The 19th century saw the onset and progress of world civilization. Countries across the globe adopted more and more policies protecting the rights of humans, which included stipulating policies regarding the workplace as well. In Britain, there was the development of classical liberalism, which was a political ideology, as well as a branch of liberalism itself which pushed for civil liberties. Civil liberties meant better pay and working conditions for employees in the public sector. The liberalism was more concerned with establishing the economic freedom of workers in the early 19th century, out of urbanization, and as a response to the Industrial Revolution in America and Great Britain. John Ruskin was among the first individuals to build on the evolution in the workplace, pointing out the development Industrial Revolution brought to Britain, changing the employment systems from oppressive to ones that paid more attention to the welfare of the employees.
John Ruskin was an English draughtsman, art critic, and philanthropist who was born on February 8th, 1819 and lived up to January 20th, 1900. Having experienced first-hand the era of civilization, more particularly having to live through the Industrial Revolution which revolved the society into a new era of manufacturing from the age of producing agricultural products, Ruskin was more concerned about the dehumanizing effects of separating manual labor from creative work (Ruskin, 2006) . This philanthropist was more concerned with the fact that the society was evolving from an era which emphasized on agricultural production into industrial manufacturing, which would capitalize more on the human creative capability to come up with new ways of innovating products into the market. Ruskin held that this transition would only be possible if creative work and manual labor were encouraged to go hand in hand. The reason why Ruskin may have gained more popularity than any other philanthropists before him was since he advocated for the holistic transition into the new era of industrial productivity.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ruskin's main opinion on labor was that any creatively fulfilling vocation had to be a product of both manual labor and creative work, which would allow the worker to have direct input into what product they were tasked with producing. Ruskin believed that the year preceding the Industrial Revolution was characterized heavily with dictatorship and oppressive systems which did not give the worker room to exploit their potential by giving their input (Ruskin, 2006) . They had to act according to the policies they were subscribed to, such as picking cotton in the plantations. Such agricultural duties, as Ruskin observes, did not need the worker to have a say, or act in any way different from what they were being paid to do. On the other hand, this system in the workplace, which was typically the plantation did not create room for the laborers to advance their skills, since they took no part in any agricultural innovations.
On the other hand, not only were these workers unable to utilize their potential to the fullest but also their employees were not placed in any better place to compete favorably in the market by offering dynamic products. To this end, Ruskin alludes to the fact that innovation on the part of labor leads to increased productivity and consistency in the market since the goods and services produced at any given time are tailored to meet the demands and needs at the particular time. It is correct, therefore to point out that the incorporation of creative work into manufacturing during the transition into the post-Industrial Revolution era was a critical tool in making the workplace a better place for the workers (Ruskin, 1963) . This was done by being more mindful of their expertise, in as much as it was a necessary tool in producing goods which were tailored to meet the demands of the given market.
Ruskin was a rather vocal voice when it came to fighting for the rights of the laborer, pushing for better pay and better working conditions. More particularly, he called for the right understanding of what kinds of labor was good for the workers and raising the standards for such work to make the workers happy. He held that every worker deserved to be treated with dignity, being assigned to posts which protected their rights and dignity. He equally held that such a move would lead to the creation of a determined demand for the commodities being produced, and the results of healthy and ennobling labor. Ruskin developed simple rules to guide this perspective of work in the workplace. These rules included never encouraging the production of a product not necessary, in whose production invention had no share (Ruskin, 1963). The second rule was that there should not be a demand of an exact finish, for reasons other than the practical and noble end for which the product is manufactured.
The last rule is that imitation or copying of any kind should never be encouraged unless such imitation was meant to preserve records of great works. It is essential to observe that these rules developed by John Ruskin were geared towards exploiting innovation to the fullest capacity. Thus, the workplace had no place for making imitations, which would take the place of change and the subsequent production of new technologies and products (Ruskin, 1963). The reason why Ruskin may have gotten more recognition than any other philosophers, either the ones who preceded him or the ones who pushed for labor rights as the time as Ruskin did, was the fact that Ruskin offered practical guides which would benefit not only the laborers but also the employers.
