Analysis of an exceptional English essay "Job" by John Ruskin

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 “Work” lecture from the existing economic revolution which is generally known as the “Industrial Revolution”. Apart from its advantages and benefits it brought great destruction to poor people. The writer reveals the general facts and harsh realities that were ignored even by those who were themselves the main victims of the revolution.

What is Working Class?

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

Then, he rejects the aforementioned distinction because the idlers can be found in both the 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 working class and upper class has been shown to be incorrect. Since the subject of his lecture is work, the writer sticks to the working class. He makes organized distinctions between the two classes in various 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. “Play” has been ridiculed for the purpose of pleasure without a particular purpose, while work is something totally different that is intended to make a profit and is done for a particular purpose. The writer critically analyzes some popular works from England that deserve to be called “plays”.

“The first game in English is making money”

This is an ironic statement for those who earn money blindly. Those 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 coining money. Aristocratic ladies of her time also indulged in the most expensive game of “dressing up.” Ruskin satirically codifies his behavior by saying that these are the “poor women” without proper clothing. If the clothing budget of these ladies had been distributed among the poor of the third world, it would have been enough 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 ends.

Second Distinction

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

Ruskin cites two examples from a newspaper. The first says that in Russia a man of good fortune entered a hotel to take breakfast from it. He paid fifteen francs there just for two peaches. The second story narrates the miserable state of a dead man whose body lay on a dunghill without anyone paying attention to him, just because he belonged to the poor class. Some dry pieces of “bones” were taken from his pocket, thus intensifying the misery of the poor man.

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 regarding his money; if he spends or saves for a rainy day. After implementing this law in a true sense, there would be no “poor” except those loafers who stay at home loafing instead of doing any work. That kind of poor are doubly poor; lacking not only worldly possessions but also moral strength. Those who follow this law are really rich regardless of how much money they have in their possessions.

Fake money minting base

Duty is the main thing to be given priority. However, those who care more about their salary or rate than the work assigned to them can become rich, but on a false basis. Ruskin critically refers to such people and ends them as “uneducated class”, “lower in intellect” and “coward”. At this point Ruskin has proved his philosophy by giving an analogy. He says that the main purpose of a soldier’s life should be to win battles. Similarly, teaching kindness should be a clergyman’s sole purpose in life. Both people are paid well for their duties, but that’s at the secondary level. If this becomes their main target, then they would be “cowards” and “stupid”.

Third award

Some people work with their hands while others work with their brains. There is rough work to be done, and rough men must do it. There is also gentle work to be done and gentle men must do it. Both jobs are important because the maintenance of life depends on both manual and mental labor. 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 is recognized only by your own class. A man who works in a quiet and serene yet comfortable room is unlikely to be aware of the difficulties of train conductors who have to drive against cruel winds with no difference of day and night in his life.

Rough work is usually honest, real, and helpful, while soft work often accompanies dishonesty and deception. When both jobs are done worthily, the head job is a noble job and the hand job is ignorant. Again Ruskin criticizes the rich 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 don’t know what job they can do better. This “will” can only be promoted when they select the right profession according to their ability. Ruskin says that “for a man to be happy, it is necessary that he not only be capable of his work, but also be a good judge of his work.”