Introduction to Bertrand Russell's In Praise of Idleness (Routledge ed.) , by Howard Woodhouse
Source: In Praise of Idlness and Other Essays, by Bertrand Russell* First pub. in Great Britain in 1935 by George Allen & Unwin.
* First pub. in paperback in 1960 by George Allen & Unwin.
* Repr. 1994 by Routledge, and repr. with introduction 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003.
Introduction by Howard Woodhouse (University of Saskatchewan)
Apricots and Idleness
I reread the essays in this volume while idling away my time in the garden of a friend who lives in the Loire Valley in France. In the garden stands an apricot tree, old and gnarled(こぶだらけの), riven(裂けた) with age, yielding less and less of its succulent(みずみずしい) fruit than but a few years ago. Its boughs still provide enough shade that I could read with pleasure Bertrand Russell's description, in the essay 'Useless' Knowledge originally published in 1935, of how peaches and apricots came to the west. They were first harvested in China during the Han dynasty, were then cultivated in India, moving eventually to what is now lran, and finally to Rome. Moreover, he tells us, the etymology(語源) of 'apricot' can be traced to the Latin for 'precocious' because the fruit ripens early. The 'a', however, was added by mistake. Russell(1872-1970) uses this example to show that knowledge can help the fruit taste sweeter by enhancing and enriching our experience with a sense of joy that might otherwise be absent. The 'mental delight' that I gained from reading Russell's paragraph while sitting in a French garden brought home his point quite vividly. The apricots were sweeter, the sunlight brighter, my appreciation heightened by the brief history of the fruit and its flawed etymology. This kind of knowledge, when valued for its own sake, can bring immense enjoyment to individuals even when it is as apparently trivial as the history of apricots. The 'contemplative habit of mind', which makes the pursuit of such knowledge possible, requires an idleness in which individuals become lighthearted, playful and able to engage in freely chosen activities, which are at the same time constructive and satisfying.
Russell believes that such opportunities for lightheartedness and play are particularly important in the education of the young, for without them children become listless(気力がない/熱意のない), unhappy and destructive, their lives bereft of any appreciation for deeper, wider purposes. Ongoing opportunities for self-expression among the adult population are equally important because they allow individuals to appreciate the quality of their own experience, as well as the value of knowledge itself. Were it not for the idleness afforded by spending time under an abricotier(ここではアプリコットの木／アプリコティエ：アプリコットをふんだんに使ったアントルメ), for example, I would not have appreciated Russell's argument for the intrinsic value of knowledge in such an immediate way.
For most people, even today; this kind of experience is not a realistic option open to them. They have neither the money nor the leisure time to idle away in the pursuit of 'useless' knowledge. They are caught in what Russell calls 'the cult of efficiency' where only the economic benefits of knowledge or the increase in power over others which these may bring, are valued. Those lucky enough to have the resources for idleness tend to spurn(拒絶する) it in favour of the kind of 'vigorous action' that brings even greater control but little or no reflective understanding about the wider purposes of life. Russell regards this 'instrumental' view of knowledge as harmful because value is placed exclusively on its consequences rather than on the reasons underlying it. As a result, wealth and power are considered of the highest value, whereas idleness and contemplative knowledge are seen as so much loafing(怠ける) around.
Russell's proposed solution to this problem presupposes that idleness could now be made available to the general populace if work were restructured in ways made possible by modern methods of production. Not only is idleness a desirable state but it is one to which most people could accede(同意する) if it were valued more highly than the busy, largely instrumental, activities that comprise the working day. Modern technology opens up the possibility of a four-hour working day becoming the norm with neither a concomitant(付随する) loss in pay nor in the number of jobs. Russell suggests that men and women would then be free to pursue activities of their own making, liberated from the tyranny of work. Both working people and professionals could enjoy the kind of idleness to which only university professors, like myself, currently have access on their sabbatical year. Russell admits that some people would use their leisure time to make money and increase their power over others but their numbers would be balanced by those who engaged in more reflective activities (fishing, gardening and bowls come to mind), as well as a few who might even engage in various kinds of community work.
