Mile Marker 2: Making a decision to slow down: Part 2
The twin paradoxes of productivity
Last week, we explored the challenges of slowing down because of cultural expectations and personal behavior. If you find it difficult to slow down because of either FOMO or compulsion to get things done, the twin paradoxes about productivity may interest you.
Two Paradoxes About Slowing Down
Paradox 1: The American Paradox
We all claim we want to slow down, yet the American Way has turned busyness into a status symbol. We want to be busy. It gives us something to brag about. We consider our busyness to be a direct reflection of the value we bring to society.
In the Atlantic Monthly article “Ugh, I’m So Busy” author Joe Pinsker discusses how the Industrial Revolution promised relief from the burdens of manual labor. He points to the 1899 classic The Theory of the Leisure Class, in which author Theodore Veblen predicted that once all the new labor-saving devices became available to those who could afford them, status would be measured--not by wealth alone--but by the amount of leisure time one possessed.
As it turns out, a hundred years later, we have not purchased leisure with affluence— we have instead chosen the opposite to enhance our status—we have embraced “the gleam of being both well-off and time poor.”
In an interview with Silvia Bellezza, one of the authors of “Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol”
“The gleam of being both well-off and time-poor, the authors write, is ‘driven by the perceptions that a busy person possesses desired human capital characteristics (competence, ambition) and is scarce and in demand on the job market.’ In a curious reversal, the aspirational objects here are not some luxury goods—a nice watch or car, which are now mass-produced and more widely available than they used to be—but workers themselves, who by bragging about how busy they are can signal just how much the labor market values them and their skills.”
In an interview with Vox’s Ezra Klein, Daniel Markovits, author of The Meritocracy Trap notes:
“Fifty, 60, 70 years ago, you could tell how poor somebody was by how hard they worked. Today, that relationship has been completely reversed. Elites work for a living. They work harder than they used to. They work harder in terms of brute hours than the middle class on average, and they get most of their income by working.”
While we may not all be “elite” workers, our inclination to work hard complements our culturally-inherited Puritan work ethic. We often struggle to detach hard work from our identities, and corporations are all too willing to support this mindset. So, our employers provide us with the work lives we proudly showcase. They supply us with the chaotic work experiences we love to display to our friends. Do my employers open the bid for my time at 40 hours a week? Well, I’ll see them and raise them 20.
In fact, the 2023 WSJ/NOCR poll reveals that 94% of Americans considered hard work to be “very/somewhat” important. This percentage surpasses all other values presented in the survey, making hard work more important to them than money, tolerance, marriage, self-fulfillment, community involvement, patriotism, belief in God, religion, and having children.
Slowing down is a radical act because it means defying the status quo—stepping off the fast track and accepting your inner slacker.
In his Substack article “Where Have All the Slackers Gone?” Eugene Rabkin traces the counterculture of the slacker from the 90s to the present day—describing the slacker as “often an overeducated, intelligent, sensitive person who decides to opt out of society driven by power and greed.” Think Bukowski and David Foster Wallace. Think Nirvana and Pearl Jam.
“We are now in what the contemporary Korean-German philosopher Byung-Chul Han describes as an ‘achievement society’…. We are told that we can be all that we can be, we are free to do anything—as long, of course, as that anything corresponds with the current societal values.…Everyone is in a rush to sell out as soon as possible, which is seen as success, and material success is seen as the best, nay, the only type of self-realization…. Our heroes today are not explorers or social reformers or artists, but businessmen….Our heroes create sneakers, not poems.”
It is not unlikekly for our core values to be threatened by the Achievement High. The pursuit of that high could deprive us, and society as a whole, of more meaningful contributions we might make. What kind of hero do we want to be? The 70-hour a week sneaker guy, or the poet? We don’t have time for both—unless we make hard choices on how we prioritize our life energy.
And if our neighbors, friends and family members are on that Achievement High, we will very likely get swept up and pulled along by the social current, and before long, look back with regret at our dreams deferred.
So in thinking about how we measure ourselves against our work and social lives, I was reminded of the famous Maslow self-actualization pyramid:
Photo source: Wikipedia: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
I wondered if the rungs on the pyramid are actually more dynamic than hierarchical, as they are shown to be in the pyramid. That is, if each level provides the foundation for the next level, the pyramid suggests that love, belonging and connection are prerequisites for self-esteem.
But let’s say that your sense of belonging comes from being part of a group that prioritizes working harder than anyone else. In this case, your friendships (belonging on the pyramid) might have been established by proximity rather than genuine connection. Your friends may simply be neighbors, or parents of your kids’ friends. Or the colleagues in the same department. Friends, but with differing values. What happens if your own values contradict those of the social groups that form the basis of your self-esteem? You may start to subconsciously skew your own values to match theirs in order to fit in. Simply put: peer pressure is not just for your teen-aged kids.
This conflict of values may provide some shallow self-validation for a time, but it will be built on a shaky foundation. If we define our identity and self-esteem on values adopted from our peers while sacrificing our own beliefs for the sake of connection, what impact will that have on us? Could we be risking personal fulfillment? Could even our mental health be at risk? Are we going to compromise our true selves to keep up with the Joneses, work-wise?
