Real work, not jobs

French philosophers seem to have good ideas, but very convoluted ways of expressing them which makes them inaccessible to all but the most determined. André Gorz (Gérard Horst) is no exception. I picked up “Reclaiming Work” because I liked the subtitle on the English translation “beyond the wage-based society”. That resonated with my view that we should be thinking about the shape of the world without jobs which we are rapidly heading into, rather than wasting energy on looking for new ways to create jobs. I was hoping he might cast some light on what that future might look like.

It starts with a detailed analysis of some of the changes that have taken place in work over the last 50 years or so as businesses have sought to wring ever more “value” out of workers.

What I found most interesting was the discussion of what work really is. A dictionary might define work as “activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result” and to do work means to “be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a result”. Gorz argues that work has been redefined as employment for pay. Work has become “something one does or does not have” rather than “something one does” (p56). This has made work (or a job) into a commodity that people are eager to possess, and to make sacrifices for. It means that instead of work creating wealth, wealth (in the form of companies) creates jobs and people vie for the privilege of having them. This puts the individual in an unenviable place of dependency and powerlessness and we increasingly see people taking on “work” for less pay and with less protection.

Gorz reflects on why people want jobs so badly and how jobs have come to define each person’s worth in society. In the past, people have been afraid that without jobs they lose their standing in society. But, Gorz argues, that this is no longer the case. People are having to live without jobs and so are reinventing their relationships with work.

He identifies two characters of interest in the modern world of work; the “jobber” and the “freelancer” (p50). The jobber “turns insecurity into a way of life” by refusing employment and taking on just enough temporary work to meet their basic needs while maximising free time. Jobbers are described as “dissidents of capitalism” for their refusal to buy into the mirage of the job or the lure of consumerism. The freelancer is a self-employed person who, while ostensibly enjoying freedom, generally works long hours for lower wages than the employed. Gorz argues that freelancing only really works for “the elite of knowledge workers” (p51).

If neither of these two options is particularly attractive, he offers a ray of hope in the form of “Generation X”. These youngsters, he argues, show signs of creating a new society in which individuals define for themselves personal agendas of growth and ways to live, selecting employment that aligns with their agendas where possible, or taking temporary jobs to meet the need for income, while pursuing their chosen mix of work, self-development, leisure and family activities.

For this new society we need individuals who are “in charge of their own existences as autonomous subjects” (p69). This is why the anxious parents who force their children through ever more layers of education are actually setting them up for failure. Education teaches young people to submit to doing what others want them to. It does not develop “the capacity to take control of one’s own life and achieve self-esteem outside of the prescribed paths” (p69).

With these examples of living without jobs in place, Gorz says that: “the point now is not to ask whether individuals are capable of living a life no longer centred on employment, or whether they are ready for a society arranged in that way, but how that other life and society can be anticipated and prefigured right now” (p59).

The book continues with a three-part proposal for a reconfigured society.  This is where I think we need to be spending time and energy – figuring out how proposals like these can work. He presents a detailed (and convincing) argument for a guaranteed income which would have the effect of decoupling work and earning. He discusses ways in which jobs can be redistributed, by reducing hours, as well as how to do this in a way that supports the rights of individuals, rather than opening them up to further exploitation. He also proposes that the increased leisure time which results needs to be filled with cooperative activities and projects driven by individuals and discusses the kind of city infrastructures that might support this. It’s a utopia that I can buy in to.

I have a hunch that this utopia is already further along than might be expected. As unemployment rises many people are being forced into inventing this new society for themselves. Most cities contain pockets of invention and bricolage when it comes to livelihoods. People cobble together different sources of income, and spend time outside of employment on their own projects. Of course people forced into this position don’t necessarily enjoy a quality of life that the old “job” secured them. Medical insurance and pension schemes remain attached to jobs and considerable suffering results. This is why we need to focus on what policies and mechanisms these new societies need to support people who do not have jobs, now, while they are the minority. In time, most people will live this way.

The revolution is already underway.