Russell's central point is that work, which he defines as moving bits of matter around at or near the surface of the earth, is not the aim of life. If it were, people would enjoy it. Yet, by and large, those who actually carry it out shun work whenever possible. It is only those who tell others what to do who laud(賞賛する) its virtues. If idleness, play and the capacity to enjoy contemplative knowledge were valued in themselves, Russell's proposed reforms could be enacted. The purpose of In Praise of Idleness is to make the case for a world in which 'pleasurable, worthwhile and interesting' activities were freely pursued by all.
Tolelance or Unreason?
The book also reflects Russell's abiding(不屈の) concern for tolerance, peace and a balanced approach to individual freedom and social harmony. In the Preface(ラッセルによる序文で) he contrasts these with the unreason of bigotry(頑迷), war and practical utility which tend to reign supreme. Less strident(かん高い) ways of resolving conflict are now needed, founded on 'calm consideration','a willingness to call dogmas in question',and a freedom of mind to do justice to the most diverse points of view'. Indeed, this 'general thesis binds the essays together', giving them a coherence shared by Russell's other social, political and educational writings. The contemplative habit of mind enables individuals to consider all questions in a tentative and impartial manner for Russell, avoiding dogmatism of any kind and encouraging the expression of a wide diversity of views. Just as the scientific method enhances an open mindedness to fresh evidence on the part of mathematicians, physicists and philosophers in their attempt to reach truth, so the contemplative habit of mind can encourage ordinary citizens to tolerate the free expression of different points of view even when these conflict with their own.*1 For it is in the debate between these various perspectives that Russell believes conclusions can be reached which may be more inclusive and closer to the ideals of social justice. The apparently 'useless' approach to knowledge, founded on the contemplative habit of mind, thereby shows itself to be quite 'useful' in fostering social harmony.
Russell fears that the modern world's tendency towards an increase in the organisation of thought, coupled with its insatiability for unreflective action, undermines both the free expression of dififerent views and the kind of tolerance for these views which he is seeking. In the essay 'Modern Homogeneity', Russell analyses the kinds of uniformity of opinion which he experienced during a visit to the United States in 1930. The level of homogeneity in thought and opinion, fostered by churches, the press, radio and cinema he found to be dangerously high. Professionals of all kinds, for example, were very much alike in their views simply because 'everybody was expected to conform to a pattern set by the successful executive'. He points out that the real dangers of this kind of social cohesion are an intolerance for minorities, an undermining of quality in favour of uniformity in every field, a 'somewhat blatant(あからさまな) nationalism' and the risk of 'immobility', namely a stick-in-the-mud attitude resulting from a refusal to consider alternative viewpoints or courses of action. At the same time, Russell concedes(認める) that America's dynamism requires a considerable level of conformity and suggests that Europe is likely to move in the same direction: a warning that has a certain resonance today.
Two of the dogmas to which Russell is particularly averse are Fascism and Communism. They demonstrate the dangers of adopting extreme positions justified neither by empirical evidence nor by a full consideration of social justice. Moreover, they exemplify the most virulent(悪性の) forms of the tendency towards the organisation of thought in favour of obedient and strenuous(力の入った) action that have yet been devised. Of the two, Fascism is the more evil because its methods and goals are both inhumane. As Russell points out in 'Scylla and Charybdis, or Communism and Fascism', it is totally undemocratic, anti-Semitic and systematically deprives workers, Jews and other minorities of their rights. Despite the claims of its adherents, Fascism fails to resolve the problems of capitalist society.
Underlying these evils is Fascism's appeal to unreason and its constant valorisation of power. Russell analyses these characteristics in 'The Ancestry of Fascism' by tracing the intellectual roots of National Socialism to the 'Addresses to the German Nation' made by the philosopher Fichte in the early nineteenth century. Fichte claims that the purity of the German language makes it superior to all others, and calls for a national system of education which would 'mould the Germans into a corporate body' by attuning the individual will to that of the nation(個人の意志を国家の意志に合わせる). These ideas were taken up in different ways by Mazzini in Italy; Carlyle and the Social Darwinists in England and Nietzsche once again in Germany. They took root in that country, however, because major industrialists and the military were both threatened by the Bolshevik regime, and managed to find support from large numbers of people from different social classes who felt dispossessed by rapid social reform. This unhappy combination of circumstances enabled the National Socialists to gain power: a fact which Russell views with prescient(先見の明のある) concern.
