Why Alan Watts Believed Our Idea of Work is Completely Wrong

Why Alan Watts Believed Our Idea of Work is Completely Wrong
The Art of Loving Your Job

Few people have communicated difficult ideas with as much clarity as Alan Watts.

He is known today for the work he did to popularize Zen concepts in the West. Through his books and his recorded lectures, he touched on almost every major contradiction in life.

His signature teaching—and he applied it to almost every part of existence—was that there is no end or destination. Watts knew that the point was ultimately to be where you are and experience things as they are, here and now, rather than in some romanticized past or future.

He continually stressed how little understanding we actually have of reality and its contents, and he was often careful not to make things more complicated than they needed to be.

One thing, however, that he always felt strongly about and that he observed modern society constantly getting wrong, was our entire approach to the idea of work. In his own words:

You are involved by and large in a very strange business system which divides your day into work and play. Work is something that everybody does and you get paid to do it because nobody could care less about doing it.

Work and play are separateWe keep work and play separate, and perhaps that’s the reason for our job dissatisfaction.

In other words, it is so abominable and boring that you can get paid for doing it. And the object of doing this is to make money. And the object of making money, is to go home and enjoy the money that you’ve made. When you got it, you see, ‘you can buy pleasure.’

No Such Thing As Work

Naturally, Watts’ definition of work doesn’t apply to every job each one of us does. That said, the underlying theory of the role of work in modern society, though extreme, is largely right.

Biologically, there is no such thing as a set requirement to do a set amount of work. We’re programmed to strive for things and to struggle for survival, which itself is one definition of work, but overall, the concept of sacrificing time for money is a cultural construct.

We’ve created arbitrary distinctions to keep the economic machine running, which isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s forced a mental contrast between the things that we’re supposed to enjoy and the things that we do, in order to maintain our ability to do things that we enjoy.

When we think of something as work, we automatically compare it to leisure, and by definition, if it’s the opposite of leisure, we think that it’s not something that gets to be enjoyed.

Time for money=cultural constructThe concept of sacrificing time for money is a cultural construct.

Even if you have a job that satisfies all of your criteria for keeping you engaged and excited, this ingrained narrative that you’re ‘working’ when you’re doing that thing causes you to see your tasks and your demands as things that are enforced on you, rather than chosen.

Choice is an essential requirement in humans for a feeling of motivation and control, and our distinction of certain commitments as work completely strips that away from us.

Given that we all have to make a living and that doing so is going to demand a big chunk of our time, it’s valuable to think of ways that we can make this time as pleasant as possible.

Granted, not all circumstances enable an environment to see work as something other than that. That said, by merely taking a more fluid approach to the commitments in your life by reducing overt contrasts between what you enjoy and what you don’t, you can make it better.

The Real Secret is Play

Another way to complement a lack of distinction is to see everything you do as play.

Humans are playful by nature. While many of us give up the dolls and action figures as we age, most of the activities that we consider enjoyable throughout the years, whether it be reading, creating, or exercise, are a form of play. They’re a kind of game that we engage in.

Gamify your workHumans are playful by nature, so by gamifying our work we can enjoy it more.

We choose to deliberately focus our attention on something, we strive to get the most out of it that we possibly can, and if we do it well, we get completely lost in a world of joy and awe.

The medium of play, although important, isn’t really crucial. The underlying pattern of behavior is something that exists as a default and innate ability in our mind. It may come easier if you have a habit of enjoying a task, but it can be harnessed with effort regardless.

This is something that Alan Watts advocated throughout his life. We get so caught up with existing definitions that we forget that the boundary between work and play is illusionary.

Nothing in the world is inherently interesting. Things are interesting because we put time and effort into making them interesting. If you have a fluid definition of work and leisure, then much of the time you can turn whatever the job is into play by gamifying it.

If you practice a kind of presence about being where you are, rather than waiting to get out of a task in the near future, and if you design the circumstances around your demands to be somewhat challenging, then there is no reason that you can’t enjoy the time that thing pays you.

This mentality also saves you from getting caught up in the rat race to nowhere. You play because it’s enjoyable, not because you’re chasing some imagined destination of success.

