Work An Occupational Perspective Ann Allart Wilcock, DipCOT, BAppSc, OT Associate Prqfessor Head, School of Occupational Therapy University of South Australia Adelaide, South Australia
Work-that is, paid employment, as it is known in the developed world - is only one aspect of occupation. In terms of human history, it is of very recent origin; a commonly expressed view is that it is at risk of disappearing or changing dramatically in this time oftechnological and occupational transformation. If the challenges facing the world because of the evolving occupational transformation are to be met, a more fundamental understanding of the place and purpose of occupation in human life is required. Armed with such knowledge, it may be possible in the future to meet the occupational as well as the economic needs of individuals and communities globally, including those of less developed societies. For those involved in occupational health and rehabilitation, this article poses a challenge to expand the current boundaries of thinking to include future possibilities based on rigorous analysis of the past. Occupation is a central aspect of the human experience, being much more, despite current usage of the word, than paid employment. Occupational therapists, one group of people professionally interested in occupation, describe it as purposeful use of "time, energy, interest and attention" (American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1972) in work, leisure, family, cultural, self-care, and rest activities. It is a "natural human phenomena" which is taken for granted because it "forms the fabric of everyday living" (Cynkin and Robinson, 1990). It includes "playful, restful, serious and productive" activities "carried out by individuals in their own unique ways, based on their
beliefs and preferences, the kinds of experiences they have had, their environments, ... the specific patterns of behavior they acquire over time" (Kielhofner, 1985), and societal influences. Occupation that is culturally sanctioned may be seen as a "primary organizer of time and resources" (Yerxa et aI., 1989), enabling humans to survive, control, and adapt to their world, be economically self-sufficient, and experience social relationships and approval as well as personal growth.
THE NATURE OF OCCUPATION The need to do is primary. All living things carry out survival activities. Humans seek food, drink, and shelter from other living things and the environment, occupation being the mechanism used to obtain these requirements. Occupation also provides exercise of body and mind to stimulate and maintain function, balance, and homeostasis. Humans, however, go beyond survival needs in their pursuit of occupation. They engage in occupation with individuality of purpose; they think about the effects, conceptualize, and plan; and they are able to reflect and mentally alter future behavior as a result of outcomes. The apparently strong drive within people to make use of their hereditary and learned capacities through engagement in daily, new, or adventurous occupations promotes development and growth of body , mind, and communities. As people engage in occupation to master their environment and improve human opportunities, well-being, and survival, the physical and social environment is altered. Neff(1985) observed that the most revolutionary force in human history is technological change associated with the way people "wrest their living from nature." He argued WORK 1993; 3(1):10-15 Copyright © 1993 by Andover Medical
Work: An Occupational Perspective
that social institutions are merely mirrors of technologicallevels. In other words, human occupation (and its technology) is the force that produces and causes changes to social structures. Philosophers Hegel and Marx would describe it "as man's act of self creation" (Marx, 1843; Fischer, 1970). Whether or not occupation changes the world, the species, or individuals, it certainly provides the mechanism to enable people to adapt to biological, sociological, and environmental demands. Karl Marx (1818-1883), who is best known for his revolutionary writings criticizing the capitalist system and advocating communism, founded much of his philosophy on the humanist idea that labor, used in the sense that this article uses occupation' is the collective creative activity of mankind, and in fact is "man's species nature" (Marx, 1843; Fischer, 1970). If occupation is the "collective creative activity of mankind," the biological mechanism for human survival and development and the expression of individual and cultural creativity, humans might be described as occupational beings with an innate need for occupation. By arguing that occupation is an innate human need, there is no suggestion that this refers to any specific activity or occupation. It simply refers to the fact that humans feel the need to engage in occupation and that this is an integral part of their "species nature." It is argued that humans are genetically programmed to use physical, social, and mental capacities, rather than being programmed for specific skills such as hunting, killing, foraging, or working. Occupational needs, in common with other human needs, do not have a "repertoire of inherited, unlearned action patterns" (Eysenck, Arnold, and Meili, 1979) but are innate. The need to be purposefully active to meet survival, family, and societal needs is common to humankind. Occupations are imbued with status. Societal, cultural, and personal values, developmental stage, and remuneration are often the criteria for according status to occupations. The occupations that people strive to master are usually those valued by the society in which they live, or from another culture to which they feel an affinity. At present in developed societies, although skill for skill's sake is admired, occupational status is often related to monetary value. Therefore, in the late
11
20th century paid employment enjoys the greatest status among occupations for both men and women despite a decrease in job opportunities as technology increases. The findings of many researchers studying the effects of unemployment indicate the strength of social values associated with the importance of work. Smith (1987) went so far as to suggest that paid employment is the central institution in industrial societies and matters to the individual more than almost anything else. Such findings do not in any way negate the suggestion that, for most people, work occupations in themselves are not satisfying. In fact, it can be argued that, except for a minority of the work force, paid employment in the last half of the 20th century has not met the needs of our occupational species nature. That is, paid employment does not provide adequate or satisfying exercise or development opportunities for physical, mental, and social capacities. It can be further argued that this aspect of paid employment has been inadequately considered in comparison with conditions of employment, or technological development. To understand how this came about, it is useful to explore the occupational history of mankind.
