> I'm a little surprised by the appeal to motives here; let's pull back from
> the psychological diagnosis.
> When I think about an auto factory or the University of Phoenix, I
> completely get your argument. Work slow-downs cut into profit margins,
> boohoo. I just don't see why you're using the same argument about work in a
> publicly funded organization that is contributes to the public good.
I'm more than a little surprised to see people--especially people who seem to know their Foucault--insist on the absolute separability of the public and the private, and unambiguiously declare what is the common good.
It just occurred to me how gendered these kinds of discussion are. Of course feminists like Carole Pateman long ago critiqued the public-private distinction, but that was more related to household, familial, and political roles. It was before, or at the beginning of, the "feminization" of labor. These days the public-private distinction is displaced onto job roles: Now, in support of a some sort of (nonexistent) social-democracy, those engaged in women's work--teachers, nurses, care workers, etc.--are told they can't sabotage/strike/slack because their toil is meaningful and essential in ways men's labor is not. *They* are working for the common good.