With regard to Communism, Russell finds himself in agreement with its end; namely, the creation of a classless society. But he cannot accept violent revolution as the means to bringing about such a society, for he believes it would produce tyranny rather than peace. This is partly because of his own evaluation of the Bolshevik revolution, following a visit to Russia in 1920, and also because of deeply held theoretical objections to Marxian theory, which he also lists in 'Scylla and Charybdis'.
Not surprisingly; Russell's own account of a saner, rational society, articulated in 'The Case for Socialism', is more moderate in its claims. In particular, he envisages(描く) a peaceful transition towards socialism, supported by a majority of citizens. He defines a socialist society as one in which there is both economic ownership of land, capital, minerals, etc. and a widespread democracy in all its institutions. By balancing these two key factors, he hopes to show that democratic Socialism is a viable(実行可能な) alternative to both Communism and Fascism. He reiterates(繰り返し主張する) the need for a four-hour working day in order to bring about an idleness enjoyed by everyone . Indeed, Russell suggests that this reform could be enacted quite easily in a society where the wasteful production of weapons and the accompanying ideology of nationalism, or the 'cult of unreason', had been scrapped. Such a reform would appeal to professionals and the working class both of whom could feel at home in a democratic Socialist society.
Among Russell's other democratic proposals is a series of arguments for the emancipation of women, particularly working-class women, from the slavery of housework. While he applauds(拍手喝采する) the fact that a growing number of professional women were finding employment outside the home in the 1930s, only socialist reform would enable working-class women to enjoy the same opportunities. In 'Architecture and Social Questions', he argues that the social isolation of working-class families in dingy(薄汚れた), over-crowded and often unhealthy quarters(地区) hinders women from participating in social and economic life. Publicly funded apartment buldings in which a communal kitchen, dining room and leisure centre, as well as a sunlit quadrangle(陽光がさしこむ明るい中庭) and nursery school, were provided would enable such women to work for a living and enjoy a certain leisure time away from their families.*2 Moreover, their children would be carefully looked after, well fed and given the freedom of movement necessary to lead healthy and inquiring lives. Russell seems to have in mind here the kind of school which he and Dora Russen ran for several years at Beacon Hill, with its ideals of 'fearless freedom' and peaceful co-operation. Although he came to think of the school as a failure, Russell did not abandon all of its ideals.
Indeed, education is a central concern of In Praise of ldleness. Radical educational reform is necessary if knowledge, learning and wisdom are to be valued for their own sake, and idleness, play and leisure to replace work as activities of worth. In 'Education and Discipline', for example, Russell provides a sketch of how education might look if it were based on these very different ideals. He suggests that teachers should work far less than they do at present, since any 'instinctive liking for children' which they might have is too often stifled by the demanding nature of the care they give. Two hours teaching a day is sufficient and should be coupled with another career that enables teachers to work and make social contacts away from the demands of children. This would enable them to maintain the 'affection' and 'spontaneous pleasure in the presence of children' required for a healthy pedagogical relationship. The far-reaching nature of Russell's proposal is shown by the fact that it has been taken up in recent years by teachers' associations in Canada, France and the United States.
In this new atmosphere, where 'a certain sympathy for the child's important desires' is once again possible for teachers, the right kind of balance can be achieved between their authority and the freedom of the child. Teachers' authority stems from a caring and tactful approach that enhances the growth of the child's impulses and guides him/her towards worthwhile intellectual and social activities. The freedom of the child, on the other hand, stems from those vital impulses without which no activity would be possible. In order to be led by these impulses in constructive ways, however, the child needs the mediating influence of self-discipline. S/he can then acquire the habits necessary for study; the achievement of long-term goals and the enhancement of the scope of his/her impulses. Like John Dewey (1859-1952) and Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), Russell believes that the only really effective kind of discipline is one that comes from within the child. At the same time, as he makes clear in 'Stoicism and Mental Health', the judicious(賢明な) use of authority by both teachers and parents is a crucial ingredient in the development of such self-discipline.