OCC UPATIONAL EVO LUTION Occupation is so central to the study of the origins and development of humans in society that the eras of history are frequently described in occupational terms, that is, hunter-gatherer, agricultural, and industrial eras. Archeologists and anthropologists trace much of the evolution of the human species from pre-homosapiens through studying occupations such as tool use, food production, creativity, and domestic and communal activities. Exploration of such studies has the potential to add new dimensions to problem-solving work issues in the latter half of this century. The occupations humans have pursued throughout time in order to survive have changed dramatically with biological, cultural, and technological evolution. The provision of food, for example,
12
WORK / WINTER 1993
has changed from foraging, scavenging, hunting, storing, and growing to purchasing. Our ancestors, once opportunistic omnivores, very gradually developed a food-sharing economy based on foraging meat and plant foods, which led eventually to a hunting and gathering existence involving cooperative food gathering, systematic food sharing, probably some division oflabor, and a social life based on temporary camps (Leakey, 1981). Many anthropologists argue that this simple, but obviously effective, economy provided a very successful and persistent quality life; Marshall Sahlins of the University of Chicago named it "the original affluent society . . . in which all the peoples' wants are easily satisfied" (Lewin, 1988). Coon (1972) suggested there is a closeness of fit between hunter-gatherer people and their environments. "Such people," he writes, "have had the energy, hardihood, and ingenuity to live and live well in every climatic region of the world not covered by icecaps. They have done so with stone tools and no firearms. In every well-documented instance, cases of hardship may be traced to the intervention of modern intruders." Some authorities suggest that in order to survive, the occupations of primitive people were necessarily very arduous and virtually continuous (Neff, 1985; Waechter, 1976). However, others, based on evaluation of modern hunter-gatherer lifestyles, have argued that the mixed economy of hunting and gathering brought with it time for leisure (Leakey, 1981; Sahlins, 1972; Leakey and Lewin, 1978). The amount of time available for either labor or leisure probably depends to a large extent on environmental variables. However, it is difficult to determine if there existed any formal differentiation and value loading between labor and leisure. It is possible to assume that the division, complexity, and values given to human occupation have changed with different environmental demands and social structures. By studying hunter-gatherer people who have survived to recent times it appears that early in our history, although occupations differed between men and women and between individuals of different ages, no distinction existed between labor and leisure occupations.
WORK AND LEISURE The artificial separation of leisure from work appears to have occurred fairly late in evolution. Neff(1985) suggested that at the time of the formation of cities, about 6,000 years ago, occupation began to acquire distinctions, qualifications, and an increasingly complicated infrastructure of evaluative meanings, including a distinction between labor and leisure. Early societies seem to have operated in such a way that a natural balance between work, leisure, and rest was an accepted part of their occupational lives. However, Victorian explorers coming from an industrial background misunderstood and deplored the leisure factor in their encounters with hunter-gatherer peoples as evidence of a nonwork ethic and the reason for their perceived "lack of progress." This prejudice or bias remains today: developed nations, if not condemning them, certainly encourage people to change to an occupational way of life similar to their own. Morris and Marsh (1988), in their study of modern tribes, suggested that "civilization has with ruthless efficiency waged a genocidal war against tribal cultures," herding some into reservations where it is impossible to survive as hunter-gatherers, or alternatively "seduced" them from "their traditional lifestyles by false promises of 20th century technological societies." Jenkins and Sherman (1981) argued in The Leisure Shock that because modern society is "workoriented in a systematic, nonseasonal way, as it has been since the industrial revolution," it does not consider leisure seriously. Leisure is often confused with pleasure, making it sound "vaguely sinful and hedonistic and frivolous enough to be frowned upon." Yet they pointed out that modern technology produces a situation in which all goods and services can be produced by fewer people, and that work will become less available. This will leave many people with up to 100 % leisure time in a society that values work above all other forms of occupation. Eventually, they argued, societies are going to have to come to terms with the idea that the boundaries between work and leisure must be blurred, and that the work ethic is fast becoming obsolete. They suggested that a revolution of attitudes about fundamental occupational
Work: An Occupational Perspective
issues is urgently required; this will present a fundamental challenge to all systems and raise fundamental questions about in whose interest society IS run.
