THE BIRTH OF WORK

 

“Work” is a very central phenomenon in the modern economy and society. It is therefore of interest to investigate how this phenomenon came into being and how these origins might still be relevant currently. This is the theme of this blog.

SOCIOCULTURAL EVOLUTION

I am approaching the birth of work from the point of view of sociocultural evolution. The point of departure of this approach is that social phenomena can be understood and explained by investigating how they developed from one form to another. For example, the birth of agriculture can be explained by investigating how early hunter-gatherers started to experiment with wild cereals and other plants and gradually developed methods of growing them in large quantities.

My approach of sociocultural evolution is quite minimalist. It simply states that in history a timeline leads from previous events to the next ones and previous events affect and constitute foundations those coming afterwards. I do not make any assumptions that latter periods of history are better than periods preceding them. I also do not assume a priori that there are law-like sequencies of historical periods, but such sequencies can be verified empirically. For example, global transformations from hunting and gathering to agriculture took place just about everywhere in the world, hence there seems to exist this evolutionary dynamic that is universal. I am also not denying that sometimes people return to previous periods of sociocultural evolution. Sociocultural evolution has not just one direction even if physical time runs only to one direction.

Now, let us then look how the activity and notion of human work developed from its physical and biological fundaments.

CIRCULATION OF ENERGY AND MATTER – PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF WORK

Biological life, including humans, needs energy to sustain itself. In physics energy is defined as the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other forms (https://www.britannica.com/science/energy ). Our planet has three sources of energy: nuclear energy, thermal heat and radiant solar energy which is the most important source of energy. Energy cannot be circulated among biological species like electric current can be transferred from one place to another. Energy must be transported from one species to another by means of circulation of matter. (Becon & Townsend 2021 p. 978-679.)

Species that can directly use radiant solar energy are green plants. In photosynthesis green plants use solar energy, water and carbon dioxide to produce carbon hydrates and oxygen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis ). Biomass produced in photosynthesis is used by grazing animals which eat the biomass and thus sustain their life. Carnivores eat grazing animals and energy stored in their flesh transfers to carnivores. When plants and animals die, they surrender resources that they have accumulated to decomposing forces which return part of the resources to the soil to be used as resources of plants for further production. (Becon & Townsend 2021 p. 679.)

Hence, as can be seen the basic definition of “work” has three components: 1) it is energy, capacity to cause changes in the world, 2) from the point of view of biological life the most fundamental form of work is photosynthesis, 3) all animals must either eat green plants or consume flesh or other products derived from grazing animals. All animals must work, that is, they must use energy to gain energy in form of matter. This applies to humans as well.

WORK IN THE WEB OF LIFE – ANIMALS & HUNTER-GATHERERS

The work of animals is closely integrated to their physical characteristics. For example, worms, birds and predators specialize to certain sources of food, plants and animals in particular habitats. This specialization is biologically restrictive, but not totally deterministic as studies on adaptability of animals (and plants) to environmental changes prove. In fact, the more the food producing methods of animals is studied, the more the similarity of their activities with human actions come to light. This applies especially to social organisation of work and usage of tools by animals (see for instance, Seed, Emery & Clayton 2009).

The flexibility of forms of work is especially prevalent in human hunter-gatherers. Hunting and gathering denotes a mode of production that is based on gathering of plants and hunting of animals. This mode of production is the oldest and in ecological terms the most successful mode of production that is based on varied and flexible usage of natural resources. Its ecological strength stems from the fact that it does not overuse natural resources because it adapts to networks of ecological interdependencies. Human hunter-gatherers spred to all parts of the world excluding Antarctica. (On this “web of life”, see https://www.web-of-life.es/

The Web of Life: A Critique of Nature, Wilderness, Gaia and the «Common Household» https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15010063 .)

At this phase of sociocultural evolution, the basic definition of work given in the first section of this writing can be supplemented with an additional component of flexibility: human work is in many fundamental ways like the work of animals, but variety and flexibility of human working methods exceed well all forms of animal work. It seems plausible that at this phase of sociocultural evolution no general notion for work existed, but people only had words for particular material activities like fishing, hunting, gathering. This is a hypothesis that could be verified by investigating written historical documentation on hunter-gatherer cultures.

There was not much division of labour among hunter-gatherers, though some specialisation took place in production of handicrafts and tools. These products were traded too. Perhaps the most discussed and studied feature of division of labour is that between sexes. The current studies indicate that men were doing more hunting than women, but women hunted as well, depending on local circumstances. Women often specialized in gathering and small-scale hunting. In any case, it is to be noted that hunting and gathering as a mode of production constitutes fundament to different kinds of societies; hunting and gathering as such is not a single form of society (Kelly, 1995).

Hence, the fourth component of definition of work is: human work is flexible and assumes many forms of subsistence production depending on ecological conditions and used methods of working. This flexibility has made it possible for humans to spread all over the world, excluding Antarctica.

NEOLITHIC REVOLUTION: BEGINNING OF AGRICULTURE, STATE AND SOCIOCULTURAL DEFINITION OF WORK

“Neolithic revolution” is a term that denotes a long transition period from hunting and gathering to agriculture. It was originally introduced by Gordon Childe in the 1930’s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._Gordon_Childe ). The transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture took place in all liveable continents excluding Australia, probably because hunting and gathering was well suited to arid Australian climate. This does not, however, explain why agriculture was feasible when Europeans moved to Australia. Neolithic revolution was universal human sociocultural evolutionary with the important exceptions of those peoples who continued hunting and gathering and nomadic animal husbandry. In many cases hunter-gatherers continued their mode of production because it was suitable for local ecological environments.