A child who grows up in this kind of atmosphere will learn to question what s/he is told in a disciplined and critical way. In 'The Modern Midas', for example, Russell argues that education should enable the public to question the judgements of experts about such important matters as the gold standard. By seeking answers that are founded on the evidence, a public which is educated in a self-disciplined manner will utilise the contemplative habit of mind to expose the shortcomings of conventional wisdom. In this manner, unreason, masquerading as expertise, will be rooted out and challenged. As long as educational systems impede the ability of citizens to exercise such critical thought, 'one of the impediments to a successful democracy' will remain.
Finally, Russell challenges nationalism, as the major cause of the 'cult of unreason' both in schools and society by proposing an internationalism made possible by the establishment of a world government. Only then, he argues, could tolerance and international understanding really flourish. With regard to schools and universities, for example, all history texts would be vetted by a committee of internationally recognised historians to ensure that nationalist bias was removed. As an instrument of peace, world government would be produced by the conquest by one nation or group of nations of the entire world - a paradox to which Russell alludes(ほのめかす) in 'Western Civilisation' and which he develops in other works. Once a world government succeeded in gaining a monopoly of arms, war between nations could be stopped and peaceful coexistence ensured. In Education and the Social Order (1932) Russell admits that the price of such stability may well be the truncation of individual freedom for a very long time but asserts that this is a price worth paying for world peace. Possibly because this position so clearly undermines his commitment to free expression, Russell changes his mind in 'On Youthful Cynicism', suggesting that only when nationalist conflict has been curbed(抑制・制御された時) can civilisation flourish in the form of the search for truth and beauty.
Neither position takes into account the suffering involved in establishing and maintaining a world government of this kind. In his desire to extinguish the unreason of nationalism Russell espouses(支持する) an unreason of his own. It is ironical that he might well have been describing the world that has emerged since the demise of the Soviet empire in which the United Nations acts as an instrument of the dominant Western powers. As I write these words (autumn 1995), for example, NATO war planes are bombing Bosnian Serb positions around Sarajevo and Cruise missiles are being launched from a United States warship. Meanwhile, neither peace nor inter-ethnic understanding seem any closer in the former Yugoslavia, for these actions have simply encouraged the Serbians and the Croats to launch their own offensives. While Russell might well have been critical of the actions of the Western powers, his own theory of world government, designed to eradicate(根絶する) the unreason of nationalism, lends itself for use in the justification of war.
What Kind of Idleness?
The frankly utopian nature of In Praise of Idleness is considered by some to be its main weakness. How, for example, could a four-hour working day be brought about without involving wage cuts? Since this is a necessary condition for bringing about universal idleness, one might expect some word on its instigation(扇動). This criticism misses the point of Russell's argument. He is simply suggesting that a world in which work was no longer the most valued of activities would be a much happier one. He explores the possibilities of a more leisured society in which the promise of greater idleness, held out by new technologies, was actually fulfilled. If one brings his definition of work up to date by including the movement of bits of information about the world, his argument recapitulates(要約する) the stated purpose of the new computer and information technologies when they were first introduced to the workplace.- They were supposed to make work easier and to bring greater leisure time to all. They are, however, now used to increase productivity by monitoring work levels and lengthening the working day. Instead of increasing the opportunities for idleness, these technologies have made more work for those who remain employed, while enforcing a desperate kind of idleness upon growing numbers of unemployed. Productivity, measured in terms of efficiency and the bottom line, is becoming the sole criterion used to assess all work. Russell alerts us to the dangers of this view in 'In Praise of Idleness' as follows:The notion that the desirable activities are those that bring a profit has made everything topsy-turvy(さかさまに). (p.22)Put differently, we need values other than the profit motive by which to judge not only work but all human activity. A society, which fails to recognise the importance of an idleness freely engaged in, has turned its back on humanity.