Since moving to Vermont, I’ve discovered that many people up here have no interest in the Burnout-or-Bust status symbol. A good many of them abide by the “work to live” vs the “live to work” philosophy. My family and I can hang out with my Vermont friends without having to dress up, clean up, or show off. With all due respect to my friends and colleagues in New Jersey, I am more myself up here.
Slowing down is a radical act because following that call to a slower life may require cutting ties with your current friends to find your real tribe.
Paradox #2: The Productivity Paradox
And here’s the real thing. Slowing down will practically guarantee success in terms of achieving what you are born to do.
In the book Slow Productivity: Lost Art of Accomplishment Without Burnout (which I highly recommend), Cal Newport makes the case, using numerous real-life examples, that slowing down will not deprive you of an accomplished life. In fact, the promise of slowing down is not about being lazy—it’s about creating the conditions for increased flow in whatever endeavor you are engaged in—whether you are working full time or as an entrepreneur; whether you are an artist or a scientist; a farmer or a potter.
Newport contends that by freeing up time, you will ultimately achieve the important endeavors of your dreams because you will no longer be choked by artificial schedules and the cluttered brainwaves of relentless multitasking. Our subconscious brains need the space in order to simmer, ideate, create.
Most truly innovative and creative endeavors flourish in the fertile ground of solitude and mental meandering. In his critique of current mechanistic workflows, Newport argues that humans perform best within the bounds of natural patterns. We are not machines. We have biorhythms that respond to the sunrise and sunset, the pull of the moon and the changing seasons. We would be wiser and more fulfilled if, like Brother Augustine, we were more attuned to them.
A Historical Look at Slow Work and Play
As we sit in Plato’s Cave, convinced that the only human shadows on the cave wall are toiling away on a rigid schedule, it is enlightening to take note of how human beings have managed their time since…well…since they became human.
Consider the following points in time, which suggest that the sweet spot for paid human work may be, on average, 4 hours a day.
The Hunter-Gatherers: Nasty, Short, and Brutish—or Affluent?
Contrary to Hobbes’ characterization of primitive peoples, Marshall Sahlins, in “The Original Affluent Society,” describes the daily lives of hunter/gatherers as filled with “material plenty.”
How can that be? In our society—in fact in almost all societies—poverty is relative—a social construct based on scarcity versus abundance. In Sahlins’ view, the concept of “scarcity” is virtually nonexistent among hunter-gatherers, who could meet their basic physical needs within just three to five hours a day. The rest of their time was spent engaging in activities of their choosing--whether completing chores, enjoying leisure, or participating in community activities.
“For there are two possible courses to affluence. Wants may be ‘easily satisfied’ either by producing much or desiring little. The familiar conception, the Galbraithean way, makes assumptions peculiarly appropriate to market economies: that man’s wants are great, not to say infinite, whereas he means are limited, although improvable; thus, the gap between means and ends can be narrowed by industrial productivity, at least to the point that “urgent goods” become plentiful. But there is also a Zen road to affluence, departing from premises somewhat different from our own: that human material wants are finite and few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate. Adopting the Zen strategy, a people can enjoy an unparalleled material plenty—with a low standard of living.”
Middle Ages: “Half a Day=Whole Day”
We may think that Medieval peasants worked at least as much as we do, but we would be wrong. While peasants in the Middle Ages did not live lives of luxury the way we view it, they generally worked much less—often only half of the eight-hour day that we take for granted. According to Julie Schor in The Overworked American, in there was also an expectation that they were entitled to frequent rest throughout their short work days.
Four hours “Bread Labor”
Helen and Scott Nearing were 20th century counterculturists who gained prominence in the 70s when back-to-the-landers flocked to their Vermont homestead to learn their simple, nature-based ways. The Nearings structured their day with a disciplined and equal allocation of time for work, community, and leisure.
They dedicated just four daily hours to “bread labor”— work necessary to meet their material needs. They had no ambitions to earn more than what was required to produce things, such as the maple syrup from the trees on their property. The remainder of their time was spent on crafts, music (Helen was a classically trained violinist) and community service. One of their most enduring and important contributions, in my opinion, is the book The Good Life, which has served as a major source of personal inspiration, and which I have no doubt contributed to my decision to come to Vermont to live.
Were the Nearings lazy? Absolutely not—they designed and built their own homes, grew their food, wrote prolifically, engaged with their community, pursued multiple hobbies, and still had time to simple “be.”
In an interview for the CBS Sunday Morning segment titled, The Importance of Being Lazy, Celeste Headlee, author of the book Do Nothing stated: “If somebody’s lazy, they are not earning their place in society, they’re a bum.” However, she emphasized, “Idleness, leisure time, is necessary for our well-being….We have been brainwashed that we have to work hard, or we have no value.”
In the same interview, David Nuremberg from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton added, “We all need space for non-intentional activity, thought, contemplation. .. that’s why faith traditions have instituted day of rest. It’s a crucial part of being human.”
Slowing down is a radical act because you may need to break away from conventional expectations in your work life to create the space necessary for productivity—or simply to exist—and ultimately, produce more.
You may need to negotiate with your boss for extended time off; you may need to give up some of the social staples of the day—like social media and TV and other distracting forces; you may even need to quit your job or find another career to ignite your spirit.
Do you think it will be worth it? Why not try it and see?
Next week, Part 3 of Mile Marker 2: Making a Decision to Slow Down will summarize what slowing down might mean for you, and ask the question: How will you spend your time?