Labor, Work, the Social and the Political

The subtitle of the first edition of Arendt's book was: "A Study of the Central Dilemma Facing Modern Man." Two reasonable questions to ask, now that we've read nearly 200 pages of the book in a course titled "Computers and Human Values," are: 1) "What is the dilemma?" and "What has it to do with technology?"

Thinking about these answers in light of Moravec's book, there are a number of interesting crosscurrents:

• In addition to questioning our connection to the earth, and the need for work as constitutive of the human condition, Moravec' vision questions the need for a "body". Interestingly enough, Arendt spends a good deal of time talking about the significance of the body -- why?
• Arendt discusses the distinction between life's meaning for humans in the classical and modern ages. Does Moravec have a position about the meaning of life? Do you?
• Moravec would agree with Arendt that, while human nature may be unchanging (however imperfectly we may understand it), the human condition is constantly changing. Indeed, Moravec began his book with an argument about how these changes may threaten the future of humans because of the way they are constituted. How do Arendt and Moravec compare when the question is how to evaluate whether changes in the human condition are "improvements"? How do you evaluate whether changes in the conditions of life are for the better or not?

Questions Arising from (Arendt's) The Human Condition

We'll begin by taking up the questions and responses on the CHV-L list. We'll ask everyone to bring us up-to-date on their thinking about the question(s) they proposed. Again, the categories of questions seemed to me to be:

1. Arendt's basic outlook on the Contemplative Life & Antiquity vs. the Active Life & the Modern Age;
2. the significance of Arendt's ideas/distinctions concerning the private, public and social realms; and
3. her various claims about labor and property in chapter 3.

"Labor"

Tiffany will lead our discussion of chapter 3, and has provided a nice outline:

In my discussion, i will explore three points Arendt makes throughout Chapter 3: Labor. First, she discusses "man's metabolism with nature" at length, exposing nature's cycle and how the human condition drives that cycle as well as how humans are affected by it. Second, I will focus on her contrast between the division of labor and specialization. Lastly, I will discuss her comparison between the classical and modern definitions of labor.

I. Arendt defines labor as a more natural activity undertaken by the individual to ensure his/her survival. That depiction of man's role in nature is a main focus of this chapter. She talks about the futility of labor; as quickly as a product is produced it is consumed. Mechanization has led to greater production. Herein arises the question of whether greater production is due to the quickening of this cycle, or is greater consumption due to an increase in production? Plus, what implications will the quickening of the production-consumption cycle have on the future of the human condition?

II. Arendt makes a distinction between specialization and division of labor. Specialization is associated with greater craftsmanship or skill in work, while division of labor deals with the speed of labor's consumption-production cycle. The modern age brought about division of labor, as can be seen in workings of a factory, which emphasizes faster and greater numbers of product instead of the durability found in craftsmanship. As society becomes more automated, there is a greater division of labor. In the future, what will be the limitations of the degradation of quality in products consumed by man?

III. Finally, Arendt differentiates between the classical and modern view of labor. During the classical age, labor was defined as activities necessary to survival. In the modern age, activity has polarized into labor and play. Arendt defines the modern view of labor as anything that is not play, which includes most occupations except the arts. The classical definition allowed for the divison of society between those enslaved to do the bodily labor and those free to participate in the polis. On the contrary, the all-encompassing modern definition makes a more unified "labor society." Will greater automation lead to freedom from labor, as Moravec supposes, or will it just perpetuate the growth of the modern "enslaved" labor society?

For Next Time:: Read chapter 6 of The Human Condition, and as much of chapter 5 as you can/will.

Back to the Syllabus