Russell, of course, was not alone during the 1930s in writing of the importance of idleness. Karl Capek (1890-1938), the Czech playwright, essayist, philosopher and renowned anti-Fascist, published a short piece entitled 'In Praise of ldleness' in 1923 which was first translated into English in l935, the same year that Russell's own book appeared. Capek distinguishes idleness from a number of other states with which it is often compared, including laziness, resting, wasting time, the 'mother of sin' and even enjoying a little relaxation. Rather, he considers idleness to be 'neither a pastime nor times extension' but 'the absence of everything by which a person is occupied' etc., a kind of 'standing still' whose rhythm he compares to motionless water, which 'gives life neither to weeds nor slime nor mosquitoes'. Idleness, however, does give rise to a sense of being in 'another world' where 'everything is a little alien and distant', an almost meditative state from which the individual emerges invigorated and ready 'to do something completely useless'.*3 Russell's contemplative habit of mind is somewhat different from this total withdrawal from the world that Capek describes because his notion of idleness is less of a negation of activity than a combination of leisure time with a playful contemplation. Nevertheless, both authors agree that 'useless knowledge' or 'something completely useless' is the aim of idleness and that more people should have the occasion to practise it.
Like Russell, Whitehead believes there to be far too little joy and spontaneous delight in the modern world. In education, the 'joy of discovery', which he calls 'romance', is too often stifled in schools and, while 'precision' is necessary, its duration should be short in order that 'generalisation', or the ability to relate abstract ideas to concrete facts, can flourish. Since the rhythm of education is cyclical in nature, romance re-emerges to ground generalisation in a more inclusive sense of joy, keeping it fresh and open to new possibilities. Whitehead clearly shares Russell's goal of encouraging a reflective idleness among students so that each individual can grow to achieve his/her fullest expression.*4
For the same reasons Whitehead finds that corporations in the modern world kill the human spirit by negating two fundamental activities that are distinctive of any civilised society; namely, craftsmanship and aesthetic appreciation. Neither finds expression among producers or consumers because of an enveloping homogeneity brought about by factory production. The fajlure of corporations to encourage the free expression of such human activity results in 'a starvation of human impulses, a denial of opportunity, a limitation of beneficial activity'.*5 While he cannot bring himself to advocate a shorter working day, Whitehead clearly agrees with Russell's objections to the uniformities of work and opinion brought about by multinational corporations. Indeed, their views are far closer than is commonly supposed. This may be because the mutual influence, which both men experienced over a ten-year period during which they wrote Principia Matematica (1910-1913), did not cease upon its completion. In any case. Russell wrote the fifteen essays in In Praise of ldleness by analysing the pressing social problems of the 1930s just as he had done those of the earlier years of the century, - and as he would continue to do right up until his death. The clarity, wit and mastery of the English language which he brought to bear on everything he wrote, ensured that he was widely read, not only in Britain and Europe but also in the Americas, Africa and Asia. Indeed, these considerable qualities won him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1951. It would be a mistake, however, to think of Russell as simply a fine stylist, for the ideas in these essays are important both for their own time and ours.
Howard Woodhouse University of Saskatchewan
[Notes]
1. Bertrand Russell, 'Philosophy and Politics' in Unpopular Essays, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1950, pp. 25, 27-28.
2. Russell acknowledges that considerable resistance to this idea would come from wage earners themselves but believes that women's determination to earn a living and gain more leisure time ensures their increased independence.
3. Karel Capek, 'In Praise of Idleness' in Peter Kussi (ed.) Toward the Rndical Center: A Karel Capek Reader. Highland Park, NJ, Catbird Press, 1990, pp. 241-243.
4. Alfred North Whitehead, 'The Rhythm of Education' in The Aims of Education, New York, The Free Press, 1957, pp. 15-28. This essay was first published as a pamphlet in 1922.
5. Alfred North Whitehead, 'The Study of the Past' in A.H. Johnson (ed.) Whilehad's American Essays in Social Philosophy, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1959, p.76. The essay was first published in Harvard Business Review in 1933.