Introduction
Marx’s concept of labor is among the most influential definitions in the modern economy. However, despite its flexibility and inclusiveness, it has produced several discrepancies with the shift towards a post-industrial society. The comparison of Marx’s concept of labor with that by Hannah Arendt reveals that the latter contains several important additions and clarifications which make it more suitable for use in the contemporary socioeconomic environment.
Marx’s Concept
In the most basic terms, the concept of labor according to Marx is based on the process of objectifying the materials. This is achieved by giving form to physical objects. In other words, labor is a process of creating a material product, which leads to the productivist interpretation of Marx’s theories. This has also led some scholars to believe that Marx used the industrial model as a basis for his concept, with factories being the easiest example.
However, it is also possible that a certain form of craft, such as carpentry, is an equally suitable match for the described activities since its elements fit within the productivist model. However, it is equally important to recognize the philosophical implications behind labor. For instance, labor in humans serves an additional purpose of satisfying the spiritual need. This distinguishes human beings from animals, who perceive objects as potential means of fulfilling their immediate desires. Simply put, animals are likely to devour (or otherwise destroy) an object in the process of satisfying their desires.
This process is capable of sustaining natural life but does not produce any meaningful development. In contrast, humans foresee their likely future needs and use labor to form objects that can be used for satisfying them. In other words, the immediate desires are ignored, which allows for a meaningful creation of value. Interestingly, since the labor is directed by humans and driven by their needs, the created products attain human-related attributes. From this perspective, it is possible to say that through labor people introduce their qualities to the world.
According to Marx, the process also allows the participants to acknowledge their abilities and powers. The reflection that occurs in the process of objectification enhances human self-awareness and stimulates development. Finally, it should be understood that despite the evident emphasis on the operational element, labor necessitates the involvement of peers and is, therefore, a social activity, which again, differentiates it from the non-human counterpart.
As can be derived from the information above, one of the key components of labor from Marx’s perspective is the mediation of activities to the desires and immediate instincts. Interestingly, such criterion excludes some actions that would otherwise be considered human. The easiest example is hunting – a form of labor that for a long time was crucial for human survival and well-being in the developed societies and that is retained in some form to this day.
Marx specifically cites fishing, mining, and woodcutting as examples of such activities and argues that the presence of instruments (e.g. axes, pickaxes, and fishing equipment) as well as the elements of social organization, allows categorizing them as labor. Such a position is not entirely flawless since it is also possible to describe the appropriation of tools as a selection and relocation of objects rather than their deliberate and meaningful transformation.
From a purely physical standpoint, it is necessary to achieve a certain level of material influence which would, in turn, result in the expected transformation. From a broader perspective, however, it is possible to state that the selection, relocation, and eventual application of an object already constitute a transformation. Within the Marx’s concept, the conscious separation of an object from its natural environment is a sufficient condition of formative activity and, by extension, labor.
As was mentioned above, the concept of labor introduced by Marx is highly consistent with industrial labor and craft. Unlike nature-related labor, it relies less more on the workers’ actions for reaching the desired outcomes. Since the materials used by the worker are already the products of earlier labor, industrial labor employs changes in social organization and division of labor. The most obvious example is the routinization of labor through disaggregation of tasks and introducing specialization.
The resulting process requires managerial effort and thus transcends to the next level. It is also important to mention that the introduction of coordination is a major cause for the introduction of the social component, as workers are required to communicate on both horizontal and vertical levels to ensure the necessary level of quality. Another important element is the addition of machinery which automates certain routine tasks and consequently eliminates the involvement of manual labor. The said process is termed real subsumption by Marx and effectively describes the evolution of labor in the modern world.
One of its key characteristics is the gradual increase in the scale of production, which, in turn, decreases the pressing need to satisfy immediate needs. Thus, the produced goods serve a more encompassing and abstract goal of satisfying the demand of the market. As such, industrialization gradually eliminates the need to engage in labor for the sake of fulfilling local and individual needs and minimizes the involvement of human beings.
Shortcomings
At this point, it is tempting to conclude that the described concept is becoming less applicable to the contemporary economic and social environment. Most notably, the service sector has grown enormously both in significance and in scope. Unlike material goods, services rarely require the involvement of physical objects and rarely require their transformation as a part of successful needs satisfaction. The fact that by this time, according to Marx, the connection between labor and satisfaction of needs has become elusive and abstract further complicates the situation. Another important development is the growing presence of information technology as an essential component of both the economic and social domains. Since information is intangible and is only indirectly connected to the material goods, it is reasonable to assume that labor, as defined by Marx, does not apply to it.
Another concern with the concept proposed by Marx is the inclusiveness of the definition and the vagueness of criteria that lead to the situation where numerous activities fall into the same category despite being significantly different on many parameters. Finally, the concept does not account for the discrepancy between the satisfaction of immediate needs and the expected decrease of human involvement in the production. In an attempt to address these inconsistencies, it would be necessary to compare the described concept of labor to that proposed by Hannah Arendt.
Arendt’s Concept
The most evident difference between the two concepts is the diversification of the definitions. Whereas Marx unites all human activities that involve deliberate transformation under the definition of labor, Arendt differentiates between labor, work, and action. Labor, according to Arendt, constitutes the actions aimed at the satisfaction of immediate needs. What differentiates this activity from the non-human labor used by Marx is the appropriation of instruments and objects. In this regard, it resembles the rudimentary activities that have a minimal mediating factor (e.g. fishing). However, Arendt further clarifies the issue by specifying the immediate and non-lasting nature of the satisfaction effect. In other words, labor according to Arendt is the process that addresses the needs that reemerge immediately after being satisfied.
