Keywords
Labor
Work
How to Cite
Abstract
Attempting to explain the American attachment to work, this article examines two traditions of defending work and labor, referred to here as “egalitarian” and “inegalitarian.” Representing the egalitarian tradition are Abraham Lincoln and Wendell Berry, and representing the inegalitarian are Thomas Jefferson and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Although there is overlap between the two traditions, the issue of equality separates American thinking on work and labor and reveals differing accounts of independence. Laying bare these sometimes conflicting arguments also provides an opportunity to think through contemporary issues, such as the so-called “Great Resignation.” I contend that recent trends do not suggest a giving up on work, but rather reflect the demand for work to have a particular relationship with equality.
Similar Articles
- Forrest Nabors, Athenian and Lacedemonian Confederacies , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 43 No. 2 (2019): Symposium: The Missouri Compromise at 200
- Mary P Nichols, Women in Western Political Thought , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 13 (1983): Reviews
- George W Carey, James Wilson’s Political Thought and the Constitutional Convention , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 17 (1987): Symposium: The Constitutional Convention of 1787
- Nathan Orlando, Surpassing the Unsurpassable , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 46 No. 2 (2022): Jefferson, Paine, Tolstoy, Frankenstein, and more!
- Mark Blitz, A Symposium on Kant Studies , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 30 (2001): Symposia on Kant Studies and on <em>I’ll Take My Stand</em>
- Luke C Sheahan, State as Historical Necessity , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 42 No. 2 (2018): Symposium: The Political Thought of Robert Nisbet
- Richard L Velkley, Masks of Mastery , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 31 (2002): A Symposium on Gerhart Niemeyer
- Paul Seaton, Václav Havel’s Federalist Papers , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 31 (2002): A Symposium on Gerhart Niemeyer
- Alan Gibson, Lance Banning’s Interpretation of James Madison , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 32 (2003): A Symposium on Bertrand de Jouvenel
- Luke Mayville, Response to Commentators , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 42 No. 1 (2018): Symposium: Philosophy in Weimar Germany
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Kenneth L Deutsch, Interwar German-Speaking Emigrés and American Political Thought , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 29 (2000): A Symposium on Herbert J Storing
- Quentin P Taylor, Publius and Persuasion , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 31 (2002): A Symposium on Gerhart Niemeyer
- Victor Bruno, Philosophy, Mysticism, and World Empires , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 43 No. 1 (2019): Essays
- Paul Peterson, The Rhetorical Design and Theoretical Teaching of Federalist No. 10 , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 17 (1987): Symposium: The Constitutional Convention of 1787
- Richard Avramenko, The Gnostic and the Spoudaios , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 41 No. 1 (2017): Symposium: Eric Voegelin and the Ancients
- Nathan Pinkoski, Why Alasdair MacIntyre is not a Conservative Post-Liberal , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 43 No. 2 (2019): Symposium: The Missouri Compromise at 200
- Matthew Van Hook, Myth, Moderate, or Machiavellian? , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 44 No. 2 (2020): Symposium: Leadership and the History of Political Thought
- George Thomas, Liberal Tolerance and Mere Civility , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 42 No. 2 (2018): Symposium: The Political Thought of Robert Nisbet
- Eduardo Schmidt Passos, Carl Schmitt’s Political Theory during the Third Reich , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 42 No. 1 (2018): Symposium: Philosophy in Weimar Germany
- Grant Havers, Leo Strauss on Nazism , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 42 No. 1 (2018): Symposium: Philosophy in Weimar Germany