If I could very drastically sum up your hypothesis here, Keith, would it be that the increase in working hours is being driven by a decline in the quality and sociability of accessible leisure activity? If so, I couldn't agree more.
There are times when getting through the weekend becomes an ordeal. Would it be priggish to suggest a tie between the industrialization of leisure and leisure fatigue? http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98oct/hacienda.htm Keith Hudson wrote, > Tom, > > I'm changing the subject of the thread again because I think something very > interesting is emerging in this discussion. > > You made quite a number of interesting insights in your posting but I'm > going to cut through to your last (postscript) sentence where you appear to > have summarised your overall ideas very neatly. > > At 15:33 05/09/02 -0700, TW wrote: > <<<< > I'm for shorter hours because, as a consequence of research over more than > 20 years I have become convinced that the expansion of working hours has > come from our society's refusal to confront its social, economic and > spiritual problems -- that is to say that the longer hours, like > alcoholism, are as much a symptom of malaise as a source. > >>>> > > I'd agree with that. Holding that in mind, let me now backtrack to > something earlier that I wrote and you replied to: > (KH) > <<<< > Thus, unfortunately, the working week will always tend to expand well above > the necessary minimum -- the hours demanded being pulled and pushed from > both employers and employees. > >>>> > (TW) > <<<< > This is a recent phenomenon since the 1980s for the U.S., the 1960s for > manufacturing. Until then, the trend since the mid-nineteenth century was > reduction of the work week. > >>>> > > I'm glad you made reference to the 19th century because two things can be > said about this period: (a) the ordinary working man in the cities was > working immensely long hours up until about 1850 -- far longer than he was > a few decades earlier in a mainly agrarian economy ('tho we must bear in > mind that many people came to the factories of the cities from the > countryside voluntarily and not all of them because they were forced out by > landlord enclosures); (b) despite the ordinary factory worker being > exploited pretty ruthlessly, his hours nevertheless declined in the course > of the century. > > I suggest that the workers' hours didn't decline because of trade union > activity. This featured strongly, of course, during the century, but I > suggest that the underlying reason was that as productivity (and the > profitability of British exports) improved, some of it was bound to spill > over into higher wages so that, as the average wage of the worker increased > above the basic costs of survival (food, clothes, house-rent), then a > proportion of disposable income was bound to be spent on leisure activities > as well as in the pubs. > > We can instance the immense growth of spectator sports during the latter > decades of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th (soccer, > rugby and cricket mainly). We can also instance the music halls and also > immense growth of radio. These alone would account for at least 15-20 hours > a week of the average adult male worker's leisure time. > > Any particular type of economy cannot be sustained for long if the goods > that the working man produces cannot also be purchased by him. But also -- > and very importantly -- the working man must also have the leisure time (as > well as the money) to use them (in this case, the spectator leisure goods). > This, I suggest, is the real underlying reason why the working week came > down so spectacularly from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century -- > say, from 70-90 hours a week to 40-60. > > Now let me nip forward to the present. There's an awful lot written about > immensely long working hours and yet, at the same time, as I quoted a few > days ago, opinion polls in America say that most people are reasonably > content with their working week. I suggest that this apparent anomaly can > be reconciled by the fact that those who complain and write about the long > working weeks are the middle-class meritocrats, not the workers. And the > meritocrats, generally, have much more interesting jobs than the workers -- > so interesting, in fact, that their work is more satisfying than much of > the passive entertainment that's available to them in their leisure time. > > This polarity in the use of time is, I suggest, self-reinforcing. And one > result of this is that the quality of what's available by way of passive > entertainment -- TV and radio -- continues to decline. But I won't continue > along this particular vein because I'll be tempted into discussing one of > my strongest beliefs (that society and the job structure is dividing into > two parts). > > Instead, let me just instance one interesting case in point -- the one that > started this thread. This is that it's not surprising that the French, more > than most European cultures, and certainly more than America, still retain > a healthier and more satisying notion of what leisure should be about. They > take enormously long holidays in the summer -- often returning to their > countryside families localities. They still believe in a caf� society. > Families dine out for long meals (it's an eye-opener to watch such in a > restaurant and the enjoyment and fun that goes on!). In short, they're > still hanging onto some sort of community life -- and it's *active* at > that, and not passive. > > So let me summarise. If leisure "goods" are a significant part of an > economy, then the average worker must also have sufficient time as well as > money in order to keep the show going. I don't know what the figures in > terms of GDP, but the leisure industry (that is, passive entertainment) is > substantial. This has a strong, albeit hardly visible, effect on the length > of the working week. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ------------ > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________