Although Ruskin strongly believed in the classical liberal and pragmatic approach of the 19th century, not every philosopher was a supporter of the same ideology, one of whom was Robert Owen. Owen had initially supported the doctrine that free markets, more particularly the right of workers to move about freely and choose their employers were a useful tool in releasing the workers from the excessive power of the capitalists (Harrison, 2009) . Later on, and before Ruskin, Owen diverted from this ideology and developed a pro-socialist outlook, which in addition to criticizing organized religion, emphasized on the fact that human beings are a result of the circumstances around them, over which they have no control. Owen pointed out that individuals cannot escape from their surroundings, in the same manner, they should neither be praised nor blamed for their behaviors in such circumstances since the factors are external (Harrison, 2009) . He thus held that the only way to influence a person's character positively is to place them under proper environmental influences, which could be physical, social, and moral influences.
Contrasted to Ruskin, Owen believed that the success of any workplace was directly influenced by the attitude of the laborers, which determined their level of commitment to work. He thus held that with the right amount of support from their family members, laborers were better equipped to handle any workplace situation more positively and be able to give their best at what they did. This led to Owen developing his theory that the effects of negative influences on a worker's environment lead directly to their irresponsibility (Harrison, 2009) . It is correct to point that Owen believed the success of any workplace was directly proportional to the laborer's attitude, rather than the factors predisposing at the workplace
The reason why Owen gained less popularity compared to philosophers such as Ruskin was the fact that his ideology seemed to be impractical, bearing in mind the oppressive systems that workers were subjected to in the 18th century working at the agricultural plantations. It is correct to point out that no matter the amount of support a laborer receives from his environment, if the workplace environment is oppressive, it becomes difficult for them to concentrate on their duties, which leads to their demoralization and low-quality input. By focusing more on the role laborers play in the success of the workplace, Owen overlooked the role played by the employer in safeguarding the rights of the laborers (Trivers, 2002) . It is correct to point out that the transition into the Industrial Revolution presented a more significant challenge on the part of the employees who pushed for their rights and freedoms to be respected.
At the same time, the workplace had placed a lot of expectations and pressure on the laborers to deliver during the transition since this would lay the foundation upon which future industrial innovations would be built. It was important, therefore that the employees and the employers got on the same page and established some of a common ground in which the expectations of both sides would be met (Trivers, 2002) . Philosophical approaches such as Ruskin's were thus effective in offering a solution since they had a more holistic approach and considered both perspectives in providing their recommendations. Ruskin, for instance, held that it was important that the employer gives the employees room to exploit their potential, which meant he was campaigning for both sides of the spectrum to adopt innovation and incorporate creative skills in the production process.
Due to the practicality of Ruskin's theory, it can be implemented in the contemporary society in any work setting, bearing in mind the recent progress being made by producers to shift towards adopting policies that protect the ecosystem and reduce global warming. It is thus crucial for producers to move from the conventional methods of production and use recycling techniques which ensure very little waste is produced into the atmosphere. This calls for the innovation that provides an upgrade on the means of production being used across the world today. This can be achieved even more effectively through the adoption of enhanced technology, which would support the creativity of the workers in the given organization.
However, while the company may encourage its workers to be more creative and come up with innovations, it essential to ensure that the company does not lose its district identity in the market. In the world today, every major brand is known for its signature production, and the challenge of embracing creativity is that it could lead to adopting such a change that would, in the long run, wipe the company's signature production, making it one of the many companies in the given line of industry. It is important, therefore that the company regulates to what extent the employees are allowed to exploit their creativity and innovation. This can be done by putting in place a department whose sole responsibility would be to benchmark all the ideas the employees have for the company to ensure they all bear the signature mark of production of the company. It is essential that all employees are allowed room to exploit their potential, which is what in actuality comprises the healthy competition within the company. But at the same time if such an approach is left unregulated, then cases such as intellectual property theft, imitation and copying would most likely pop up, which would then lead to the questioning of the company's authenticity and credibility.
References
Harrison, J. (2009). Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britain and America (Routledge Revivals): The Quest for the New Moral World . Routledge.
Ruskin, J. (1963). Grotesque Renaissance. Bloom's Literary Themes f , 109.
Ruskin, J. (2006). The nature of Gothic . Kessinger Publishing.
Trivers, R. (2002). Natural selection and social theory: Selected papers of Robert Trivers . Oxford University Press.
