龚鹏程&布伦丹·伯切尔｜一周需要工作几天？

龚鹏程对话海外学者第一百四十期：在后现代情境中，被技术统治的人类社会，只有强化交谈、重建沟通伦理，才能获得文化新生的力量。这不是谁的理论，而是每个人都应实践的活动。龚鹏程先生遊走世界，并曾主持过“世界汉学研究中心”。我们会陆续推出“龚鹏程对话海外学者”系列文章，请他对话一些学界有意义的灵魂。范围不局限于汉学，会涉及多种学科。以期深山长谷之水，四面而出。

布伦丹·伯切尔教授（Professor Brendan Burchell）

剑桥大学社会科学教授，考古学、人类学和社会学学位委员会主席。

布伦丹·伯切尔教授的第一个学位是1977-80年在伯明翰大学的心理学学位。之后他前往华威大学攻读社会心理学博士学位，然后他在城市大学担任了一年的职务，教授社会心理学、统计学和计算机课程。1985年，他的职业方向发生了变化，被任命为剑桥大学应用经济学系的研究员，协助一个名为 "社会变化和经济生活的倡议 "的项目，与经济学家、社会心理学家和社会学家合作，研究劳动力市场的各个方面及其对个人的影响。1988年，伯切尔教授从应用经济学系转到人类、社会和政治科学学院担任讲师。

2011年，伯切尔被授予皮尔金顿奖，这是剑桥大学的优秀教学奖。

伯切尔最近的研究项目，包括劳动力市场经验对心理健康的影响、工作强度和工作不安全感；过渡到自主创业的职业的预测因素和相关因素；管理者和员工对工作、兼职工作的不同看法，以及在工作条件和职业、不宁腿综合症和财务恐惧方面的性别差异。

他的工作在报纸和社交媒体上被广泛报道。2019年，他的团队在就业剂量项目上的工作得到了《卫报》、《独立报》、ITV、《电讯报》、《地铁报》和Vice等新网站的广泛媒体报道。 他已经指导了25名博士生。

龚鹏程：你好。在劳动力市场中的一些工作经历，例如工作没有保障、工作强度大、破产和失业，对人的心理健康分别有怎样的影响？这种影响会因人而异吗？与当时所处的社会时期又有着怎么样的关系？

布伦丹·伯切尔：龚教授，您好。关于就业与心理健康之间的关系，现在已经有了相当多的研究。 失业的人往往比有工作的人遭遇更多精神疾病的症状（例如焦虑和抑郁）。即便有工作的人，工作也会负面地影响他们的心理健康。例如，那些担心失去工作的人，或者担心他们的工作时间和工资可能会被削减的人，会明显比那些有稳定工作的人的情况要差。 心理健康状况不佳也与不得不长时间做高强度的工作有关。我们还发现，当在压抑的环境中工作时— 例如，人们被欺负或不被尊重时，也会负面地影响心理健康状况。

社会学家的一个重要主张是，许多情况都是由社会构建而成的，因此在不同的情况下会呈现不同的现象，这取决于，例如，国家的福利状况或者工作的规范与准则。然而，随着时间的推移，研究往往倾向于表现不同国家之间一些显著的相似之处。

这项研究主要是基于所收集的数据中普遍的现象，但小规模的定性研究也确实表明，除了这些普遍的影响之外，也有很多例外。例如，有些人似乎能够挺过失业，仍然过着健康的生活。

破产对心理健康的影响还没有得到广泛的研究。破产对心理健康的影响，不仅在业务上，而且经常与其他问题相关，如婚姻冲突。宣告最终破产这一举动，是人们各种问题中恢复的一个开端，但实际情况还因人而异。

There is now a considerable body of research on the relationship between employment and mental health. We know that those people who are involuntarily excluded from employment tend to have considerably more symptoms of mental illness (for instance anxiety and depression) than those with jobs. And among those with jobs there are a number of features of those jobs that are associated with poor mental health. For instance, those who are worried about losing their job, or are worried that there might be cuts in the hours and pay that they are offered, are notably worse off than those with secure jobs. Having to work under constant time pressure (i.e. work intensification) is also associated with poor mental health. We also find poor mental health when the social environment in the workplace is toxic – for instance people feeling bullied or disrespected.

One of the big claims by Sociologists is that many situations are socially constructed, and therefore will play out differently in different situations depending on, for instance, the nature of the welfare state or the work ethic. However, the research tends more often than not to show remarkable similarities between countries and over time.

This research is based mainly on generalisations from large datasets, but smaller-scale qualitative studies do show that, as well as these general effects, there are plenty of exceptions. There are some individuals who seem to be able to survive unemployment and still lead healthy lives, for instance.

The mental health effects of bankruptcy have not been so widely studied. It is often associated with a wider breakdown not only in a business but often coinciding with other problems such as marital strife. The final declaration of bankruptcy can often be the start of the recovery from those problems but will vary enormously from case to case.

