Evolution, Adaptation and Work

[Terxpahseyton]

I think Sill's hitting on a very important point, here: that in hunter-gatherer societies, the "work/leisure" distinction was/is not clearly-articulated, and in fact only really attains the stark contrast we experience with the emergence of industrial capitalism. I would go so far as to argue that the whole mental construction of "work v. leisure" is a form of internalised discipline, a reflection of the interests of the slave-owner/landlord/employer rather than a simple, common-sense distinction.

I think that your emphasize on authorities I am subdued to is - while it can and will enhance the typical features of work - primarily symptomatic and that the real defining distinction lies in the functional role of work. Functionality regarding the purpose of work. Which fundamentally can be divided into work I do for what it directly yields or for what it indirectly yields.
Give me a few lines to illustrate:

I can do a task because I value the direct result of this task. In the case of hunters and gatherers, I value the direct result of having food. In the case cooking with my family, I value the direct result of the cooking experience as well as the succeeding dinner with my family. In case of decorating my room, I value the direct result of having a nicer room. In case of volunteering, I value the direct result of the work I volunteer for (unless I am just doing it to get into a college or whatever). I would say all this tasks resemble the hunter-and-gathere understanding of work. You don't lust lie in the sun or watch TV, but subdue yourself to a (more or less) demanding task which follows an agenda. But you do so for the sake of the direct yield of this task.

In case of a modern job, I often will only do it as a means to an indirect end - Making money. After I have to do the job anyhow, I may also seek for another, more direct, purpose. For instance an engineer may also enjoy to engineer a good product, so this engineer will value the direct result of his or her work as well. However, and that is where your angle becomes relevant, if said engineer is subdued to the coercion of a chain of superiors (which again is coerced by the profit motive, which in turn is enforced by the competition for profit), he won't be able to focus on the engineering work he values, but on what the chain of command commends him to, so ultimately what profit commends him to do. Which will tend to taunt the direct value he may get from his work and will emphasize the indirect money-aspect.
But what is important, is that such a situation is also perfectly possible without having a slave-owner/landlord/employer command you. It just requires a situation where there is something you want and where you have to do something to get it - but where what you want and what you have to do to get it are not directly interlinked. Which for instance means, that an economy depending on exchange will always know work in the modern sense. Never mind if owned by shareholders or by the employed them selfs. However, in case of the latter, the direct value of the work will probably tend to be higher.

That's at last my suggestion to look at it. Feel invited to criticize