ECONOMIC VALUES VERSUS OCCUPATIONAL NEEDS From the turn of the 18th century, the occupational nature of humans in the Western world was subjected to perhaps its greatest challenge. With remarkable speed, when one considers the millions of years it took to transform an omnivorous scavenger economy into a hunter-gatherer economy or the thousands of years that saw the gradual transformation to agriculture, the way humans wrested their living from nature became determined by industry and man-made structures. Occupation as a valued part oflife became focused on paid employment, increasingly within capitalist forms of industry. Adam Smith (1723-1790), whose work Inquiry into the Nature and Causes oj the Wealth oj Nations (1776) is considered the foundation of classical economics, proposed that the keys to increasing a nation's wealth were the accumulation of capital and the division of labor, both of which would increase with the freeing of trade. He saw that the division of labor would increase workers' skills through specialization and speed of operation through time saved in switching from one task to another. He also recognized that this would decrease the quality of work. Bannock, Baxter, and Rees (1972) suggested that, in the broad sense, this has led to modern exchange economy, that is, specialization followed by exchange between specialists, which is a fundamental aspect of all modern economies. While it appears that the vast majority of the population have accepted that material wealth provided by occupational specialization is logical and acceptable, one could raise the basic question of whether division of labor and specialization are conducive to wellbeing, not withstanding material wealth. The extreme dichotomy, at the time of the Industrial Revolution, between the nature of occupations and the social conditions and values of employers and their employees led intellectuals as
13
various as Karl Marx,John Ruskin, and William Morris to consider the effects of the industrial era on the occupational nature of mankind. Ruskin (1819-1900) was a well-known art critic who in 1860 turned to political economy, challenging classical political economists that they failed to consider the human factor. Ruskins' central theme was that the quality oflife citizens enjoy is the true measure of a nation's prosperity, rather than the accumulation of wealth for its own sake (Ruskin, 1862). William Morris (1834-1896) was a poet, architect, painter, printer, craftsman, and social reformer. As a craftsman, he deplored the machine age, and the fact that commerce had become a "sacred religion" turning work from a solace into a burden for some, and for the majority, a mere drudgery. "The wonderful machines . . . have driven all men into mere frantic haste and hurry, thereby destroying pleasure .... they have instead of lightening the labour of the workmen, intensified it, and thereby added more weariness yet to the burden which the poor have to carry" (Morris, 1884). The challenges aimed at changing the early values of industrial societies achieved success in the long term, but social inequities and conditions of work have remained the major focus of debate and action. In focusing on the exploitation ofthe work force, the basic ideological arguments about the nature of occupation and the human need for purposeful creative activity were, on the whole, overlooked. In better conditions, workers continued to be servants of machines; for many people, there was little opportunity for creativity or even the chance to be involved in a total process of production. Economics, rather than human need, became the major driving force in occupational issues. However, there has been a persistent stream of questioning the ill effects that accompany the procedures proclaimed by classical economics. Frank Knight (1924), professor of economics at Chicago University, argued that "the values of life are not, in the main, reducible to satisfactions obtained from the consumption of exchangeable goods and services." John Kenneth Galbraith (1958) argued in The Affluent Society that traditional economics developed at a time when "wants" were chasing "goods" and is inappropriate when the op-
14
WORK / WINTER 1993
posite is true, as in modern industrial nations where the "production machine has become an end in itself" (Roll, 1973); and Lionel Robbins (1963), an economist of the English Classical School, suggested economists "have nothing to say on the true ends of life: and that their propositions concerning what is or what can be involved in themselves no propositions concerning what ought to be." The industrial era appears to be changing rapidly into a new occupational era, but social structures and values that developed and prevailed as a result of industry dominating human occupation remain. Superimposed on these are the stresses and pressures created by occupational development and technology which have outstripped understanding of human nature and needs, as well as those relating to the world's ecology. Human occupation, its technology, and the social structure and values that surround it are now so complex that they are almost unrecognizable as developing from the simple survival occupations of our ancestors. It almost appears that the need to use human capacities in a creative, problem-solving, inventive, or adaptive way has led to the domination of occupational technology, which appears now to be a stronger driving force than survival of the species in the long term. In creating machines that will replace human occupation, in destroying irreplaceable natural resources to create machines, tools, and man-made environments, and by building weapons of war that can destroy the world, human occupational behavior and technology can be seen to have run wild. Perhaps, when the human capacity for creativity becomes sufficiently focused on these man-made problems, it will be able to use the same drive to counteract the ill effects.
