This essay explores Axel Honneth‘s 1980 essay ―Work and Instrumental Action‖ with a view to revitalising its argument about the value of a critical conception of work activity. In his early essay, Honneth sought to reconstruct this critical conception of work, inspired by the philosophy of Marx, in an effort to generate a critique of Habermas‘s communicative social theory. Honneth doubted whether Habermas‘s core epistemological category of instrumental rationality could capture the normative significance of individual work activity. This generates uncertainty (...) over whether a critical theory with a communicative framework can locate the contribution of individual work activity in the process of social emancipation. After the publication of ―Work and Instrumental Action‖, Honneth‘s philosophy itself retreated from the critical conception of work in favour of the recognition-theoretic social theory that culminated in his influential 1992 work The Struggle for Recognition. My essay draws on evidence of the benefits of individual worker autonomy to argue that Honneth‘s theory of recognition itself could be enhanced through a reassessment of the critical conception of work activity that he proposed in his early essay. (shrink)

The most fundamental issue in pedagogy is the question of what should be taught. The need to specify the content of learning applies at every stage of instruction from kindergarten to postgraduate school and at every level of curriculum from the institutional course catalogue to the daily class or lesson plan. On the broadest scale, implementation of one or another set of priorities on this matter will tend to dictate the direction of our entire educational system. Indeed, for well over (...) a century now a schism has existed between those on the one hand who maintain that specialized, preprofessional training is the necessary and proper goal of higher education and those on the other who advocate a generalist... (shrink)