Work occupies a large part of people’s time (or would it be correct to say: of their life?). In a society in which leisure is taken as a negative social trait, productive activity (of any kind) becomes the antithesis of the Capital Sin of sloth. And why is it not possible to stand outside of this productive logic, not even for a moment? Well, because modernity has been tainted by the fallacy of sovereign equality and the innate right to success and, consequently, to happiness. It signals that wanting is all it takes to conquer a place in the sun. Therefore, there are no time or space left for unhappiness, suffering, and lacking: Our culture screams “Get up, move yourself an be happy!” “And, if possible, without being a burden to anyone else, be independent and standing on your own two feet. And don’t complain, where there’s a will, there’s a way!”

By stating that “labor ennobles man”, Max Weber (considered one of the founders of sociology, whose intellectual production took place between 1890 and 1920) extrapolated the thought according to which working magnifies man by removing him from idleness and, thus, paved the way for a vast mass of people to abandon traditional forms of life and work (in which accumulation, profit, and economic growth were not essential) and to undergo a discipline of schedules and activities imposed by industries, which at the time had just started to settle in big cities. Over time, this doctrine, initially of a pure Protestant nature, began to be part of the lives of people from different cultures and religions.

Thus, work has become such an essential part of the existence of the individual that it is impossible to remove it. Nevertheless, it is also the cause of great suffering. However, we are not talking about the sorrow of those left out of the labor market. No. Those outside suffer, but those inside bleed. Because those who work live under the eternal ghost of being thrown out and thus become socially excluded (well, but those who do not work are like zombies to the “fortunate” ones who are active).

Individual suffering is nothing more than the effect of an exclusion commanded by a discourse that (…) imposes itself as a norm, be it religious, political or economic, disciplining and adjusting the body , making up a true state of exception. (Dias 2009, p. 10)

The West has become The Burnout Society (Han 2015). Tiredness that originates on excess is derived from the categorical imperative of “nothing is impossible”. Thus, a new logic is emerging: humanity no longer needs to be centered on discipline and control. These previously extracorporeal moorings presupposed obedience. Now, they are internalized. It happens because those who live in the Burnout Society are guided by the pressure of performance. It means that everything has to be possible and always be more than before. So, we could say that excess, the maximum limit, that shapes everybody (from a young teenager at high school to the top CEO in the largest worldwide company). It is no longer necessary that there are other people dictating rules: They are imposing that to themselves. The Performance-Subject no longer fights with anything that is external to him/her: His/her battle is against himself/herself. Such fatigue leads to burnout , and then to the consumption of oneself, which leads to depression.

The depressive human being is an animal laborans that exploits itself - and it does so voluntarily, without external constraints. It is predator and prey at once. (…) It erupts at the moment when the achievement-subject is no longer able to be able. (Han 2015, p. 10)

Now, if the author refers to the animal laborans, he is putting in perspective the one who works. The Subject who works bleeds, but remains there—in the place of the one who is the instrument of the discourse of the Other,¹ which is the market. After all, how do you explain that a worker works several hours a day, sometimes in an unhealthy activity, with no prospect of professional advancement and for a salary considered by himself to be unsatisfactory? Thinking shallowly about this issue can lead to a simplistic and hasty conclusion, which points only to financial need or desire for consumption. Of course, these factors cannot be entirely removed from the equation. The economic question can be substantial, since having a salary is imperative. This answer covers part of the truth—but not all of it.

And why?

Let’s consider two pieces of research,² both on the same theme, happiness. Based on the premise that human welfare has two aspects, being the first objective (which can be verified and, therefore, measured by rates related to per capita income, education, safety, nutrition, etc.) and the second, subjective (associated with the particular experience of each Subject and their own notion of what it means to be happy), these studies sought to identify if there is a direct and proportional relationship between both. Results indicate that “(economic) growth buys happiness in impoverished countries, but as soon as a nation reaches a certain income level (about $ 10,000 per capita a year), other additions of income no longer translate into gains in subjective well-being ” (Fonseca 2010). Thus, objective happiness and subjective happiness are not directly linked when average income lies above BRL 2600.00³ a month. Proportionality between the two parameters only gains direct contours when the annual value reaches levels above $80,000 per capita (something equivalent to BRL 20,800.00 per month).

Well, the remaining question is: If the financial factor does not interfere with the sense of subjective happiness (at least for the vast majority of workers , whose wages are among the values mentioned above), why should they give themselves so hard to work ? Maybe the famous essay by Etienne de la Botie (sixteenth-century French humanist and philosopher), called The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, written after the defeat of the French people against the king’s army and inspectors who had established a new salt tax, can shed light on this issue. Here, the author reflects on how “many” let themselves be dominated by “few”. Considered an essential reference to libertarian thinking, the essay already draws the reader’s attention with its title, pointing to the contradiction of the terms voluntary and servitude. This leads us to think how it is possible to serve in a way that is voluntary, i.e., sacrificing one’s freedom of spontaneous will? He will state, after ample reflection, that men themselves are made to dominate, because, if they wanted their freedom back, they would only need to rebel to get it. Another viable answer is more focused on the relationship of the Subject with their work and concerns the encounter between the body and the real world. This moment of union between what one is (the body in its role of a vehicle of the completeness of being) and the place where one lives (as a social occupation) only materializes in the experience of work—since this is where subjectivity itself is put to the test. Thus, work is not an activity that should be m...