CONCLUSIONS It may seem that in comparing early and present forms of occupations that have continued throughout evolution, that this article has seemed to condemn current practices. To some extent the comment may be justified. In exploring the differences between natural and culturally acquired occupa-
tional behaviors, it would seem that people living in postindustrial countries are not happy or satisfied despite many apparent material and social welfare advantages. As Jenkins and Sherman (1981) suggested, "drifting dissatisfaction is now a part of all industralised societies. These feelings, according to anthropological studies, do not occur in the more primitive social groupings nor, indeed, in the less developed countries." One of the major differences may be that the basic occupational needs of people have been obscured by the current complexity of occupational technology, economy, and the social structures, divisions, and values that have been established progressively. In 1935, Alexis Carrel (1935) suggested that "modern civilization finds itself in a difficult position because it does not suit us. It has been erected without any knowledge of our real nature. It was born from the whims of scientific discoveries, from the appetites of men, their illusions, their theories, and their desires. Although constructed by our efforts it is not adjusted to our size and shape." During the last half century the rapidity of change has surely made this so. Certain questions need to be addressed. How will people wrest their living from nature, or from man-made economies, in the future? Will mankind's occupational nature be acknowledged and considered along with the economy during reconstruction of new social orders? This latter question is of some substance as, from the industrial era on, it would seem that occupation for its own sake has lost its efficacy and value. Because the origins and nature of occupation have become obscure, we have failed to recognize it as a basic need. We have failed to appreciate the human need to use and develop individual capacities by personally stimulating occupations, accepting instead the materialistic, value-loaded results of occupation as the central focus of modern life and occupation's purpose. To understand values and needs that lead to individual and social well-being, to appreciate what potentials, skills, and capacities humans use and develop in order to lead a satisfactory life, it is argued that rigorous study of the human need for occupation is now essential. An occupational perspective will give us the opportunity to con-
Work: An Occupational Perspective
sider the world, the people in it, how they work and live, and how they are governed from a viewpoint of the centrality of the human need for occupation. Economics, technology, and scientific discovery have dominated thinking to the extent that occupation has been considered from these perspectives rather than in its own right. Such study may enable us "to learn how nature intended human beings to live" (Coon, 1972) and will enable many aspects of the future, such as paid employ-
15
ment, to be considered from a humanistic occupational perspective. Workers in occupational health and rehabilitation could play a more dominant role in policy decisions about work if they extended their thinking to consider work from a holistic occupational perspective. This would support a proactive stance aimed at promoting optimal well-being for future work scenarios, rather than, as at present, being restricted to concentrating on preventing or correcting existing problems.
REFERENCES American Journal of Occupational Therapy. (1972). Occupational therapy: Its definitions and functions. Am] Occup Ther, 26, 204. Bannock, G., Baxter, R. E., Rees, R. (1972). ThePenguin dictionary oj economics. London: Penguin Books. Carrel, A. (1935). Man the unknown (p. 29). London: Burns and Oates. Coon, C. S. (1972). The hunting peoples. London: Jonathan Cape, Ltd. Cynkin, S., and Robinson, A. M. (1990). Occupational therapy and activities health: Towards health through activities. (p. 4). Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Eysenck, H. S., Arnold, W., Meili, R. (1979). Encyclopedia oj psychology (pp. 705-706). New York: The Seabury Press. Fischer, E. (1970). Marx in his own words. London: Penguin Press. Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The a.JJluent society. London: Hamish. Jenkins, C., and Sherman, B. (1988). The leisure shock (p. 1). London: Eyre Methuen, Ltd. Kielhofner, G. (Ed.). (1985). A model ojhuman occupation, theory and application (p. 12). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Knight, F. H. (1924). Some fallacies in the interpretation of social cost. In K. J. Arrow and T. Scitovsky (Eds.), Readings in welfare economics (pp. 226-227). London: Allen and Unwin, 1969. Leakey, R. (1981). Themakingojmankind. London: Michael Joseph, Ltd. Leakey, R., and Lewin, R. (1978). People oj the lake: Man: His origins, nature, andjuture. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Lewin, R. (1988). In the age oj mankind: A Smithsonian
book oj human evolution (p. 190). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books. Marx, K. (1843). Economic and political manuscripts. In E. Fischer (Ed.) Marx in his own words (pp. 127128, 213-214). London: Penguin Press, 1970. Morris, D., and Marsh, P. (1988). Tribes (p. 9). London: Pyramid Books. Morris, W. (1884). Art and socialism. InA. L. Morton (Ed. ), Political writings oj William Morris (pp. 110111). London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1973. Neff, W. S. (1985). Work and human behavior (3rd Edition) (p. 20). New York: Aldine Publishing Company. Robbins, L. (1963). Politics and economics: Papers in political economy. In E. Roll (Ed.), A history oj economic thought (4th Edition). London: Faber and Faber, 1973. Roll, E. (1973). A history ojeconomic thought (4th Edition) (p. 600). London: Faber and Faber. Ruskin, J. (1862). Preface. In P. M. Yarker (Ed.), Ruskin: Unto this last. London: Collins Publishers, 1970. Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age economics. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes oj the wealth oj nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. Smith, R. (1987). Unemployment and health: A disaster and a challenge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Waechter, J. (1976). Man before history. Oxford, UK: Elsevier-Phaidon. Yerxa, E.]., Clark, F., Frank, G., et al. An introduction to occupational science, a foundation for occupational therapy in the 21 st century. Occup Ther Health Care, 6, 5.
