Not long ago, a journalist I know asked me to talk to her about “work-life balance”: she was writing a piece on the subject and wanted a philosophical angle. If she had known me better, she might have picked someone else. I am a stereotypical workaholic, notoriously bad at drawing boundaries, and notoriously good at making myself feel overwhelmed. But at least this means I know the enemy…
My first reaction to the question was another stereotype: the philosopher who says “It all depends on what you mean.” If we’re discussing “work-life balance,” we need to define our terms. What is “work”? And if that seems too easy, what is “life”? (The chaser: what is “balance”?)
It’s tempting to equate “work” with what has to be done, even though we wish it didn’t: with activities that have “ameliorative value,” solving problems or meeting needs we would rather do without. The downside of work like this is that, the more time we devote to it, the harder it is to maintain our grip on what makes life wo…
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Under the Net to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.