The book I just finished about Joseph Priestley talked about another thought provoking concept--that of leisure time. Webster defines leisure as being a "time free from work or duties." In writing about Priestley, Steven Johnson argues that one of the reasons that Priestley was so successful at making numerous discoveries was because he had an excess of leisure time. Early in his life Priestley worked hard as an educator, but over time he was able to connect himself with wealthier families that financially supported him so he could have significant amounts of free time. It was with this excess of time that Priestley began to get creative, run experiments, and make big discoveries. As Johnson states, "Leisure time was where ideas happened. You can't dabble in scientifitc experiments when you've got to use all your cognitive resources just to put food on the table..."
Similarly, time management consultant David Allen, in his book Getting Things Done, proposes that "our productivity is directly proportional to our ability to relax. Only when are minds are clear and our thoughts are organized can we achieve effective results and unleash our creative potential."
Thus we have two different men, from two different time periods, in two different professional fields that both came to the same conclusion--quality leisure time matters. Both men seem to be postulating that leisure time allows your mind to rest and wander, and in the midst of that think creatively and/or effectively.
I have mixed feelings in response to these claims. On one hand, the amount of free time a person has may be out of their control (like the person that does need to worry about getting food on the table). On the other hand, there are some people that have large quantities of "leisure time" and they aren't using it to do anything or think anything, unlike our friend Priestley who discovered oxygen as a hobby. And then there are people, like me, who exist somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. I think the conclusion I have come to is that even when my schedule is busy I need to fight for down time. I need to give myself permission to disengage from work and engage my mind in other ways, like reading, conversing, and lately, blogging.
As a result of these musings, this year I've made it a rule that each week I will do absolutely no work for a 24 hour period, ideally Sundays (and let's give credit where credit is due--this was the model God had when he followed the creation of the world with a time of rest). I believe this act of rest/leisure time has actually made me a better, more joyful worker. It seems to give my mind and body time to recover and prepare to jump back into work when it comes. And I think it's made me more balanced--I'm not defined by my work; I can have hobbies and friends outside of my job! It's been quite liberating. All in all, I tend to agree with God, Priestley, and Allen that leisure time is essential to success.
What do you all think? Is leisure time important or a waste?
There's some research that constant connectivity without downtime might actually rewire our brains in ways that could hinder creativity.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html
I wrote something along the same lines in my blog some time back about the need for "margins" in our life. I think it hits right on the point you are making. Nice post and a valuable discovery. I find that despite believing and wanting it, this is a difficult concept to sustain. It requires intentionality and revisiting.
ReplyDeleteYou might be interested in http://beliterate.blogspot.com/2010/04/margins.html