Getting to Work: Entitlement societies and the devaluation of labor

During the 2012 presidential campaign, we heard quite a bit about unemployment, redistribution and the government’s role in the economy: Do the rich support too many (Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comments) or too few (President Obama’s tax-the-rich solutions)? Are government programs excessive or insufficient? Is capitalism good or bad? One thing not discussed, however, was the nature of the activity presupposed in all economic discussions: work. This is unfortunate, for as we debate whether and how to extend or limit entitlement programs, we must understand the nature of work. Perhaps because of our separation between church and state, we have not delved into the one discipline most able to help us in this task: theology.

First we must understand the entitlement society. The late 19th century was a time of broad vision, universal claims and supreme confidence in the ability to unravel life’s mysteries. Karl Marx envisioned a new social and political order. Sigmund Freud redrew the landscape of the inner world. Charles Darwin claimed that a mechanism hitherto unknown controlled the natural world. In the early 20th century these grand schemes were embraced and embedded in cultures throughout the world. There were many reasons for this rapid acceptance, for each theory contains truths that advance our understanding of the world and the self. But instead of the selective adoption of certain elements of the theories, they were often indiscriminately promoted, particularly in education. School boards, for example, demanded, under threat of suit by the American Civil Liberties Union, nearly absolute adherence to Darwinism in textbooks.

Advertisement

These theories still exert immense influence, even though their various flaws are undeniably visible. The breakup of the Soviet Union revealed Marxism’s cancerous sores. Gender psychology, neurobiological discoveries and brain imaging discredited many of Freud’s tenets. And despite contrary assertions from the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, it matters that evolution is a theory and not a proven fact. Throughout the 20th century, however, these theories were steadfastly promoted as self-evident facts. Together the theories constructed a mechanical world with an inconsequential God, where the unconscious regulates behavior, evolution creates nature, social change originates “not in men’s brains…but in the economics of each epoch” (Frederick Engels) and jurisprudence is “determined by economic conditions” (Engels and Marx). The secular entitlement society was born here, and it solved many pressing social issues. In a deterministic world, however, humanity has little responsibility or control. This is a problem.

Theology of Work

Fortunately, 19th-century thinkers also theorized about work; the century is dubbed the concept’s golden age. The discussion began when Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel posited that only in work is a person’s humanity realized. It accelerated with Marx, who saw humans primarily as animal laborans. This prompted a rebuttal by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (1891). The 20th-century Roman magisterium continued to elaborate a theology of work to address the issues 19th-century theorists had unearthed, culminating in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Laborem Exercens” (1981). These 20th-century teachings built upon Scripture: Work is intrinsically valuable (1 Cor 3:14-15), necessary for survival (2 Thes 3:10) and community (Eph 4:28), an expression of mutual charity (1 Thes 4:11) and the basis for social justice (1 Cor 3:8-9). This concept of labor was more positive than the generally negative view of labor in ancient societies as demeaning and punitive.

The church fathers rarely discussed work, although early monastic leaders incorporated the concept into their rules. During the next centuries, society was too busy laboring to contemplate the nature of work, but by the 11th century, conditions were more conducive to reflection. St. Peter Damian (1007-72), a Benedictine monk, recognized the opportunity and produced the first sophisticated treatment of the concept of work. It is the foundation of all future Western developments of the concept, including those of the 19th and 20th centuries.

St. Damian’s concept of work is optimistic and rooted in eschatology. Because this world’s imperfections will be replaced by the perfection of the next, it is our duty to ready the world for that transformation. This requires change, and work accomplishes change. “As to our beginning and to our end, these we cannot alter,” he wrote, but work can change what happens “between these two limits.” Thus the mandate to change the world is a mandate to work, be it physical, intellectual or spiritual. It is to be considered not as “something voluntary, but as completely necessary.” No one is exempt from this mandate. The specific task of each person varies but not its intrinsic value. Because “all are from one and all are one” in the body of Christ, he wrote, “whatever function is assigned by nature to a particular member can be said to be performed by the body which is its whole.”

