A Buddhist View of Work

 I came cross one of my favorite books, E.F Schumacher's Small is Beautiful, on my bookshelf. It's a worn and tattered copy, like many of the books that end up stashed in my knapsack for a few weeks (or years). Schumacher, while perhaps not himself a  Buddhist, tries to re-envision the meaning of work and economics from a Buddhist perspective. Emphasizing the Buddhist path of Right Livelihood, Schumacher suggests that the key emphasis in the Buddhist framework is to see work as an opportunity to cultivate character, rather than as simply a means to a product. Much of what Schumacher writes is quite golden and to the point:

The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at least threefold: to give a man a chance to utilize and develop his faculties; to enable him  to overcome his ego-centeredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. (p.58)

Many consequences seem to follow from this notion of a "Buddhist" economics, which are worth exploring. For one, the nature of work and its purpose start to change. If work is designed to overcome human egocentricity and enhance human existence, it is important that the role be designed for human flourishing. If I try to oversimplify a process so that people can do it quickly and without thought for the product, I somehow violate the human element of the work and its potential to develop character.  As well, there is a shift away from working for the sake of quantity and a more mindful approach to the work itself.

I think another consequence might be this: as a person's satisfaction with work grows, she or he might even be more inclined to spend time working than in consuming. But by "work", I don't mean the way we think of work as a kind of drudgery or punishment. Rather, I am envisioning the creative work that often happens when people are developing products or ideas in small groups or individually. If I find satisfaction in a particular kind of work or study which means something and yields insights, I am less inclined to base my value on what I buy, or try to fill an emptiness with food or drink.

I do wonder if making work satisfying might seem to be an actual threat to the consumer economy. If work is so great that a person would want to spend more time there than taking a trip or going to the mall, this might actually cause the economy to suffer. Sure, maybe! But I agree with Schumacher that the more one redesigns work to include people's skills and talents, the more work there will end up being. Perhaps this will come about as people are engaged in small projects for smaller companies, where they have the creative freedom to serve as consultants and build contacts. In these situations, people are not hired by multinational corporations but are doing meaningful things on a local level, while developing their skills and talents in cooperation with start up companies. And there is enough productivity to ensure that new services are created in lieu of gadgets or short-lived products. With less attachment to material goods, people in such an economy might start to appreciate the less tangible benefits of human services, such as art.

Schumacher, E. F (1973), Small is Beautiful: Economics as If People Matter,