Toil Fetishism and Creative Exclusion
How We’ve Been Misled into Glorifying Suffering Over Creativity
There’s a pervasive idea that real creativity comes from struggle, isolation, and pain. We’ve been fed the myth of the "suffering genius"—a romanticized image of creators like Vincent van Gogh, Frida Kahlo, or even modern tech figures like Steve Jobs, toiling away in agony until they birth something brilliant. This narrative tells us that great art or innovation must be painful, slow, and labor-intensive to be legitimate.
But what if it doesn’t? What if creativity doesn’t need to come from suffering, but rather from joy, curiosity, and collaboration? The problem is that we've fetishized the process of suffering as the only way to create something of value. This narrow vision of creativity excludes many people—especially neurodivergent creators—who use tools like AI or technology to streamline their work, making them feel like their creations are somehow "less than" because they didn’t come from the “right” kind of hard work.
Time and Privilege: Who Gets to Be Creative?
Toil fetishism doesn’t stop at emotional suffering; it’s also deeply tied to time. The longer you take to create something, the more valuable it’s perceived to be. This idea privileges those who have the time and resources to devote long hours, months, or even years to a single project. Historically, access to creative fields has been reserved for those with financial privilege, like wealthy patrons in Renaissance Europe or the well-off members of 19th-century literary salons.
But what about those who don’t have that luxury? Working-class or marginalized creators often juggle caregiving, jobs, or other responsibilities, leaving less time for their creative pursuits. Because of this, their work can be seen as less serious or valuable, simply because they can’t pour endless hours into it. This creates a huge barrier, pushing those without time privilege to the edges of the creative world.
The Invisible Labor Myth: Why We Assume Suffering Equals Value
When you look at a piece of art or listen to a new song, there’s often an assumption that the value of that work comes not just from its final form, but from the unseen labor—the hours of effort, emotional struggle, and suffering—that went into it. This “invisible labor” is glorified as the essence of true creativity. But this way of thinking dismisses work that didn’t take long or didn’t involve visible struggle.
Creators who use tools or methods that reduce the time and effort involved—such as AI, digital platforms, or collaborative processes—are often seen as taking shortcuts. Their work is considered less valuable, even if it’s innovative and meaningful. For neurodivergent creators or those from marginalized backgrounds, this bias creates an extra barrier to recognition. Why should using tools that make creation easier or faster disqualify someone’s work from being taken seriously?
Toil Fetishism Isn’t Just a Creative Problem—It’s a Business One, Too
This obsession with toil doesn’t just plague the creative world. In business, value is often attached to future labor—work that hasn’t even happened yet but is expected to generate profits down the line. Companies are valued based on how much labor can be extracted from their workers in the future. The labor of employees is treated as an endless resource, with little regard for the actual human cost of this toil.
In both business and creativity, this emphasis on toil—whether it’s past invisible labor or future unseen labor—perpetuates exploitation and exclusion. Just as marginalized creators are excluded from artistic spaces that glorify toil, marginalized workers are subjected to exploitative conditions in the name of future productivity.
How Toil and Time Keep Creators and Workers Out
Toil and time are used as gatekeeping tools, keeping both creators and workers in their place. In creative fields, critics, curators, and institutions often favor work that reflects traditional, labor-intensive processes. Work that’s produced quickly or through alternative methods, such as digital art or AI-generated music, is dismissed as inauthentic or inferior. This creates a hierarchy of value that pushes out those who can’t or don’t want to conform to these expectations—whether due to lack of time, access, or desire.
In the business world, workers are expected to continue producing at unsustainable rates to maintain a company’s projected value, with little concern for their well-being. This expectation disproportionately affects marginalized workers, who are more likely to face exploitation in their roles. The fetishization of toil in both spheres serves to exclude, exploit, and reinforce existing inequalities.
Internalizing Toil Fetishism: The Damage to Creators’ Self-Worth
Perhaps the most harmful effect of toil fetishism is that creators and workers start to internalize these expectations. They begin to doubt their own legitimacy if their work didn’t take long enough or wasn’t hard enough to produce. This internalization stifles creativity, as creators feel pressured to follow traditional, labor-intensive processes, even if more efficient or innovative methods are available.
For marginalized creators, this pressure is even more damaging. Neurodivergent creators who rely on tools or time-efficient methods to manage their creative flow often feel like their work isn’t valid because it didn’t come from a place of suffering.
The same goes for creators from working-class backgrounds who simply don’t have the time to spend years perfecting a single piece of work. By internalizing these damaging expectations, they limit their creativity and feel excluded from the very spaces they should be thriving in.
Breaking Free from the Fetishization of Toil
To dismantle the fetishization of toil, we need to start rethinking how we value creativity and labor. In the arts, we must move away from the idea that creativity needs to come from prolonged labor and suffering. Instead, let’s focus on the innovation, meaning, and impact of the work itself. By embracing a wider range of creative processes—whether traditional, AI-assisted, or fast-paced—we can open the door to more diverse voices and perspectives, enriching our creative landscapes.
In business, we need to stop treating future labor as an infinite resource to be exploited. A company’s value should be measured by how well it supports its workforce, not by how much toil can be extracted from it in the future. This shift would prioritize sustainable labor practices and support the well-being of workers, leading to more equitable economic systems.
Let’s Redefine Value: Innovation Over Toil
Ultimately, breaking free from toil fetishism means redefining how we assign value in both creative and professional spaces. We should be measuring value not by how much invisible labor went into a project, but by the meaning, innovation, and impact of the final work. By doing so, we can create more inclusive spaces where creators and workers are valued for their contributions, regardless of how much suffering, time, or unseen effort was involved.
It’s time to stop glorifying toil and start celebrating creativity for what it truly is: a space for joy, innovation, and diverse voices, where value comes not from the struggle but from the stories and ideas that emerge.