Work-that is, paid employment, as it is known in the developed world - is only one aspect of occupation. In terms of human history, it is of very recent origin; a commonly expressed view is that it is at risk of disappearing or changing dramatically in this time oftechnological and occupational transformation. If the challenges facing the world because of the evolving occupational transformation are to be met, a more fundamental understanding of the place and purpose of occupation in human life is required. Armed with such knowledge, it may be possible in the future to meet the occupational as well as the economic needs of individuals and communities globally, including those of less developed societies. For those involved in occupational health and rehabilitation, this article poses a challenge to expand the current boundaries of thinking to include future possibilities based on rigorous analysis of the past. Occupation is a central aspect of the human experience, being much more, despite current usage of the word, than paid employment. Occupational therapists, one group of people professionally interested in occupation, describe it as purposeful use of "time, energy, interest and attention" (American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1972) in work, leisure, family, cultural, self-care, and rest activities. It is a "natural human phenomena" which is taken for granted because it "forms the fabric of everyday living" (Cynkin and Robinson, 1990). It includes "playful, restful, serious and productive" activities "carried out by individuals in their own unique ways, based on their
beliefs and preferences, the kinds of experiences they have had, their environments, ... the specific patterns of behavior they acquire over time" (Kielhofner, 1985), and societal influences. Occupation that is culturally sanctioned may be seen as a "primary organizer of time and resources" (Yerxa et aI., 1989), enabling humans to survive, control, and adapt to their world, be economically self-sufficient, and experience social relationships and approval as well as personal growth.
THE NATURE OF OCCUPATION The need to do is primary. All living things carry out survival activities. Humans seek food, drink, and shelter from other living things and the environment, occupation being the mechanism used to obtain these requirements. Occupation also provides exercise of body and mind to stimulate and maintain function, balance, and homeostasis. Humans, however, go beyond survival needs in their pursuit of occupation. They engage in occupation with individuality of purpose; they think about the effects, conceptualize, and plan; and they are able to reflect and mentally alter future behavior as a result of outcomes. The apparently strong drive within people to make use of their hereditary and learned capacities through engagement in daily, new, or adventurous occupations promotes development and growth of body , mind, and communities. As people engage in occupation to master their environment and improve human opportunities, well-being, and survival, the physical and social environment is altered. Neff(1985) observed that the most revolutionary force in human history is technological change associated with the way people "wrest their living from nature." He argued WORK 1993; 3(1):10-15 Copyright © 1993 by Andover Medical
Work: An Occupational Perspective
that social institutions are merely mirrors of technologicallevels. In other words, human occupation (and its technology) is the force that produces and causes changes to social structures. Philosophers Hegel and Marx would describe it "as man's act of self creation" (Marx, 1843; Fischer, 1970). Whether or not occupation changes the world, the species, or individuals, it certainly provides the mechanism to enable people to adapt to biological, sociological, and environmental demands. Karl Marx (1818-1883), who is best known for his revolutionary writings criticizing the capitalist system and advocating communism, founded much of his philosophy on the humanist idea that labor, used in the sense that this article uses occupation' is the collective creative activity of mankind, and in fact is "man's species nature" (Marx, 1843; Fischer, 1970). If occupation is the "collective creative activity of mankind," the biological mechanism for human survival and development and the expression of individual and cultural creativity, humans might be described as occupational beings with an innate need for occupation. By arguing that occupation is an innate human need, there is no suggestion that this refers to any specific activity or occupation. It simply refers to the fact that humans feel the need to engage in occupation and that this is an integral part of their "species nature." It is argued that humans are genetically programmed to use physical, social, and mental capacities, rather than being programmed for specific skills such as hunting, killing, foraging, or working. Occupational needs, in common with other human needs, do not have a "repertoire of inherited, unlearned action patterns" (Eysenck, Arnold, and Meili, 1979) but are innate. The need to be purposefully active to meet survival, family, and societal needs is common to humankind. Occupations are imbued with status. Societal, cultural, and personal values, developmental stage, and remuneration are often the criteria for according status to occupations. The occupations that people strive to master are usually those valued by the society in which they live, or from another culture to which they feel an affinity. At present in developed societies, although skill for skill's sake is admired, occupational status is often related to monetary value. Therefore, in the late
11
20th century paid employment enjoys the greatest status among occupations for both men and women despite a decrease in job opportunities as technology increases. The findings of many researchers studying the effects of unemployment indicate the strength of social values associated with the importance of work. Smith (1987) went so far as to suggest that paid employment is the central institution in industrial societies and matters to the individual more than almost anything else. Such findings do not in any way negate the suggestion that, for most people, work occupations in themselves are not satisfying. In fact, it can be argued that, except for a minority of the work force, paid employment in the last half of the 20th century has not met the needs of our occupational species nature. That is, paid employment does not provide adequate or satisfying exercise or development opportunities for physical, mental, and social capacities. It can be further argued that this aspect of paid employment has been inadequately considered in comparison with conditions of employment, or technological development. To understand how this came about, it is useful to explore the occupational history of mankind.