Neolithic revolution lasted thousands of years. It gave birth to the sedentary village economy that is characterised by self-sufficiency, limited division of labour and low hierarchy. After hunting and gathering, agricultural village economy is the second oldest mode of production of humans. (On village economy and society, see Scarre 2009, 190-193.)

The birth of village economies happened simultaneously round the world about 10000 years ago. Concurrent sociocultural development supports the argument that advantageous climate conditions contributed to the birth of agriculture. From this onwards, it took still thousands of years to develop states. States were born around 6000-5000 years ago.

These state societies, social formations organised by a state apparatus have extensive division of labour, hierarchal power structures, administration separated from the rest of the society, maintenance of external borders and internal order, organised economic activities, religious organisations and so on. State societies, including city states, have considerably larger populations than villages. Often city states constituted of a central town and an agricultural periphery around it. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_formation.)

Division of labour and hierarchal power structure gave birth to separate class of working people. Apparently, at the same time a separate notion “work” was introduced. There appears to exist only few early written documents of the definition of work as a general category and not as separately named specialised activities. Steinkeller (2005, 1) describes the first know written document on the generalised, abstract concept of work as follows:

“As far as we know, the Sumerians were the first people in history to think of human work in abstract terms. Already at ca. 2400 BC, the Sumerian word á, whose basic and original meanings are “arm, strength, power, physical exertion,” signified “labor” in exactly the same way we understand it today, namely, a quantifiable physical effort resulting in the creation of goods and services. The Sumerians measured labor in the units of time (days) needed by an average grown man to complete a particular task. The ability to count labor in abstract “work-days” (or “mandays”) was a conceptual breakthrough in the history of accounting and administration, since it allowed the conversion of any form of productive human activity into a set of numbers, therefore opening up completely new managerial possibilities, particularly in the area of economic planning.”

The core of this definition of work is based on physical definition of work as defined above.

Much later Aristotle described in his Politics a natural slave as "anyone who, while being human, is by nature not his own but of someone else" and further states "he is of someone else when, while being human, he is a piece of property; and a piece of property is a tool for action separate from its owner" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_slavery). This “action separate from its owner” is physical work.

Now, a fifth component to the definition of work can be added: The phenomenon of work is an age-old natural necessity, but the generalised notion of work was probably invented only when societies differentiated so that a separate group of workers became visible. The notion of work made it possible to identify and regulate work and working people and their relations to the rest of the society and economy.

SUMMARY & WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

The above-described sociocultural development of the phenomenon and notion of work can be summarized as follows:

• The Basic physical and biological definition of “work” has three components: 1) it is energy, capacity to cause changes in the world, 2) from the point of view of biological life the most fundamental form of work is photosynthesis, 3) all animals must either eat green plants or consume flesh or other products derived from grazing animals, that is, all animals including humans must work, they must use energy to gain energy in form of matter.
• Human work is flexible and assumes many forms of subsistence production. This flexibility has made it possible for humans to spread all over the world, excluding Antarctica.
• The phenomenon of work is an age-old natural necessity, but the generalised notion of work was probably invented only when societies differentiated so that a separate group working people became visible and it was necessary to direct and regulate work.

This evolutionary definition of work aims to comprehend the material and symbolic meaning of work until the end of the ancient era. The importance of evolutionary approach to the phenomenon of work stems from the idea that sociocultural evolution does not actually consist of separate stages of evolution, but it rather resembles archaeological excavation in which subsequent layers are based on the previous ones.

This approach is useful also while investigating current notions of work. This is so for at least three reasons:

1) Historical development helps us to define the fundamentals of work that have not changed. These fundamentals include close relations among work, usage of natural resources, ecology and environmental changes like climate warming. 

2) Study of evolutionary history may reveal new insights for our own time. For instance, if Sumerians 4400 years ago used abstract concept of work, practiced private large-scale trade and organized huge infrastructure and building projects… where they some sort of... capitalist? Are the characteristics of the present-day economic system so unique, modern and capitalist as we habitually think?

3) Study of evolutionary history enhances also our understanding of the current situation and how we got here. Studying of historical development may help us to understand why the concept of work has become so generalised that it almost includes all human activities (see blog: Työ biologisena välttämättömyytenä). It is noteworthy that, unlike Steinkeller states, modern definition of work is not just “a quantifiable physical effort resulting in the creation of goods and services” but it also includes administrative activities, leading other people in the economy and politics, cultural and care activities, military, sport, religious professions, therapy and so on. It would be interesting to investigate how this very broad notion of work evolved.

REFERENCES

Begon, M., & Townsend, C. R. (2021). Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems. (Fifth edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kelly, R., L. (1995.) The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity In Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press.

Lee, R., B. (1970.). Work Effort, Group Structure, and Land Use in Contemporary Hunter-gatherers. In Ucko, P., J., Tringham, R., & Dimbleby, G.,W., (eds.). Men, settlement, and urbanism. PP. 177-185. Duckworth. Retrieved on 31st March 2026 http://hdl.handle.net/1807/18043

Scarre, C. (ed.) 2009. The Human past. World Prehistory & the Development of Human Societies. Thames & Hudson.

Seed, A. & Emery, N. & Clayton, N. (2009). Intelligence in Corvids and Apes: A Case of Convergent Evolution?. Ethology, v.115, 401-420 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01644.x

Steinkeller, P. (2015). Introduction. Labor in the Early States: An Early Mesopotamian Perspective. In: Steinkeller, P. & Hudson, M. (eds.) (2015). Labor in the Ancient World. International scholars conference on ancient near eastern economies. Volume 5. Retrieved on 31st March 2026. https://dokumen.pub/labor-in-the-ancient-world-9783981484236.html