龚鹏程：在遇到不稳定的就业状况或者在失业时，男性与女性的受到的心理影响是否有所差异？

布伦丹·伯切尔：早期关于就业和幸福的研究大多只针对男性，其基本假设是，男性的幸福更多地取决于养家糊口的角色，而女性的心理健康更多地取决于家庭状况。但几乎没有证据能证明这一点，这也许很令人惊讶，因为男性和女性在工作生活中存在着巨大且持续的差异。

那么，如果男女之间没有差异，是否有任何群体能够比其他人更好地度过失业和劳动力市场的不稳定的时期呢？有一些类型的个体已经被认定。

首先，拥有强烈的职业操守（有时被误称为 “新教工作准则"）似乎会使人们更加依赖就业来获得幸福，因此，那些不认为工作是可以塑造性格或展现长处的人，可以更好地应对失业。也有一些人具有非常强烈的价值观，他们优先考虑在工作之外（如慈善、宗教或体育）取得成就，以至于他们认为就业妨碍了他们真正的生活目标。有些人似乎对逆境的适应力更强，他们把逆境当作挑战，不像其他人那样容易受到生活琐事和压力的影响。

Much of the early research on employment and wellbeing was only conducted on men, with an underlying assumption that men’s wellbeing is more dependent on their role as breadwinner whereas women’s mental health is more dependent on their domestic situation. But there is very little evidence for this, which is perhaps surprising given the large, persistent differences between the working lives of men and women.

So, if there aren’t differences between men and women, are there any groups of individuals who are able to ride out times of unemployment and labour market instability better than others? Some types of individuals have been identified.

First, having a strong work ethic (sometimes referred to misleadingly as the “Protestant work ethic”) seems to make people more reliant on employment for their wellbeing, and therefore those individuals who don’t think that work is an important thing for character building or to demonstrate virtue can cope better with unemployment. There are also some individuals with very strong values and who prioritise achievement through non-work (such as charity, religion or sport) so much so that they regard employment as getting in the way of their true goals in life. And finally there are people who seem to be more resilient to adversity, who treat adversity as challenge, who just don’t seem to be as vulnerable to adverse life events and stress as others.

龚鹏程：从心理健康和幸福的角度来看，一个人每周应该工作多少个小时呢？这与工作者的工作性质或个人生活有什么关系？

布伦丹·伯切尔：许多人认为，每周工作五天，每天工作八小时是很自然的事情，但事实肯定不是这样。 在工业革命早期，许多工厂工人的工作时间要长得多，而且是一周工作六天；减少工作时长的过程是漫长的，而且还是工会斗争来的结果。

大约100年前，人们曾乐观地认为，工作时长的减少将持续下去，使人们得到解放，不再需要花如此多的时间去赚取仅仅足够糊口的钱。毕竟随着机械化的发展，每年的生产力都在提高，而这种生产力意味着，每年我们都应该能够以更少的成本生产更多的产品。但是，那些关于工作周将持续大幅减少的预测并没有成为现实。几十年来，减少工作时长（WTR）是很多人的首要任务，但依旧迟迟没有进展。

全球的生产率每年可量化增长约1.5%-2%，在指定时间内，员工可以生产出更多产品了。这种进步归功于更好的技术、更好的管理以及受过更好教育的员工。如果把这种进展投入到减少工作时长上面，我们在21世纪就可以每周只工作一到两天。但很显然这种情况并没有发生，很多人仍然在做着长时间的工作。工作时长没有得到减少的原因有很多，包括我们的消费主义文化、并且还有许多人很喜欢工作，享受着通过工作获得的地位。

我们已经确定，就业会使人有更好的精神状态，但是一个人每周需要做多少有偿的工作才能从就业中获得益处呢？最近的实证研究表明，即使人们每周只工作一天，也能对心理健康产生极大的促进作用。因此，减少工作时间可能会带来很多好处。减少工作时长还有其他好处，包括可以减少二氧化碳排放，大部分的二氧化碳排放来自于工作场所，工资的上涨会直接导致消费的增加，这也是使温室气体增加的一个重要因素。如果成年人的工作时间减少了，他们或许可以成为更好的父母和更好的公民。

所有的这些都引发了许多猜测，工作成为了我们生活中的一个重要组成部分，那么当机器人和人工智能将我们从工作中解放出来，现实会变得大不相同，未来的世界可能会变得更好。

Many people assume that there is something ‘natural’ about working eight hours a day for five days a week, but this certainly isn’t the case. Early in the industrial revolution many factory workers were putting in much longer hours, and for six days a week; reductions in working time came slowly, and only as a result of trade union battles.