OCC UPATIONAL EVO LUTION Occupation is so central to the study of the origins and development of humans in society that the eras of history are frequently described in occupational terms, that is, hunter-gatherer, agricultural, and industrial eras. Archeologists and anthropologists trace much of the evolution of the human species from pre-homosapiens through studying occupations such as tool use, food production, creativity, and domestic and communal activities. Exploration of such studies has the potential to add new dimensions to problem-solving work issues in the latter half of this century. The occupations humans have pursued throughout time in order to survive have changed dramatically with biological, cultural, and technological evolution. The provision of food, for example,
12
WORK / WINTER 1993
has changed from foraging, scavenging, hunting, storing, and growing to purchasing. Our ancestors, once opportunistic omnivores, very gradually developed a food-sharing economy based on foraging meat and plant foods, which led eventually to a hunting and gathering existence involving cooperative food gathering, systematic food sharing, probably some division oflabor, and a social life based on temporary camps (Leakey, 1981). Many anthropologists argue that this simple, but obviously effective, economy provided a very successful and persistent quality life; Marshall Sahlins of the University of Chicago named it "the original affluent society . . . in which all the peoples' wants are easily satisfied" (Lewin, 1988). Coon (1972) suggested there is a closeness of fit between hunter-gatherer people and their environments. "Such people," he writes, "have had the energy, hardihood, and ingenuity to live and live well in every climatic region of the world not covered by icecaps. They have done so with stone tools and no firearms. In every well-documented instance, cases of hardship may be traced to the intervention of modern intruders." Some authorities suggest that in order to survive, the occupations of primitive people were necessarily very arduous and virtually continuous (Neff, 1985; Waechter, 1976). However, others, based on evaluation of modern hunter-gatherer lifestyles, have argued that the mixed economy of hunting and gathering brought with it time for leisure (Leakey, 1981; Sahlins, 1972; Leakey and Lewin, 1978). The amount of time available for either labor or leisure probably depends to a large extent on environmental variables. However, it is difficult to determine if there existed any formal differentiation and value loading between labor and leisure. It is possible to assume that the division, complexity, and values given to human occupation have changed with different environmental demands and social structures. By studying hunter-gatherer people who have survived to recent times it appears that early in our history, although occupations differed between men and women and between individuals of different ages, no distinction existed between labor and leisure occupations.
WORK AND LEISURE The artificial separation of leisure from work appears to have occurred fairly late in evolution. Neff(1985) suggested that at the time of the formation of cities, about 6,000 years ago, occupation began to acquire distinctions, qualifications, and an increasingly complicated infrastructure of evaluative meanings, including a distinction between labor and leisure. Early societies seem to have operated in such a way that a natural balance between work, leisure, and rest was an accepted part of their occupational lives. However, Victorian explorers coming from an industrial background misunderstood and deplored the leisure factor in their encounters with hunter-gatherer peoples as evidence of a nonwork ethic and the reason for their perceived "lack of progress." This prejudice or bias remains today: developed nations, if not condemning them, certainly encourage people to change to an occupational way of life similar to their own. Morris and Marsh (1988), in their study of modern tribes, suggested that "civilization has with ruthless efficiency waged a genocidal war against tribal cultures," herding some into reservations where it is impossible to survive as hunter-gatherers, or alternatively "seduced" them from "their traditional lifestyles by false promises of 20th century technological societies." Jenkins and Sherman (1981) argued in The Leisure Shock that because modern society is "workoriented in a systematic, nonseasonal way, as it has been since the industrial revolution," it does not consider leisure seriously. Leisure is often confused with pleasure, making it sound "vaguely sinful and hedonistic and frivolous enough to be frowned upon." Yet they pointed out that modern technology produces a situation in which all goods and services can be produced by fewer people, and that work will become less available. This will leave many people with up to 100 % leisure time in a society that values work above all other forms of occupation. Eventually, they argued, societies are going to have to come to terms with the idea that the boundaries between work and leisure must be blurred, and that the work ethic is fast becoming obsolete. They suggested that a revolution of attitudes about fundamental occupational
Work: An Occupational Perspective
issues is urgently required; this will present a fundamental challenge to all systems and raise fundamental questions about in whose interest society IS run.
