Leisure: The Basis of Culture, chapter 1
The good of book groups is not only the accountability of actually reading, but also the accountability of actually thinking about what you’re reading. And so, I’m reading Leisure: The Basis Of Culture along with Cindy and friends. I already owned the book, having found it while browsing the shelves at Exodus last year with store credit on my account. And, the reason I picked it up is because I remembered Cindy mentioning it; so, if Cindy’s going to be discussing it, now is the time to pull it off the shelf and actually read it!
The “chapter” will be linked to Cindy’s post on the chapter, which has the links to the other participants’ posts. And, most likely, the lively conversations will happen primarily on Cindy’s posts. :) So, if you’re interested, click away! And, you don’t have to be reading the book to comment here, either.
Leisure: The Basis of Culture Chapter 1
Pieper’s Main Point
The ancient and medieval man saw leisure as the reason for labor, the goal of labor, whereas modern man sees labor as an ends in itself.
Definitions: leisure: contemplative life, Sabbath-type rest, liberal arts work: hustle & bustle, jobs, servile arts (vocational, we would now say)
Aristotle: “We are not-at-leisure in order to be-at-leisure.”
Quote to discuss
The real reason for mentioning [Aristotle's quote] was to show how sharply the modern valuation of work and leisure differs from theat of Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The different is so great, in fact, that we can no longer understand with any immediacy just what the ancient and medieval mind understood by the statement, “We are not-at-leisure in order to be-at-leisure.”
My thoughts
This was a very short chapter, an introductory chapter almost, but it gave no real definitions and had no real point in itself but to draw one on into the book. I think he is certainly correct that we have no concept of leisure. If we use leisure the way we commonly do, then I think certainly we could say people work in order to be at leisure: they work so they can amuse and entertain themselves. TGIF and all that rot. But leisure in Pieper’s and Aristotle’s sense is not television-watching, bar-hopping, facebook-browsing, or vacation-taking. They are referring, I think, to contemplation, to reading and thinking and praying and being at rest in one’s soul.
What defines who we are? Our jobs, our work, or our mind & soul? And what feeds ourselves, our mind & soul? Jobs? Work? Entertainment? Contemplation? And if we have no room in our lives for contemplation (which can happen — often most effectively — while the body is engaged in action like walking or weeding or bread-making…I’m curious to see how he defines “work” later on), then what will become of us? Pieper ends the chapter by asking us what is man? What is man made for? What makes the Ideal Man? Our modern answer is efficient productivity, but that has not been the historic answer nor the biblical answer.
Mystie, I agree that he didn’t really say anything yet but is just laying a foundation. That is good because it gives everybody a chance to catch up. If anyone wants to join in they need not feel hopelessly behind. I have a feeling I am going to just go from contemplation to contemplation as we read. I am trying hard to put my finger on the whole concept.
PS love the Doug Wilson paragraph on the side.
The “generalizations” link? I thought of you when I read that paragraph. :)
The nice thing about several people posting their contemplations on a chapter is the variety of topics and angles that come up.
Mystie, I am looking forward to more definition of what he means, too. Speaking of the “liberal arts” and the “servile arts” was interesting, but it made me think a bit of the sacred/secular dichotomy that I do not like, where one is considered on a higher plane than the other, and I am not sure we can say that about work/leisure. It’s a little too gnostic. We’ll see :-).
In light of the number of hours I’ve spent reading the first chapter (intro & preface), plus the blogs of book clubers, I’m in big trouble as the chapters get longer and longer.
Seriously, though Mystie, I’m trying hard to put myself into Pieper’s shoes and understand his context. He really is saying something very bold … in a still small voice.
Post WWII, most Germans felt as if their world had crumbled. Not only were their earl 20th century writers fairly negative, but their entire culture had just been smashed.
So, I see Pieper’s essay appealing to the German mindset. He’s directing them to their innermost being, their culture, reminding them that despite what the nationalistic propaganda they’d been fed, there was still hope.
And that their leisure (not pogroms or work) would indeed be foundational to the rebuilding of their house.
Mystie,
Can I just tell you something that I believe I have told you before? I always like the way you organize your thoughts. You are so tidy about it, and it helps me think it through better….
Thanks for the context, Dana! That makes sense, and modern history is where I am weakest.
Brandy, thanks. The tidiness makes up for quantity and quality, maybe. If you make it look good, it’s not quite as obvious that not much has been said. :) I am nowhere near having a deep and insightful post every day, as on that other blog as you put it. :)