About 100 years ago there was some optimism that the reduction in working hours would continue, liberating humankind from devoting such a big part of their lives to just earning enough to live. After all, each year productivity increases with mechanisation and a that productivity means that, each year, we should be able to produce a bit more for a bit less. But those predictions of continued, large reductions in the working week were not met by reality. Working Time Reduction (WTR) has been a priority for many individuals for many decades now, but progress has almost stalled.

Year on year there is a global increase in productivity quantifiable to about 1.5%-2% per year; each employee produces more in a given time period. This progress is generally attributable to better technology and a better-managed and better-educated workforce. If this dividend was put into reduced working hours, we could easily be working just one or two days a week in the 21st century. Clearly that hasn’t happened, and many people still work long hours. There are probably many reasons for this failure to substantially reduce working time, ranging from our consumerist culture to the fact that many people enjoy their jobs and the status that goes with them.

We have already established that employment is associated with better mental health, but just how much paid work does one need each week to get the benefits of being employed? Recent empirical studies have shown that even one day’s work a week gives all the boost to mental health of paid work, suggesting that there might be much to be gained from reducing working time. Other benefits might include a reduction in climate-changing CO2 emissions – much CO2 is emitted in the workplace, and increased earnings feed directly into increased consumption, also a big factor in greenhouse gasses. And if adults spend less time at work they might be better parents and better citizens.

All this feeds into much speculation about how the world might be a better place in the future when robotics and artificial intelligence liberates us from work being such a big component of out lives, but like so many predictions about the future, the reality might be quite different.

龚鹏程：雇主和员工可以采取哪些措施来避免心理健康问题？

布伦丹·伯切尔：作为人类，我们不能只适应我们所处的环境， 我们也可以改变所处的环境。我们在21世纪所看到的变化之一是，每个人对自己的心理健康有了更多的关注，并且意识到了赚更多的钱不一定会让我们更快乐。也许通过全球的新冠病毒给我们的工作生活带来的冲击，使许多人意识到他们的生活可以从根本上得到改善。比如说人们会主动选择每周减少工作几个小时，利用空闲时间去做一些真正使自己身心更健康的事情。可以是为了让自己更健康而去做运动，也可以是以符合政治或宗教价值观的方式为社会做贡献。

在我们的社会中，我们仍然受到现实中经济和文化规范的巨大影响，但我们可以通过自己的努力改善自己生活和心理健康。

雇主们也可以发挥很大作用。在如今，大多数人的工作环境比他们的祖辈要安全得多，也更愉悦。这是由于政府立法部门和工会的谈判给雇主带来的压力。 但是，雇主也是可以带来改变的。随着心理健康在当代话题中的显著地位，许多雇主将工作中的幸福感置于纯粹的经济考虑之上。这可能是因为他们相信快乐和健康的工人更有生产力，或者是因为他们意识到，为了招聘到最好的员工，他们需要在工作场所优先考虑健康问题，而不是上涨工资。 或者，在某些情况下，雇主真的想把改善员工的心理健康本身作为一个目标。 所有这些动机似乎都在工作场所的改善中发挥了作用，例如每周工作四天的趋势。

As human beings, we don’t just react to the situations we find ourselves in, we can change those situations. One of the changes that we have seen in the 21st century is perhaps a better understanding by individuals about their own psychological wellbeing and realising that earning more money doesn’t necessarily make us happier. Perhaps the shocks to our working lives brought about by the global CV-19 pandemic has made many people realise that their lives could be fundamentally better. For instance, some people have decided to prioritise working fewer hours per week in order to free up time to do things that make them healthier in mind and body. That might be doing exercise to get fitter or contributing to society in a way that is consistent with deeply held political or religious values.

We are still hugely influenced by the economic reality and cultural norms in our societies, but we can also be agents who improve our own lives and mental health.

We are still hugely influenced by the economic reality and cultural norms in our societies, but we can also be agents who improve our own lives and mental health.

Employers can also make a big difference. Today, most people work in much safer and more pleasant environments than their grandparents. In part this has been due to pressures put on employers by government legislation and trade union negotiations. But employers are also agents who can bring about change. With the foregrounding of mental health in contemporary discourses, many employers have prioritised wellbeing at work over purely financial considerations. This may have been because they believe that happy and healthy workers are more productive, or because they realise that in order to recruit the best employees they need to prioritise wellbeing in the workplace over maximising salaries. Or, in some cases, employers genuinely want to improve the mental health of their employees as an end in itself. All of these motivations seem to play a part in improvements in workplaces, such as the trend towards a four-day week.

龚鹏程

龚鹏程，1956年生于台北，台湾师范大学博士，当代著名学者和思想家。著作已出版一百九十多种。

办有大学、出版社、杂志社、书院等，并规划城市建设、主题园区等多处。讲学于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、台北、巴黎、日本、澳门等地举办过书法展。现为美国龚鹏程基金会主席、《龚鹏程国际学刊》出版人。