ECONOMIC VALUES VERSUS OCCUPATIONAL NEEDS From the turn of the 18th century, the occupational nature of humans in the Western world was subjected to perhaps its greatest challenge. With remarkable speed, when one considers the millions of years it took to transform an omnivorous scavenger economy into a hunter-gatherer economy or the thousands of years that saw the gradual transformation to agriculture, the way humans wrested their living from nature became determined by industry and man-made structures. Occupation as a valued part oflife became focused on paid employment, increasingly within capitalist forms of industry. Adam Smith (1723-1790), whose work Inquiry into the Nature and Causes oj the Wealth oj Nations (1776) is considered the foundation of classical economics, proposed that the keys to increasing a nation's wealth were the accumulation of capital and the division of labor, both of which would increase with the freeing of trade. He saw that the division of labor would increase workers' skills through specialization and speed of operation through time saved in switching from one task to another. He also recognized that this would decrease the quality of work. Bannock, Baxter, and Rees (1972) suggested that, in the broad sense, this has led to modern exchange economy, that is, specialization followed by exchange between specialists, which is a fundamental aspect of all modern economies. While it appears that the vast majority of the population have accepted that material wealth provided by occupational specialization is logical and acceptable, one could raise the basic question of whether division of labor and specialization are conducive to wellbeing, not withstanding material wealth. The extreme dichotomy, at the time of the Industrial Revolution, between the nature of occupations and the social conditions and values of employers and their employees led intellectuals as
13
various as Karl Marx,John Ruskin, and William Morris to consider the effects of the industrial era on the occupational nature of mankind. Ruskin (1819-1900) was a well-known art critic who in 1860 turned to political economy, challenging classical political economists that they failed to consider the human factor. Ruskins' central theme was that the quality oflife citizens enjoy is the true measure of a nation's prosperity, rather than the accumulation of wealth for its own sake (Ruskin, 1862). William Morris (1834-1896) was a poet, architect, painter, printer, craftsman, and social reformer. As a craftsman, he deplored the machine age, and the fact that commerce had become a "sacred religion" turning work from a solace into a burden for some, and for the majority, a mere drudgery. "The wonderful machines . . . have driven all men into mere frantic haste and hurry, thereby destroying pleasure .... they have instead of lightening the labour of the workmen, intensified it, and thereby added more weariness yet to the burden which the poor have to carry" (Morris, 1884). The challenges aimed at changing the early values of industrial societies achieved success in the long term, but social inequities and conditions of work have remained the major focus of debate and action. In focusing on the exploitation ofthe work force, the basic ideological arguments about the nature of occupation and the human need for purposeful creative activity were, on the whole, overlooked. In better conditions, workers continued to be servants of machines; for many people, there was little opportunity for creativity or even the chance to be involved in a total process of production. Economics, rather than human need, became the major driving force in occupational issues. However, there has been a persistent stream of questioning the ill effects that accompany the procedures proclaimed by classical economics. Frank Knight (1924), professor of economics at Chicago University, argued that "the values of life are not, in the main, reducible to satisfactions obtained from the consumption of exchangeable goods and services." John Kenneth Galbraith (1958) argued in The Affluent Society that traditional economics developed at a time when "wants" were chasing "goods" and is inappropriate when the op-
14
WORK / WINTER 1993
posite is true, as in modern industrial nations where the "production machine has become an end in itself" (Roll, 1973); and Lionel Robbins (1963), an economist of the English Classical School, suggested economists "have nothing to say on the true ends of life: and that their propositions concerning what is or what can be involved in themselves no propositions concerning what ought to be." The industrial era appears to be changing rapidly into a new occupational era, but social structures and values that developed and prevailed as a result of industry dominating human occupation remain. Superimposed on these are the stresses and pressures created by occupational development and technology which have outstripped understanding of human nature and needs, as well as those relating to the world's ecology. Human occupation, its technology, and the social structure and values that surround it are now so complex that they are almost unrecognizable as developing from the simple survival occupations of our ancestors. It almost appears that the need to use human capacities in a creative, problem-solving, inventive, or adaptive way has led to the domination of occupational technology, which appears now to be a stronger driving force than survival of the species in the long term. In creating machines that will replace human occupation, in destroying irreplaceable natural resources to create machines, tools, and man-made environments, and by building weapons of war that can destroy the world, human occupational behavior and technology can be seen to have run wild. Perhaps, when the human capacity for creativity becomes sufficiently focused on these man-made problems, it will be able to use the same drive to counteract the ill effects.