All You Need to Know

Alan Watts passed away in 1973, but much of his wisdom lives on, in all corners of the world.

WE have to make things interestingThings are interesting because we put time and effort into making them interesting.

You don’t have to agree with everything he believed to see that there is merit in his argument about the flaws in the modern concept of work. It’s something that takes up more of our time than almost anything else in life, and yet, it’s also a major source of human misery.

We contrast it with leisure, and as a result, we treat it like a thing that’s the opposite of leisure. That may indeed be the case for many of us. That said, it doesn’t help that we’ve created a false cultural narrative that thrives on a distinction, rather than integration.

If you see your life more fluidly as a commitment of responsibilities, and if you can treat these commitments as play, there is no reason work has to be a source of dissatisfaction.

In fact, things you enjoy are interesting because, at some point, you took the time and energy to make them interesting. If you appropriately gamify your work, you can do the same there.

If you happen to be in a position where it’s not possible to enjoy your work, maybe it’s time to make a change. Naturally, everyone has bills to pay and personal responsibilities. That said, if you can cover the basics, it’s at least worth considering alternative options. As Watts said:

Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing than a long life spent in a miserable way.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on pinterest
Share on linkedin



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Filipp pipenko
Filipp pipenko
3 years ago

I was going to say! If you didn’t end the article with a quote of his you would have done it wrong, but you got it right (: thanks for writing this

3 years ago

I wish all think like him.. reality For making money is too much boring! Why people think we just need to earn it?

Aigbe Enabulele
Aigbe Enabulele
3 years ago

This is a lovely article. It makes an interesting point about how we see work. I can use this!

3 years ago

Wonderful Watts. LSD Guru is right: work can be play… if allowed.

It is not allowed in Puritan America. Puritans came to America, not to start religious freedom but to organize a religious theocracy where one could be fined for not going to church.

The puritan religious creed has been the most enduring as it has embedded itself deeply into our cultural institutions.

John Calvin, a 16th century protestant theologian and contemporary of Martin Luther was one of the first Puritans to express the need for a theocratic state. He asked a very simple question: if God is omnipotent and all knowing, He knows the outcome of events before they happen including one’s sins. He knows who is saved and going to heaven and who is damned and destined to hell. Such an understanding is called predestination. Does God create people whom he already knows are destined to hell? The question for the Puritans was to discover through signs if one was elected—selected by God for eternal life in heaven. The answer to that question was based on the “sign of success”– one’s material success in life. However, such success was not to be enjoyed. It was a sign from God not a temptation to sin.

Wealth and status were only symbolic of one’s elected status. The Puritan dressed and lived plainly while his wealth was reinvested into growing his business—symbolic of his spiritual status. Success was part of a covenant with God and to keep this covenant, the people of God needed to keep their community free from sin and as free as possible from sinners i.e. contemporary drug users. Those ordained to go to hell needed to be excluded from the community of the righteous. Puritan societies needed to be sin free (drug free) in a world in which most others were damned.

Citizens of the Holy State were only at liberty to do what God commanded—be they saved and part of the elect or unsaved and damned to hell. Those who were unsaved were still subject to the law and would be kept in line and thus not offend God. The liberty that the Puritan exercised in New England was not his own will but that of the clergy who were also magistrates.

All must, therefore, work together to maintain the Covenant of the Lord and not be sinful. To keep the Lord’s peace, the leaders of the Puritan community must punish every infraction, every sin, no matter how trivial. The contemporary Islamic puritans, the Taliban, forbade kite flying, for example, not because of kite flying per se but as it offered an opportunity to allow one’s thoughts to soar and might give rise to freedom of thought and expression. The same is true for the current drug policy leadership in America that criminalizes marijuana as a dangerous drug even though not one overdose death has been documented in the past 2000 years of recorded history.

In historical puritan times families became “Godly cells of righteousness”, controlling individual behavior for the theocratic state (today’s Partnership for a Drug Free America and Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America). In order that no one should escape this wholesome scrutiny, it was forbidden that anyone live alone: unmarried men and women were required to place themselves in a family if they did not have one or had left their own behind. Public surveillance was common–place.