Thus, fishing can be categorized as labor for as long as the fish is consumed as soon as it is caught (rather than preserved). Woodcutting and mining, on the other hand, are to be excluded from this category since they are most likely undertaken to create the stock of supplies (timber or ore). Most examples of housework also fall into this category, which further distances the two definitions since housework usually does not lead to the creation of material objects. This issue is specifically addressed by Arendt, who points out that labor does not create lasting effects or products (which is consistent with the immediate reemergence of needs).
Since humans do not create a lasting impression on their environment and engage in labor mostly to sustain their natural existence, it does not constitute a significant difference from animals. To emphasize this, Arendt humans that engage in labor as their primary activity as animal labor. She further clarifies that since labor is driven by necessity, it decreases the freedom of action and is thus comparable to slavery. At this point, it becomes obvious that the implications of labor differ depending on the outlook, with Marx viewing it as means of humankind’s development while Arendt emphasizing its inhibiting qualities. She goes as far as to suggest that the introduction of labor in the social sphere may disrupt the freedom of choice and substitute it with the pursuit of animal needs satisfaction.
In contrast, the second category, work, is aimed at the production of a lasting product intended for future use. Such a definition closely resembles both the formative nature of work suggested by Marx and the productivist perspective that underlies his concept of labor. Similarly to Marx, Arendt considers work an unnatural activity in that it usually results in the creation of the artificial objects suitable for humans’ needs but unavailable in natural form. In this sense, humans manifest themselves in the world and create a durable imprint of their existence. Since the created objects are distinct from those occurring naturally and are semi-permanent (e.g. durable), the results of work attain a certain level of independence both from nature and its creators.
The expected outcome of work is the creation of space that is more suitable for the existence of humankind than the less convenient natural environment. However, in contrast to Marx’s standpoint, Arendt does not limit the products of work to material goods and includes art and legislature into this category. Therefore, the said environment (termed “common world” by the author) is not limited to physical manifestation but includes artistic, social, and cultural characteristics.
Also, it conveys a greater amount of freedom since it is not driven by the need to satisfy immediate instincts. Finally, in contrast to labor (as defined by Arendt), work is not confined to individual needs and is instead public (and, therefore, social): it pursues a more abstract goal of “common good.” Interestingly, in this regard work is opposed by labor, which produces perishable outcomes and thus does not have the potential to create a lasting environment. According to the author, this difference is critical for explaining the reason behind the expansion of production beyond the point of basic needs satisfaction: to achieve abundance and luxury, the qualities of durability and stability are neglected. Simply put, the inclusion of immaterial elements is probably the most significant factor that differentiates the otherwise similar definition of work by Arendt from Marx’s concept of labor and allows accounting for the shortcomings of the latter.
Finally, acting as a third component further emphasizes social interaction while at the same time excluding the material component. In essence, it is the furthest deviation from the concept of labor as suggested by Marx but is a logical extension of Arendt’s sequence. Nevertheless, it still resembles the latest stage of industrial labor which, according to Marx, requires only a managerial and maintenance effort from humans and can be achieved entirely by machines.
In both concepts, the amount of freedom is the greatest, since the limitation of necessity is eliminated in its entirety. Interestingly, Arendt argues that it is the social component or the interaction between the participants of action that is responsible for the freedom. While Marx’s concept also includes the increase in social interactions that corresponds to the decrease of personal needs and a shift towards a more universal and abstract approach, there is no evidence of a causational relationship between the two. Therefore, at this point, Arendt’s concept of labor aims at social rather than industrial drivers behind the facilitation of freedom, which further aligns it with the observed reality and strengthens its position in comparison with that suggested by Marx.
Conclusion
Given the differences in concepts highlighted in the essay, it would be tempting to conclude that Marx’s concept of labor, while consistent with the changes observed during the period of active industrialization, has lost its relevance in the post-industrial setting. However, a closer examination reveals both concepts share the essential characteristics, cover the same stages of development, and arrive at similar conclusions.
Importantly, Marx’s concept retains the applicability to postindustrial society since it contains the definition of universal labor as necessary for sustaining complex industrial activities. It is thus possible to align the recent surge of the service industry and informational technology with the economic and social relationships described by Marx. Nevertheless, the concept suggested by Arendt offers a much clearer definition that distinguishes between various types of labor that are characterized by different degrees of freedom.
Even more importantly, Arendt’s concept clarifies the condition of an artificial environment that is an important element of human activity, whereas from Marx’s perspective such development only occurs at a certain unspecified point in time. Next, Arendt’s definition contains the element of action which, while only marginally related to labor as presented by Marx, offers a better explanation for the degree of freedom associated with it and clarifies the reasons behind the expansion of manufacture beyond the point of satisfying the basic needs. Finally, and most importantly, the acknowledgment of social and cultural activities as key elements of work provides a feasible explanation of the growing demand for services and other intangible products as a current leading manifestation of creating value.
Considering the said advantages, it would be reasonable to say that Arendt’s concept of labor offers a set of clearer definitions and contains several important additions that make it more compelling than that offered by Marx.