Arendt's anti-humanism of labour

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The aim of this article is to situate Arendt’s account of labour as a critical response to humanisms of labour, or put otherwise, to situate it as an anti-humanism of labour. It compares Arendt’s account of labour with that of the most prominent humanist theorist of labour at the time of the composition of The Human Condition: Georges Friedmann. Arendt’s and Friedmann’s accounts of labour are compared specifically with respect to the range of capacities, social relations, and possibilities of fulfilment at stake in the activity of labour. The comparison provides a previously unexplored context for understanding Arendt’s account of labour and her distinction between labour and work. The relevance of Arendt’s and Friedmann’s theories of labour for the contemporary debate about the meaning of work in an age of automation is also briefly discussed.

LanguageEnglish
Pages175-190
Number of pages16
JournalEuropean Journal of Social Theory
Volume22
Issue number2
Early online date13 Dec 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2019

Fingerprint

humanism
labor
automation
Social Relations

Keywords

  • Arendt
  • Friedmann
  • humanism
  • labour
  • work

Cite this

@article{780c0ac35d0b45d1a8036a7e7246f806,
title = "Arendt's anti-humanism of labour",
abstract = "The aim of this article is to situate Arendt’s account of labour as a critical response to humanisms of labour, or put otherwise, to situate it as an anti-humanism of labour. It compares Arendt’s account of labour with that of the most prominent humanist theorist of labour at the time of the composition of The Human Condition: Georges Friedmann. Arendt’s and Friedmann’s accounts of labour are compared specifically with respect to the range of capacities, social relations, and possibilities of fulfilment at stake in the activity of labour. The comparison provides a previously unexplored context for understanding Arendt’s account of labour and her distinction between labour and work. The relevance of Arendt’s and Friedmann’s theories of labour for the contemporary debate about the meaning of work in an age of automation is also briefly discussed.",
keywords = "Arendt, Friedmann, humanism, labour, work",
author = "Smith, {Nicholas H.}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1368431017746326",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "175--190",
journal = "European Journal of Social Theory",
issn = "1368-4310",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "2",

}

Arendt's anti-humanism of labour. / Smith, Nicholas H.

In: European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 22, No. 2, 01.05.2019, p. 175-190.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Arendt's anti-humanism of labour

AU - Smith, Nicholas H.

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - The aim of this article is to situate Arendt’s account of labour as a critical response to humanisms of labour, or put otherwise, to situate it as an anti-humanism of labour. It compares Arendt’s account of labour with that of the most prominent humanist theorist of labour at the time of the composition of The Human Condition: Georges Friedmann. Arendt’s and Friedmann’s accounts of labour are compared specifically with respect to the range of capacities, social relations, and possibilities of fulfilment at stake in the activity of labour. The comparison provides a previously unexplored context for understanding Arendt’s account of labour and her distinction between labour and work. The relevance of Arendt’s and Friedmann’s theories of labour for the contemporary debate about the meaning of work in an age of automation is also briefly discussed.

AB - The aim of this article is to situate Arendt’s account of labour as a critical response to humanisms of labour, or put otherwise, to situate it as an anti-humanism of labour. It compares Arendt’s account of labour with that of the most prominent humanist theorist of labour at the time of the composition of The Human Condition: Georges Friedmann. Arendt’s and Friedmann’s accounts of labour are compared specifically with respect to the range of capacities, social relations, and possibilities of fulfilment at stake in the activity of labour. The comparison provides a previously unexplored context for understanding Arendt’s account of labour and her distinction between labour and work. The relevance of Arendt’s and Friedmann’s theories of labour for the contemporary debate about the meaning of work in an age of automation is also briefly discussed.

KW - Arendt

KW - Friedmann

KW - humanism

KW - labour

KW - work

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064651945&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1368431017746326

DO - 10.1177/1368431017746326

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 175

EP - 190

JO - European Journal of Social Theory

T2 - European Journal of Social Theory

JF - European Journal of Social Theory

SN - 1368-4310

IS - 2

ER -