首页> 外文期刊>Comparative Studies in Society and History >The Traveling Panopticon: Labor Institutions and Labor Practices in Russia and Britain in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
【24h】

The Traveling Panopticon: Labor Institutions and Labor Practices in Russia and Britain in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

机译:泛游旅行社:十八和十九世纪俄国和英国的劳动机构和劳动惯例

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Between 1780 and 1787 Samuel and Jeremy Bentham were asked to manage a large Russian estate owned by Prince Grigorii Potemkin, one of the closest advisors of Catherine II. They had to face two related but distinct problems: Russian peasants were unskilled, while British skilled workers and supervisors were hard to control. It was the problem of controlling skilled English workers in Russia (and not the Russian serfs) that led the Bentham brothers to reflect on the relation between free and forced labor, and then between labor and society. Before and after Foucault, the Panopticon has been seen as a response to social deviance, and in relation to prisons and the emergence of a global surveillance system in modern societies. According to Foucault, the Panopticon is not just a model for institutions, but something whose principles are those of power in society at large. I want to challenge this view by arguing that the Panopticon project actually was a system for controlling wage labor, which drew inspiration from a particular image of Russian serfdom and from the Bentham brothers' experiences in that country. Those experiences have been the subject of several papers and books. The first aim of this paper is not to recall these, but rather to integrate them into a broader intellectual debate. In particular, I will evoke the origins of the Benthams' experiences in Russian, British, and European debates of the period about the legal status of labor. The way that “western” thought conceived of labor in general and positioned itself vis-à-vis Russia necessitates a reexamination of the thesis that the principal schools of western thought were misunderstood in Russia. I will argue, instead, that Russian authors and reformers relied on ambiguities in western thinking about labor when they advanced their own images of serfdom and proposals for reform.
机译:在1780年至1787年之间,塞缪尔和杰里米·本瑟姆被要求管理凯瑟琳二世最亲密的顾问之一格里格里·波捷金亲王拥有的大型俄罗斯房地产。他们必须面对两个相关但截然不同的问题:俄罗斯农民没有技能,而英国熟练工人和管理人员则难以控制。是在俄罗斯控制熟练的英国工人(而不是俄罗斯农奴)的问题,导致边沁兄弟重新考虑了自由劳动和强迫劳动之间以及劳动与社会之间的关系。在福柯之前和之后,Panopticon被视为对社会偏差的回应,并与监狱和现代社会中全球监视系统的出现有关。根据福柯的观点,“泛滥主义者”不仅是机构的典范,而且其原则是整个社会的权力原则。我想通过质疑Panopticon项目实际上是一个控制工资劳动的系统来挑战这种观点,它从俄罗斯农奴制的特定形象以及边沁兄弟在该国的经历中汲取了灵感。这些经验已经成为几篇论文和书籍的主题。本文的首要目的不是召回这些,而是​​将它们整合到更广泛的知识分子辩论中。特别是,我将回顾边沁在有关劳动法律地位的这一时期的俄国,英国和欧洲辩论中的经历。 “西方”思想总体上是关于劳动的观念,并且相对于俄罗斯定位,因此有必要重新审视西方思想的主要流派在俄罗斯被误解的论点。相反,我将争辩说,当俄罗斯的作家和改革者提出自己的农奴制形象和改革建议时,他们依赖西方对劳工的思想模棱两可。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号