The article focuses on the problem of work in context of the thought of Michel Foucault. Initially an issue of the ambiguous character of work is addressed, mostly in context of Veblen’s and Dahrendorf’s theories. Work, from this perspective, may be, on the one hand, valuated highly, treated as a privilege and act as a tool of correction and self-development. On the other hand, lack of work can be either stigmatising (leading even to social exclusion) or being a sign of a high social status. In the latter case work is regarded as a toil and burden. Michel Foucault discussed work in context of the facilities of internment, both those that were to serve the disadvantaged people (poor, sick, mentally ill) and those that are the places of incarceration. In the great breakthrough of the 17th and 18th century many institutions and laws were, according to Foucault, designed with regard to utility. Therefore work became the tool for correction and normalisation as well as for punishment, a way to shorten the sentence, interned people were supposed to help the society, to repay for either their crimes or for the society’s help. Homo penalis was considered in terms of homo oeconomicus. The article discusses the issue of work in Foucault’s thought placing it in context of the incarceration, internment, utility and relations of power and knowledge.
Adam Smith’s epistemology, described primarily in the essay Of the External Senses, was strongly inspired by George Berkeley’s thought expressed in his New Theory of Vision (1709). Both philosophers distinguished between the Objects of Sight and the Objects of Touch and analyzed the perception of distance between objects and size of objects (Berkeley’s thorough analysis was limited to the sense of sight, whereas Smith described also the features of other senses.). They also noticed the observer’s role in the process. Both philosophers made a parallel between their epistemology and moral/ social theories. However, their conclusions turned out to be quite different, despite some similarities in their views on the problem of external senses. Smith focused on the issue of sympathy and the Impartial Spectator, and underlined the fact that our moral judgements are strongly altered by our relation to those who are judged and that we learn how to give opinions on the basis of how others judge our behaviour. Berkeley, on the other hand, focused on the role of laws and reason in both epistemological and moral judgements.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.