward advancing the personal and common good. Puritan work ethic concludes that if one does not make use of their talents to achieve legitimate work, they are essentially neglecting their duty (1) as God’s property and (2) to fulfill God’s will on Earth, which is described to promote the good of others through labor.
Locke’s foundation for a popular representative government follows the Puritan work ethic. As mentioned above, Puritan work ethic condemns those who sit idly by and waste their time not contributing to the public good. Locke appeals to this work ethic to attack the top ranks in society, who “spent their fortunes on luxuries rather than productive investment, and preferred to spend their time on leisurely pursuits…” (Anderson, 27). Locke looked down on both the idle rich who advanced their own material interests over the public good. As such, Locke rejected large aristocrats and high church clergy including the King and his court. He opposed these types of powers because it enabled the oppression of worker’s rights and properties and gave a select group of people the opportunity to unjustly flourish off of the labor of others. I say unjustly because Locke believes that it is one’s duty and therefore, their right, to preserve the human species through labor (Anderson 29). Thus, I interpret this as: if someone does not meet their duty to humanity through labor, they are violating their rights to humanity.
I understand this argument and believe that it sets a good foundation for Locke’s case for a popular representative government. However, I argue that even under a popular representative government, there will always be people who live off the labor of someone else and I don’t necessarily think that this is an unjust or immoral thing. For example, take an individual who is a CEO of a company. This person spent 20 years working to get to this position and now that they have it, their responsibility is mainly limited to overseeing others’ work and managing the company. Is this person considered an “idle rich” although they worked to get to this position? If this company develops products that promote the public good, is this unjust? I would like to discuss where the line should be drawn between those who arbitrarily exploit others and profit off their labor versus those who have engaged in honest labor to get to a position in which they can profit without capitalizing on their employee’s labor.
Hey Shaira, I think you make an excellent point. To briefly defend Locke, I think that he formulated his theory at a time when industrial capitalism was in its fledgling stages, and the vast majority of who Locke conceived of as the "idle rich" were wealthy aristocrat landowners who merely inherited the land they used to make their fortunes. I agree with you, however, that it is difficult to apply that understanding to a modern economy, where a CEO can work their way up from nowhere and build their company from the ground up, perhaps creating a new category of "the deserving idle rich" (I don't know, just spitballing).
ReplyDeleteI would be curious to get your thoughts on how Locke's theory applies to the other end of the wealth spectrum in today's world. What about people who live off collecting unemployment benefits? Are they still violating their rights to their society? If we remove the theological lens, are they violating their social contract by enjoying the protection of the state without meaningfully contributing to the welfare of their fellow citizens? If so, how can we remedy this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Shaira,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your comment and conception of the idle rich. I want to shed some light on what is considered exploitation within a workplace, so we can contextualize the line between “those who arbitrarily exploit others and profit off their labor versus those who have engaged in honest labor to get to a position in which they can profit without capitalizing on their employee’s labor.” Since you mentioned the CEO, or any position of power over lower level employees, I think it is additionally important to discuss power dynamics and the relationship between a boss and employee. It is telling for whether an individual faces exploitation in their job (and what Anderson and Locke would think) by their role as a subordinate and the power a boss holds over them.
Locke argues against an idle and exploitative rich, promoting property and contracts which “favor productive uses of capital and discourage the acquisition of income through merely passive ownership, manipulation of privilege, and exploitation of others.” Contracts should promote industry and work ethics rather than idleness. In fact, Locke’s perspective on feudal landlords supplements his likely perspective on controlling and exploitative bosses. He writes, “man can no more justly make use of another’s necessity to force him to become his vassal, by with-holding that relief God requires him to afford to the wants of his brother, than he that has more strength can seize upon a weaker, master him to his obedience, and with a dagger at his throat offer him death or slavery.” Locke condemned and even attacked the legitimacy behind taking advantage of a person’s situation or dominating them through a form of contract (a tenet that he also makes very clear in his passages on Slavery in the Second Treatise).
As for modern exploitation, in the workplace, people are left without much choice in their labor. Those with poor career prospects are forced into any job which will hire them (out of necessity, needing money to sustain their lives). Consider a newly college-graduated person entering the workforce with few job options but a desperation to make money. The new graduate will likely take any job regardless of what it entails (since the alternative is making no money and possibly starving or becoming unhoused – at the extremes). Many of these positions involve bosses or supervisors exploiting their labor and controlling their in-work behavior. Yet, since these jobs may be a person's only source of income, they take them regardless. Many workplaces engage in the behavior Locke would take issue with. Amazon considered talking about shift time theft, some companies limited any bathroom breaks, and certain workplaces still regulate off-hours legal drug use. When companies exploit employees' labor by considering their need for money and a job (what Locke would call their desperation), their behavior compares to feudal lords forcing an individual to become their subordinate because of their desperation. While I understand your critique of Locke and his seeming distaste for CEO’s who now act as idly rich, I question if it is ever possible to act in a position with so many subordinates and not exploit their labor in the manner that Locke would dislike. Because if there is no way for a CEO to act without having exploited their subordinates, does hard work matter when considering the justness of idle richness? Or, does the act of exploitation nullify the CEO's labour efforts.
Sharia, I enjoyed reading your blog post; you helped condense the Puritan Work Ethic and the foundations of Locke. To answer the question you posed concerning the CEO, I wanted to dig more into the Puritan work ethic and came across this quote talking about the "darker turn" of Locke's policies. Anderson states, "in which the duty to work becomes detached from its underlying rationale, to promote human flourishing, and gets turned against the most vulnerable poor in authoritarian direction" (27). To relate this quote to your question, I would argue that the CEO would not entirely be considered an "idle rich" because he is still using his skills to labor in the sense of his management of the company that is hypothetically adding to the public good. And while his role might seem small in comparison to others (those of his workers), another Puritan work-ethic belief is, " Everyone who engages in honest labor [which given the amount of labor, the CEO put into earning that role, I would say it's honest labor], however menial, is doing God's work" (17). Now, there is room for skepticism. We can question how the CEO is treating their workers, from their second command to their cleaning crew. Is there "just" pay in terms of the amount of labor? Are some being overworked?
ReplyDeleteThese questions move me to my thoughts on the reading. I wanted to add to testing the limit or differentiation of "those who arbitrarily exploit others and profit off their labor versus those who have engaged in honest labor to get to a position in which they can profit without capitalizing on their employee’s labor." I started questing some aspects of the pro-worker work ethic upon reading this quote, " "In a life entirely devoted to duty, no supererogation is possible" (24.) My first thought was on low-income individuals who own small local businesses (and who never exploit others) and will never have the opportunity to retire. In addition, the local business owner could be the only seller of international medicine that provides their community with a rapid recovery from a common cold, thus promoting public good for the common interest. The issue found within small local businesses and some jobs of minority groups (such as immigrants) is the overwhelming work required of them in comparison to other jobs/duties. The question is when according to the Puritan work ethic, which Locke build upon, is retirement or overworking just?
Hi Shaira!
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up some really interesting questions in opposition to Locke's ideas on the idle rich! I wanted to take a stab at justifying the example of a CEO you bring up under Locke's account. I agree with you that the twenty years it took said person to reach that level of authority should not be disregarded. But, even greater than that, just because this person is the CEO doesn't mean they sit idle and don't do anything. CEO's have the capacity to be working just as hard as the people under them (even though in some instances they don't). I also think that a CEO is employing their God given gifts of leadership and authority to lead a company and this would be something that Locke would agree with.