Everyone’s business was everyone else’s so that no one could bring the wrath of God down upon the community of the elect. Every community member was required to learn the Bible and to attend Sunday worship. It was against the law not to do so. The church members guarded each other’s morals by censuring, excommunicating, and banishing those who strayed from the straight and narrow path. Virtually the entire population was a holy police force and Puritan leaders found no problem in defining sin as crime. Eventually, in Salem, they began to hang people.

3 years ago

Nice article. A different point of view would be to even forget about gamification as this would be yet another form of upmanship on life (where ‘you’ are convinced that being happy or unhappy depends on what and how you are doing things instead of understanding that that feeling is merely cultural/educational) and go for the experience that there is really nothing but this eternal moment. Wouldn’t things change in that prisma?

3 years ago

Profoundly beautiful.

Alan liberated me from dysfunction after fourteen years of continuos constant trauma.

If desire is any different than need, what is the actual distinction, if the choice to desire cannot possibly exist?

A Choice to desire or not to, is impossible.

Because if there was truly another option,
how on Earth did you end up with this one?

How can you claim, it’s what “you”want,
If the selection of the desire was a mere accident?

It’s what the accident wants (and accidents aren’t very particular with their desires).

A human ego cannot possibly identify itself as random chaos..

And if there is a reason for the selection, it’s no more a choice and it’s no more you, it’s the dictating reason himself.

reason is defined as,

“the essence in the effect,
Traced as that of the cause”.

So Imposed and enforced (on the ego, by nature) Survival,
is the cause.

“and your absolute need to desire the choice”,
portrays the resulting free will as the very survival that’s causing, forming, and manifesting the falsely perceived freedom.

Which implies that the freedom is the enslavement itself, despite the evolution of our interpretation of it.

What actually happens when we have decided is,

That we now discovered Which option was real from the very beginning, out of the others which never actually were a possible consideration.

It was just false advertising.

Just like when you see someone planting unidentified seeds in the soil, and after a while corn is growing,

If someone will explain that the seed just now decided to become a corn seed,

People will judge him as stupid.

Just because you didn’t ask the farmer back then,
and you only discovered now what he farmed,

Doesn’t mean that anything changed, other then your information.

Likewise, the true option, is the exclusively ultimate decision itself, even before Discovery.

And just like in the metaphor,

the other options weren’t options at all,

the corn seed, was always a corn seed.

It never was a watermelon seed despite your ability to consider it as such.

Likewise, All the other options are merely delusional and none existent considerations.

whenever it is known in the beginning that there aren’t any other options available,

Like switching your brain off to case the barking of an annoying dog,

We all agree that it simply happened.

That no ego that’s separated from nature is responsible for choosing it.

But whenever we haven’t yet discovered the actual exclusive option (which therefore isn’t an option at all, but a pre determined pre existing dictate of nature,
The exclusive path which leads to Survival), out of the other deceptive suggestions,

We treat the Discovery, as the application of the ego’s conquest and control of nature.

As if a superior intelligence is improving dumb and inferior mother nature,
with its cleverness).

Therefore, I consider desire a gimmick.

All that exists, is need.

Needs catering existence (food, sleep, oxygen, etc), are openly regarded as such.

While needs catering the ego’s quest for endless dominance and conquest,

Is given a fancy label,

But desire is simply a way of saying need, when the awareness will expose the ego as an alien (as soon as you “need” ice cream, it becomes instantly evident that whoever needs it isn’t a natural human.

Btw. Little children frequently express their cravings, as needs.

I need ice cream).

Shall we eradicate desire then?

Hold on just a sec.

Without an ego, there isn’t any Survival (at least, I haven’t tested surviving with one, and I’m not very eager to try it).

Is eating food the right thing?


Is eating 24/7 right?

Feeding the ego is also correct.

But not 24/7.

To be continued soon.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x

Subscribe to UPLIFT's free Newsletter

Get our regular newsletter sharing the latest updates, articles, films and events.

How will my data be used?