Idlers & Industrial Revolution

The perception that people of England prior to Industrial Revolution often stems from the historical conflict between traditional agrarian lifestyle and the emerging modern work ethic. 

Before Industrial Revolution life followed natural cycles rather than clock.  Farming involved intensive labour in times of ploughing, sowing seeds and during harvest, followed by long periods of low activity. It was common for work folks to take Mondays off - a tradition known as Saint Monday - to recover from Sunday drinking, creating a three-day weekend. 

Philosophers like David Hume noted that without cheap luxury goods to buy people had no reason to work beyond what they need to survive, naturally falling into a habit of indolence. 

Leisure was primary status symbol of aristocracy and emerging middle class.  The aristocracy lived on rents and fortunes. They indulged in scandals, gossips, and social intrigue. 

From the 17th century coffee houses became hubs where businessmen, and intellectuals spent hours socialising and reading news and debating, rather than working in the modern sense. 

What historians call idleness was often just a lack of commercial employment. Work was not for sale but a service. The Protestant work ethic championed by puritans strictly condemned idling - An idle man's mind is devil's workshop. 

Authorities established a national system of poor relief that specifically targetted "the idle" for discipline (such as whipping) to force them to labour market. 

Scottish economist and philosopher, Adam Smith argued that invisible hand of commerce was necessary to defeat idleness by giving people  self interested reasons to work. 

Bertrand Russel's 1932 book In Praise of Idleness presents a different view on the over emphasis on hard work. 

According to Russel in the pre-industrial world, it was impossible for worker to produce much more than they need to survive.  Any extra surplus produced was taken by ruling classes (priests and warriors).  In the context of Indian subcontinent by Brahmins and Kshatriyas. 

To keep people producing this surplus without revolting, the ruling class invented the idea that work is a moral duty and idleness is a sin. Its equivalent Hindu text is the following.

കര്‍മണ്യേവാധികാരസ്തേ മാ ഫലേഷു കദാച

മാ കര്‍മഫലഹേതുര്‍ഭൂര്‍മാ തേ സംഗോഽസ്ത്വകര്‍മണി

Translation: You have right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions.    It is against the modern concept of പാടത്ത് പണി വരമ്പത്ത് കൂലി or immediate payment against the job.

Bertrand Russel's main point is that this duty trap was a practical necessity of 16th and 17th century, but it is insane in a modern world.

Russell makes a sharp distinction between idleness and the way the modern people spend their time.  He notes that modern workers are so worn down by long hours that they can only handle passive and vapid entertainment like watching cinema or sports.  In earlier times there was greater capacity for light-heartedness and play, like peasant dances which required active energy that modern  "efficiency" has sucked out of us.

He acknowledged that almost all civilizations was created by the small leisure class of the 17th and 18th centuries.  By civilization he meant.the contributions in art, architecture, literature, philosophy and science.  According to him leisure is the root of all cultures.

He wanted to democratise idleness through the use of technology, and through distributing aristocratic leisure to everyone through a four-hour work-day.

He believed that if we stop moralising work people would use their idleness for: 

1. Scientific curiosity: Pursuing research without worrying about profit.

2. Kindness: According to him the good nature is the result of security and ease, while arduous struggle only makes people irritable and suspicious.