Work, in other words, is the great equalizer. St. Damian insists, for example, that the manual labor of lay brothers is as valuable as the choir monks’ spiritual labor. He reminds Countess Guilla, the wife of Rainerius II, that the nobility must work as hard as the lower class. Centuries before Marx, Damian pondered the relationship between work and social justice; if all have a responsibility to work, then how is living off the labor of another just? “Do not live by plundering the poor, but recoil from food acquired through violence,” he counsels the countess, and remember that “the apostle instructs everyone to work with his hands, so that he will have something to share with those in need.” One is not good because of who one is or what one does, but only if one completes one’s assigned labor.

Gradually, society accepted Damian’s views. Peasants heard from the pulpit that their labor, no matter how servile, was not demeaning. To the contrary, by doing the labor proper to their role, they changed their world and themselves. They reached their full potential through labor. Work gave them a purpose. These messages were heralded and expanded by new monastic communities formed during the era. Guigo I, a Carthusian monk, taught that utility, not dignity, was the criterion for judging the value of work. When work is useful to one’s neighbor, then it is good; if not, it “does great harm.”

Work not only equalizes the classes; it is an equalizing force between men and women. “Male and female were joined together, therefore, in such a way that each one works through the other,” Hildegard of Bingen taught, “for they should work as one in one work, as the air and the wind intermingle in their labor.” Work bestows power to individuals, for people “by their labors might overturn the world.” Work makes the individual a member of the community; Juliana of Mont Cornillon “chose a humble and abject task [milking cows] which would serve the common good” and thus shared in “all the good works accomplished by the community that enjoyed the milk.” The greatest evil is to not work, for willful refusal is an act of utmost ingratitude for “the gift of work.”

At the same time these religious recognized the difference between the negative state of “unemployed leisure” and the noble state of rest. “Everyone engaged in study, every skilled artisan, every manual worker…strive for rest and aim for rest” because, Baldwin of Ford preached, God is “supreme rest.” By the end of the High Middle Ages, Peter Damian’s concept of work had triumphed. Manual labor lost much of its social stigma. Work sanctified and transformed. It gave people power and purpose. The old saint was one who withdrew from the world; the new hero was the saintly worker who labored in and for the world.

The continuity of Blessed John Paul II’s “Laborem Exercens” with medieval theology is obvious: “Work is a good thing for man—a good thing for humanity—because through work man not only transforms nature, adapting it to his own needs, but he also achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in a sense, becomes ‘more a human being.’” The results of labor are universal: “It embraces all human beings, every generation, every phase of economic and cultural development.” At the same time work establishes an individualism that negates determinism. Work is done by “a person, that is to say, a subjective being capable of acting in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself and with a tendency to self-realization.”

Next, John Paul II rebuts specific tenets used by 19th-century theorists in the construction of the secular entitlement state. Thanks to his intimate familiarity with Marxist and socialist concepts of work, he transcends their society from within by maintaining a personalist, non-instrumental position on the nature of work. A person needs to know that he is “a true subject of work with an initiative of his own,” John Paul II wrote. The personalist position is not new; the Second Vatican Council stated that “when a man works he not only alters things and society, he develops himself as well.” John Paul II, however, used the position for a new purpose, “to highlight—perhaps more than has been done before—the fact that human work is a key, probably the essential key, to the whole social question.”

Benefits of Labor

Such is the legacy of Christian work theology, a tradition of, yes, “theories,” but insightful ones about the role of work in life. Work is intrinsically valuable because it gives humanity the power to transform self, society and nature. Labor is necessary for survival, an agent of change and an equalizer of classes and sexes. It is utilitarian. It allows us to optimistically anticipate a better future. It fosters individualism, yet binds community and forms the basis for social justice. Work, in short, is what we do to attain happiness. Without work we have no power, no equalizer, no social justice, no change, no survival.

Herein lies a potential problem with entitlement societies: They foster an environment and mentality that diminishes the importance and benefits of labor. They declare that all need not work—but are silent about the negative side of unemployed leisure. Entitlement societies imply that receiving the benefits of others’ work is just as good as working oneself. This allows for survival—but little else. Instead of providing an equalizer and the basis for social justice, entitlement societies have great potential for the opposite. As the rift between northern and southern European Union members bears witness, entitlement societies have tremendous capacity for breeding anger, class warfare and envy. They fool people into believing that not working is as desirable as working. Most importantly, they deny people the opportunity to reach their full human potential. No amount of material security can replace this loss.

