Rights statement: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Clark, S. (2015), Good Work. Journal of Applied Philosophy. doi: 10.1111/japp.12137 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/japp.12137/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.
Accepted author manuscript, 57.7 KB, Word document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Good work
AU - Clark, Sam
N1 - This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Clark, S. (2015), Good Work. Journal of Applied Philosophy. doi: 10.1111/japp.12137 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/japp.12137/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.
PY - 2017/2/1
Y1 - 2017/2/1
N2 - Work is on one side a central arena of self-making, self-understanding, and self-development, and on the other a deep threat to our flourishing. My question is: what kind of work is good for human beings, and what kind bad? I first characterise work as necessary productive activity. My answer to my question then develops a perfectionist account of the human good: (1) the good is the full development and expression of human potentials and capacities; (2) this development and expression happens over a lifetime through appropriate practice. Work is thus a problem of human development, and I address that problem by considering three central human capacities: that we are passionate choosers, skilled makers, and social negotiators. For each, I ask: what does this capacity need from our work if it is to develop towards full and flourishing expression? Answering that question leads to a three-part account of good work as requiring: (1) a distinctive kind of pleasure, involving both unselfconscious flow and supervisory self-attention; (2) skill, which I describe via the ideal of craft; and (3) democracy, which I define as a form of life in which each is able to develop and use both expressive and receptive capacities.
AB - Work is on one side a central arena of self-making, self-understanding, and self-development, and on the other a deep threat to our flourishing. My question is: what kind of work is good for human beings, and what kind bad? I first characterise work as necessary productive activity. My answer to my question then develops a perfectionist account of the human good: (1) the good is the full development and expression of human potentials and capacities; (2) this development and expression happens over a lifetime through appropriate practice. Work is thus a problem of human development, and I address that problem by considering three central human capacities: that we are passionate choosers, skilled makers, and social negotiators. For each, I ask: what does this capacity need from our work if it is to develop towards full and flourishing expression? Answering that question leads to a three-part account of good work as requiring: (1) a distinctive kind of pleasure, involving both unselfconscious flow and supervisory self-attention; (2) skill, which I describe via the ideal of craft; and (3) democracy, which I define as a form of life in which each is able to develop and use both expressive and receptive capacities.
U2 - 10.1111/japp.12137
DO - 10.1111/japp.12137
M3 - Journal article
VL - 34
SP - 61
EP - 73
JO - Journal of Applied Philosophy
JF - Journal of Applied Philosophy
SN - 0264-3758
IS - 1
ER -