CONCLUSIONS It may seem that in comparing early and present forms of occupations that have continued throughout evolution, that this article has seemed to condemn current practices. To some extent the comment may be justified. In exploring the differences between natural and culturally acquired occupa-
tional behaviors, it would seem that people living in postindustrial countries are not happy or satisfied despite many apparent material and social welfare advantages. As Jenkins and Sherman (1981) suggested, "drifting dissatisfaction is now a part of all industralised societies. These feelings, according to anthropological studies, do not occur in the more primitive social groupings nor, indeed, in the less developed countries." One of the major differences may be that the basic occupational needs of people have been obscured by the current complexity of occupational technology, economy, and the social structures, divisions, and values that have been established progressively. In 1935, Alexis Carrel (1935) suggested that "modern civilization finds itself in a difficult position because it does not suit us. It has been erected without any knowledge of our real nature. It was born from the whims of scientific discoveries, from the appetites of men, their illusions, their theories, and their desires. Although constructed by our efforts it is not adjusted to our size and shape." During the last half century the rapidity of change has surely made this so. Certain questions need to be addressed. How will people wrest their living from nature, or from man-made economies, in the future? Will mankind's occupational nature be acknowledged and considered along with the economy during reconstruction of new social orders? This latter question is of some substance as, from the industrial era on, it would seem that occupation for its own sake has lost its efficacy and value. Because the origins and nature of occupation have become obscure, we have failed to recognize it as a basic need. We have failed to appreciate the human need to use and develop individual capacities by personally stimulating occupations, accepting instead the materialistic, value-loaded results of occupation as the central focus of modern life and occupation's purpose. To understand values and needs that lead to individual and social well-being, to appreciate what potentials, skills, and capacities humans use and develop in order to lead a satisfactory life, it is argued that rigorous study of the human need for occupation is now essential. An occupational perspective will give us the opportunity to con-
Work: An Occupational Perspective
sider the world, the people in it, how they work and live, and how they are governed from a viewpoint of the centrality of the human need for occupation. Economics, technology, and scientific discovery have dominated thinking to the extent that occupation has been considered from these perspectives rather than in its own right. Such study may enable us "to learn how nature intended human beings to live" (Coon, 1972) and will enable many aspects of the future, such as paid employ-
15
ment, to be considered from a humanistic occupational perspective. Workers in occupational health and rehabilitation could play a more dominant role in policy decisions about work if they extended their thinking to consider work from a holistic occupational perspective. This would support a proactive stance aimed at promoting optimal well-being for future work scenarios, rather than, as at present, being restricted to concentrating on preventing or correcting existing problems.
REFERENCES American Journal of Occupational Therapy. (1972). Occupational therapy: Its definitions and functions. Am] Occup Ther, 26, 204. Bannock, G., Baxter, R. E., Rees, R. (1972). ThePenguin dictionary oj economics. London: Penguin Books. Carrel, A. (1935). Man the unknown (p. 29). London: Burns and Oates. Coon, C. S. (1972). The hunting peoples. London: Jonathan Cape, Ltd. Cynkin, S., and Robinson, A. M. (1990). Occupational therapy and activities health: Towards health through activities. (p. 4). Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Eysenck, H. S., Arnold, W., Meili, R. (1979). Encyclopedia oj psychology (pp. 705-706). New York: The Seabury Press. Fischer, E. (1970). Marx in his own words. London: Penguin Press. Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The a.JJluent society. London: Hamish. Jenkins, C., and Sherman, B. (1988). The leisure shock (p. 1). London: Eyre Methuen, Ltd. Kielhofner, G. (Ed.). (1985). A model ojhuman occupation, theory and application (p. 12). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Knight, F. H. (1924). Some fallacies in the interpretation of social cost. In K. J. Arrow and T. Scitovsky (Eds.), Readings in welfare economics (pp. 226-227). London: Allen and Unwin, 1969. Leakey, R. (1981). Themakingojmankind. London: Michael Joseph, Ltd. Leakey, R., and Lewin, R. (1978). People oj the lake: Man: His origins, nature, andjuture. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Lewin, R. (1988). In the age oj mankind: A Smithsonian
book oj human evolution (p. 190). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books. Marx, K. (1843). Economic and political manuscripts. In E. Fischer (Ed.) Marx in his own words (pp. 127128, 213-214). London: Penguin Press, 1970. Morris, D., and Marsh, P. (1988). Tribes (p. 9). London: Pyramid Books. Morris, W. (1884). Art and socialism. InA. L. Morton (Ed. ), Political writings oj William Morris (pp. 110111). London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1973. Neff, W. S. (1985). Work and human behavior (3rd Edition) (p. 20). New York: Aldine Publishing Company. Robbins, L. (1963). Politics and economics: Papers in political economy. In E. Roll (Ed.), A history oj economic thought (4th Edition). London: Faber and Faber, 1973. Roll, E. (1973). A history ojeconomic thought (4th Edition) (p. 600). London: Faber and Faber. Ruskin, J. (1862). Preface. In P. M. Yarker (Ed.), Ruskin: Unto this last. London: Collins Publishers, 1970. Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age economics. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes oj the wealth oj nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. Smith, R. (1987). Unemployment and health: A disaster and a challenge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Waechter, J. (1976). Man before history. Oxford, UK: Elsevier-Phaidon. Yerxa, E.]., Clark, F., Frank, G., et al. An introduction to occupational science, a foundation for occupational therapy in the 21 st century. Occup Ther Health Care, 6, 5.
