What’s so bad about workism?
In this post, Matthew Hammerton (Singapore Management University) discusses his article recently published in the Journal of Applied Philosophy on the phenomenon and value of people making work the primary source of meaning in their life.
Some people center their life on work. They identify with their job and derive most of their life’s meaning from it. The writer Derek Thompson coined the term ‘workism’ to describe this phenomenon. Other people center their life on family (think of a stay-at-home parent who finds raising children deeply meaningful), a hobby, or something else entirely. Finally, some people don’t center their life on any single thing. Instead, they try to live a well-rounded life, drawing meaning and identity from a plurality of sources.
Are each of these lifestyles reasonable ways to live a life, or are some of them mistakes that lead to less fulfilling lives? In recent years, workism has come under fire and been dismissed as an especially poor life choice. In my article ‘What is wrong with workism?’ I challenge that view and defend workism as a viable way to live a good life. In case you are wondering, I am not a workist myself—I find meaning from a plurality of sources. Still, from a philosophical perspective, I don’t see what’s wrong with some people choosing to center their lives on work.
Why balance isn’t everything
Many critics of workism reject it on the grounds that living a ‘balanced’ life is inherently better. However, this argument moves too quickly. If hedonism is true, then living an ‘unbalanced’ life is fine—as long as it brings you more pleasure. If preferentialism is true, then living an ‘unbalanced’ life is fine if it better satisfies your preferences.
To really press the objection, we have to appeal to Aristotelian perfectionism—the idea that the good life for humans consists of developing various goods that are fundamental to our nature. Furthermore, we have to appeal to the popular perfectionist idea that it is important to have a balanced mix of these goods. According to this view, we should avoid living a lopsided life that overemphasizes one good while neglecting others. Such a life, even if rich in total good, remains fundamentally incomplete.
There are several issues with this kind of argument against workism, but let me focus on one. Suppose the perfectionist is right: a well-rounded life is better for us. Still, it doesn’t follow that it’s a mistake to live an unbalanced life. That’s because life isn’t just about maximizing well-being. In addition to living well for ourselves, we also want our lives to be meaningful—significant, purposeful, and impactful.
But here’s the thing: as I’ve argued elsewhere, balance doesn’t matter when it comes to meaning. Just look at some of the most meaningful human lives—Albert Einstein, Frida Kahlo, Mother Tersea, Nelson Mandela. These weren’t well-rounded lives. They were lopsided. They prioritized a single cause or form of excellence in order to achieve great things. We might call these figures ‘workists with a noble cause’. This suggests that meaning in life is simply about having the biggest positive impact you can on the world, which doesn’t require living a well-rounded life.
The upshot is that workism can be a reasonable choice for those seeking meaning. If perfectionism is right, then workists may lose some well-being by opting for an ‘unbalanced’ life. However, this loss can be offset by the meaning their lives gain.
Too many eggs in one basket
Another common objection to workism is that it’s risky. If your life is centered on work then a major setback—a layoff, burnout, failure—can leave you emotionally disoriented and lacking purpose. A well-rounded life, in contrast, offers more fallback options.
This is a fair point. But it’s often overstated. The critique assumes a comparison between the well-rounded life and a cartoonish version of workism, where work is the only thing that matters. And sure, in that extreme, workism looks dangerous. But in real life, that version is rare. Humans are social creatures. Most people—even those who center their lives on work—still value relationships, hobbies, and causes beyond the office.
So the more realistic comparison is between the well-rounded life and moderate workism—where work is the main source of meaning, but not the only one. In this more grounded scenario, the difference in emotional resilience isn’t that stark. Yes, well-rounded folks may have stronger relationships and more hobbies to fall back on. But moderate workists usually have those too—just not to the same degree. And that difference isn’t necessarily decisive.
If choosing a life of moderate workism allows you to make a greater positive impact on the world, then that gain in meaning might be worth the small extra risk you take on.
There’s no one-size-fits-all good life
Elsewhere, I’ve considered other objections to workism. What is interesting about the two we’ve discussed is that they don’t just apply to work—they apply to any life centered on one thing: family, art, activism, sport, you name it. They all push us toward the ideal of a well-rounded life.
I agree that there is much to recommend in such a life. However, we shouldn’t assume that this makes it ideal for everyone. People are different. Some people have dispositions, talents, preferences, or life circumstances that make them suited to a narrowly focused life. Others thrive on variety. The key is recognizing that there are many ways to live well. Rather than pushing a single ideal, we should embrace pluralism about the good life.