The French Revolution forced society to admit that when a nonworking minority lives off the fruits of a working majority, social problems thrive. Should we expect different results from a reverse situation? We are fast approaching such a scenario: Workforce participation is at a record low: 52.2 percent of young adults are jobless and 49 percent of households receive benefits. Partisans can argue about why this is the case, but the reasons matter less than the fundamental reality that too many people are deprived of labor’s nonmaterial benefits. A proper decision about whether or how far to grow our entitlement society must include consideration of what the loss of work entails.

Society needs mechanisms to support the poor. In populous societies that means legislated programs; hence, the entitlement society. Such programs are not the problem per se. The problem arises when programs do not acknowledge or promote the essential connection between that support and work. More worrisome is the fact that entitlement programs now extend well beyond support of the poor; many encourage early cessation of work. Senior citizens, thinking only about the onerous nature of labor, retire while still able and active, only to discover in boredom the beneficial nature of work.

We must listen to theology. Material support alone does not bring happiness. It must be accompanied by work. When government separates workforce participation from material support, it does a supreme disservice to recipients. When social policies encourage the cessation of work at mid-life, those early retirees no longer have access to work’s non-material benefits. When culture proposes nonproductive leisure as the ultimate good, it is deceiving individuals. High unemployment rates are unacceptable not solely for economic reasons, but for the psychological and moral well-being of citizens. Without work, a person is deprived of power over self and society and of the opportunity to fulfill potential. Without work, social problems multiply. Without work, true happiness is elusive.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
alan baer
5 years ago
Of course work is good. Ask any of the millions of Americans trying desperately to obtain it.
David Cruz-Uribe
5 years ago
An interesting article with some great ideas, but I am put on my guard against the author's thesis by the painful mistake in the opening paragraphs. Denouncing evolution as not being a "fact" but "just a theory" is more reminiscent of creationists than Catholic thinkers. Yes, it is a theory, in the epistemological sense of the word as used by the sciences: a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that can be used to make predictions. It is a "fact" in the sense that it explains "the facts" (a la Jack Webb) in such a way as to convince people that it is part of objective reality. Gravity is a "fact": drop a glass and it shatters on the floor; the theory of gravitation, either the older Newtonian model or Einstein's newer version, are "just theories" but are nonetheless true.
J Cosgrove
5 years ago
Evolution may be a fact but this requires that one define just what evolution is. To equate evolution with Darwin's ideas is bad science as well as bad logic. Darwin's ideas and it modern counterpart the "modern synthesis" whatever its latests form is cannot explain evolution in any grand sense. It can explain some little things. Darwin's ideas, updated by modern biochemistry is essentially present day genetics. Genetics is a very valuable science but it cannot explain the changes in life over the last 3.5 billion years. What causes these changes? The only honest scientific answer is that it is a mystery and certainly not due to Darwin's ideas. As a grand paradigm, Marx's ideas are dead, Freud's ideas are dead and Darwin's ideas are dead. Each has or will be be replaced by much better insight into the laws of nature and men.
Harry Childers
5 years ago
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial, the coverage of evolution in textbooks was "demanded" in 1958 by the US Congress, whose members passed the National Defense Education Act because they "feared the United States education system was falling behind that of the Soviet Union. The act yielded textbooks, produced in cooperation with the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which stressed the importance of evolution as the unifying principle of biology." The ACLU actually had little influence on this.
Harry Childers
5 years ago
I cannot find sources for "52% of young adults are jobless" and "49% of households receive benefits". The latter may be true, if you consider things like tax deductions and exemptions to be "benefits". The former matches nothing I have found on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, which is the only authoritative source for US employment information. Also, a date for the "52%" statement would be useful - it certainly isn't current.
J Cosgrove
5 years ago
Here are two articles that discuss the job market problems for young adults. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-2-graduates-jobless-underemployed-140300522.html http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/millennials-are-the-most-stressed-out-americans-184318812.html Here is an article from the Washington Post on people who receive government benefits. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-receives-benefits-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/
J Cosgrove
5 years ago
Patricia, I suggest that you and the editors here read and review a book that is now a year old, Coming Apart by Charles Murray. In my opinion it was the most important book in the last 10 years. In this book Murray describes what has been happening to the United States over the last 50 years in terms of culture, work ethic, morals and one's self worth. It is not a pretty picture and he blames the elites because they are the ones who set the tone and example. Amongst a lot of things in the book he talks about the value of work and how what was considered good for character is today demeaned. Here is a telling quote:
"A man who is holding down a menial job and thereby supporting a wife and children is doing something authentically important with his life. He should take deep satisfaction from that, and be praised by his community for doing so. If that same man lives under a system that says the children of the woman he sleeps with will be taken care of whether or not he contributes, then that status goes away. I am not describing a theoretical outcome, but American neighborhoods where, once, working at a menial job to provide for his family made a man proud and gave him status in his community, and where now it doesn’t. Taking the trouble out of life strips people of major ways in which human beings look back on their lives and say, ‘I made a difference."
One can get the essence of the book from the following video (about an hour) but it is really necessary to read the book and see the statistics which are staggering to really understand the problem. The problems highlighted may not be correctible in the short term and it is getting worse each year. http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/113726
michael baland
4 years 12 months ago
I am always struck by the fact that those who speak highly of menial work are also those who don't have to do it.
EDGAR BERNERS
5 years ago
On "52.2 percent of young adults are jobless", in the report by the Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America, a chart of labor force share and unemployment rate says that in 2011 the unemployment rate for workers 16-19 was 24.4% and for workers 20-24 it was 14.6%. For all older workers it was less than 10%. http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-jobs-table-5-2-labor-force-share-unemployment/
Beth Cioffoletti
5 years ago
I will believe all of this when any man or woman who is working full time (40 hours a week) is able to support herself and her dependents. S/he will be able to afford a home, healthcare, food and clothing, with ample time for rest and vacation. I believe in the dignity and value of work, and that we each have a work to do in the world for each other. It's the "for each other" that blends the roles of a free market capitalism and socialism. We have much to learn about economy from the monastics!
Jim Lein
4 years 12 months ago
The best way to get more people to work is having work for them to do and paying them a living wage for doing it. In this morning's paper I just read a column by Pat Buchanan, fellow Catholic, two years my senior, with whom I seldom agree but did, mostly, this morning. He pointed out the huge loss of jobs due to our outscourcing them overseas. People are out of work because their jobs are gone -- and because we had a market crash brought on by people who make money without working but instead shuffling money around in various schemes that concentrate money into a few hands. These are the same people responsible for shipping away our jobs. Increasingly this is becoming a society in which only fools work. The money is not in work, in labor, which columnist George Will refers to as, yes, a commodity. "Entitlement society" takes the focus off where it should be. We are entitled to have jobs. Yet many of the jobs paying a living wage are gone. This was not inevitable, as Buchanan reminds us. Pure profit trumped working, which is producing something of value or providing a service of value. Our financial powers-that-be went for money over jobs, over people, over the common good. Don't lay the blame on those whose jobs were sent overseas. Don't call this an entitlement society, please.
Joyce Wager
4 years 11 months ago
Working is part of our life. We seek job to feed our body. But in this planet we are battling for life, thus searching for jobs may seem so difficult. Though employment rates goes higher we cannot deny that there are still who are seeking to earn for a living. But the report is not bad at all. Earlier this week, the unemployment rate ticked up to 7.9 percent in January, following the nation’s plunge off the “fiscal cliff.” However, last month it dipped to 7.9 percent, the lowest point seen since December 2008′s 7.3 percent. Some of that dip was the result of the chronically-unemployed giving up the job search. Mostly, though, analysts say, it was driven by real job growth across a spectrum of industries. Read more at: Unemployment rate falls

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

Five years later, looking back on a momentous day in the life of the church
James Martin, SJFebruary 18, 2018
If you know nothing else about Lent, you probably know that people give things up.
James Martin, SJFebruary 18, 2018
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are urging Catholics to call Congress and demand they act on behalf of “Dreamers.”
J.D. Long-GarcíaFebruary 18, 2018
Pope Francis has appointed 16 members (eight men and eight women) to the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.
Gerard O’ConnellFebruary 17, 2018