John Ruskin (1819-1900) was an English art critic and social thinker, also remembered as a poet and artist. He wrote a series of essays on art and architecture that became extremely influential in the Victorian era. He takes material for his “Labor” lecture from the existing economic revolution, which is generally referred to as the “Industrial Revolution.” Apart from its advantages and benefits, it brought great destruction to the poor. The writer reveals the general facts and harsh realities that were ignored even by those who were the main victims of the revolution.

What is the working class?

Ruskin, from the beginning, is going to clarify the matter of what is meant by “working class.” Most likely it is the opposite of “inactive class”. Then “leisure class” will be synonymous with “upper class”. At this point, Ruskin asks his audience if he is right to draw this distinction or not. The question is asked only with the intention of winning the sympathy of your audience to convince them of your own arguments.

Then he rejects the aforementioned distinction because idle people can be found in both rich and poor classes. There is a working class between rich and poor and there is also a leisure class between rich and poor. So the distinction between the working class and the upper class has been shown to be incorrect. Since the subject of his lecture is work, the writer sticks to the working class. It makes an organized distinction between the two classes in several respects. The following are the main distinctions vividly drawn by the author.

First distinction

This distinction is between two classes; those who work and those who play. It can be easily understood after knowing the difference between work and play. The “game” has been ridiculed for the purpose of pleasure without a specific purpose, while work is something entirely different that is intended to make a profit and is done for a specific purpose. The writer critically analyzes some popular works from England that deserve to be called “games”.

“The first English game is making money”

This is an ironic statement for those who make money blindly. These people don’t know why they are making money and what they will do with it? In fact, they are players who play the game of minting money. The aristocratic ladies of his time also indulged in the more expensive game of “dressing up.” Ruskin satirically encodes their behavior by saying that these are the “poor women” without proper clothing. If the budget for these ladies’ clothing had been distributed among the poor in the third world, it would have been sufficient for them to meet their basic needs. However, the distinction between work and play is not exclusively mutual; a single thing can be equally “work” and “play” according to its primary and secondary purposes.

Second Distinction

The writer makes another distinction between rich and poor. The former spends a large amount of money even on cheap and ordinary things, while the latter has to meet his basic needs.

Ruskin cites two examples from a newspaper. The first says that in Russia a man of good fortune entered a hotel for breakfast. He paid there fifteen francs just for two peaches. The second story recounts the miserable state of a dead person whose body lay in a pile of manure without anyone paying attention to it just because it belongs to the poor class. From his pocket some dry pieces of “bones” were removed, thus intensifying the misery of the poor.

Legal bases of wealth

The legal basis of wealth is that a worker must be paid a fair amount for his work and must also be given freedom with respect to his money; whether you spend or save for a rainy day. After implementing this law in the true sense, there would be no “poor” except those lazy people who lazily stay home instead of doing some work. These types of poor are doubly poor; lacking not only worldly possessions, but also moral strength. Those who follow this law are really wealthy regardless of the money they have in their possessions.

Fake money minting base

Duty is the main thing that should be given priority. Those who care more about their salary or fee than the job assigned to them, however, can become rich but on a false basis. Ruskin critically refers to such people as the “uneducated class,” “inferior in intellect,” and “cowards.” At this point, Ruskin has tested his philosophy by giving an analogy. It says that the main purpose of a soldier’s life should be to win battles. Similarly, teaching kindness should be the sole purpose of a clergyman’s life. Both people get paid well for their roles, but that’s at the secondary level. If this becomes their main objective, then they would be “cowards” and “stupid”.

Third distinction

Some people work with their hands while others work with the brain. There is hard work to be done, and tough men must do it. There is also soft work to be done and kind men must do it. Both jobs are important because the maintenance of life depends on both manual and mental work. Each person must honestly do their own work, mental or physical.

However, it is a true fact that the dignity of work and hard work are recognized only by their own class. A man who works in a quiet and serene room with everything comfortable is unlikely to realize the hardships of the machinists who have to drive against cruel winds with no difference between day and night in his life.

Hard work is generally honest, real, and useful, while soft work often accompanies dishonesty and deception. When both works are done with dignity, that of the head is a noble work and that of the hand is ignorable. Once again, Ruskin criticizes the wealthy class that persistently thinks of bringing relief and comfort to the working class but does nothing in practice.

The essay tells us that both types of work must be done correctly, but the problem arises when people do not work willingly. The main reason for this attitude is that they do not know what job they can do better. This “will” can only be promoted when the appropriate profession is selected according to your ability. Ruskin says, “For a man to be happy, he needs not only to be capable of his work, but to be a good judge of his work.”