Dr Brian Keegan takes the jobs theory of David Graeber to task, arguing that he fundamentally missed the point of the work that he deemed superfluous.

As we emerge from pandemic lockdowns, people are realising that at least some of the work totems that we have subscribed to all our working lives were false gods. Many (though by no means all) businesses have recognised that working from home can be a successful and efficient way to carry out white-collar work, if only for some of the time. The tumbling of the ever-present-in-the-office totem may also foster a notion that a four-day working week, for the same pay, might be just as productive as the five-day week grind.

The idea is not new. John Maynard Keynes theorised in the 1930s that, with the advent of technology, we could all possibly produce as much with just a two-day working week. At least one Irish trade union is taking up the short week cudgel, but among its most vociferous advocates was David Graeber, a professor at the London School of Economics and author of Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Graeber is possibly best known for the latter, which outlines his theory on pointless jobs that exist, as he put it, just for the sake of keeping us all working. Graeber kept a “little list” of such occupations, though in practice, it was a long list of salaried professionals whose work he thought would not be missed were they to stop doing it. A world without nurses, refuse collectors, mechanics, teachers or dockworkers would soon be in trouble. Graeber wanted to know if the same could be said if we had no lobbyists, actuaries, telemarketers or legal consultants? Or even, perhaps, accountants.

Most people, irrespective of what they do, have spent Graeber-esque days wondering if their jobs have any real meaning. Graeber’s theory may not differ from other economic or management theories that encapsulate a solitary insight but get pushed too far. The Peter Principle says that everyone ultimately gets promoted to their level of incompetence, beyond which they will go no further. That doesn’t, however, describe all career trajectories or the management structure of most successful organisations. Similarly, Parkinson’s law, which posits that work expands to fill the time available, also misses a fundamental point. As society progresses and demands higher standards, the same tasks take longer because the demand is there to do them better.

Graeber’s theory falls down because it misses the point of the work he deems superfluous. Every society needs its members to share a commonality of goals, aspirations and standards. There are few processes slower and more tedious than the political process, with a small ‘p’ rather than a capital ‘P’. So many of the jobs dismissed by Graeber contribute to the creation of society’s culture, structure and shared understanding. That requires a degree of patience often lacking in an anarchic perspective like his. Many such jobs are also meaningful to those who do them and thus confer dignity to their time and effort.

There is a maxim among anthropologists that fish don’t see the water they swim in, so the discipline’s contribution is to point it out. Equally, however, academics and theoreticians don’t always see that they themselves are swimming in an environment supported by the kind of work decried by Graeber. So, perhaps the real contribution of Graeber’s theory is to serve as a hazard warning for the rarefied academic environment from which it emanated.

But then again, maybe a four-day week isn’t such a bad idea…

Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy & Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland.