Comments | lillibet: Define "work"

lillibet

Define "work"

Feb 23, 2006 14:45

Elsewhere, someone was discussing the work that he and his partner are doing to improve/sustain their relationship and someone else commented that if a relationship requires work, then it may not be worth continuing. This led into a discussion of what defines "work," more generally. If you enjoy a process, is it work? If you choose to do ( Read more... )

language, relationships

Comments 25

hammercock February 23 2006, 20:25:02 UTC

I think all relationships require occasional maintenance effort, but the degree may vary over relationships and over time within the same relationship. As for the "not worth continuing" comment, I would assert that if a relationship either gets no maintenance work or is in constant maintenance mode, that's the time to start reassessing whether it's worth continuing. No work can mean stagnation and complacency, but too much work can mean that the relationship just isn't viable in the long-term.

I think relationship "work" can be enjoyable and can be chosen, but may not be either of those from time to time, and that the degree to which it usually is freely-chosen and enjoyable may well be indicative of how well the relationship will weather the times when it is miserable and forced upon you.

continued thoughts, now that I'm not at work hammercock February 24 2006, 00:16:23 UTC

Work, job, whatever...the place where I'm paid to show up and perform tasks. ;-)

If you enjoy a process, is it work? If you choose to do something, is it work? Are activities you undertake in pursuit of a hobby work? If you get paid to do something, is that work? If the product of your activity mainly benefits someone else, is that work? What activities do not count as work? What is work?To continue from my last post: I think all of those count as work. "Work" is a very expansive word. Words such as "job" and "chore," as you and Dave noted above, are more nuanced. I think "work" is, fundamentally, effort you undertake in pursuit of a goal. That goal could be building furniture because you like building furniture. It could be tasks you are paid by an employer to perform. In relationship terms, it could be such diverse things as hashing out problems between partners, regardless of whether you reconcile or split; it could be a periodic checking in, even when things seem fine, in order to make sure things actually are fine; it could be ( ... )

ceelove February 23 2006, 23:21:32 UTC

I go with the very basic Tom Sawyer whitewashing-the-fence definition: If you have to do it, it's work; if you don't, it isn't. For example, I love doing massage, such that I've gone to some effort to bring my table to the beach, the mountains, the desert, etc, for the sake of giving massage to strangers. But I also perform massage as work, i.e., I show up to give massage for a specific amount of time to a specific person, because that person is paying me to do so. I may well enjoy it very much, but then it's "work."

lillibet February 23 2006, 23:29:52 UTC

So you can't choose to do work? Or is it simply that having chosen to do it, it ceases to be work?

To use a personal example, would you consider what I do with Theatre@First to be work? (Don't worry, this isn't a trap--I think the answer depends very much on one's own definitions.)

ceelove February 25 2006, 01:37:34 UTC

Hmm, I guess I don't think of it in terms of choice at all. I certainly choose to do both paid and unpaid massage; and when I choose to do either, it doesn't become more or less "work." It's not about payment (as there is certainly plenty of volunteer work in the world). It's not about commitment or responsibility. It's not about enjoyment.

Ah well. It is a very simplistic definition; maybe it doesn't work very well for other people.

I would consider your Theatre@First commitments to be "not-work," though of course I'd glibly use the phrase, "Elizabeth puts a lot of work into Theatre@First." Boy, I shouldn't join the debate team on the merits of my definition, should I?

breadd February 24 2006, 03:01:09 UTC

um, reminded me of this joke, for which I googled to find a copy:

http://www.comedy-zone.net/jokes/laugh/religion/religious12.htm

xthread February 24 2006, 05:14:52 UTC

I still have to read the long exchange twixt you and dpolicar, but for the moment I'm inclined to second the inestimable mangosteen's fine analysis.

entirelysonja February 24 2006, 05:45:26 UTC

For those of you following along at home, my original words were:

In my own life, I've found that good relationships don't require anything that feels like work. Good relationships certainly require time and attention and communication and all that jazz, but I find that when my partner and I are compatible to begin with, those things require no significant effort.When we discussed it, my husband phrased it slightly differently, saying that relationships certainly require effort, but in a good relationship, that effort is not onerous ( ... )