Pan-Optic Podcast

Today, Jason and Juan Pablo discuss political theorist Evgeny Morozov’s article, “Digital Socialism? The Calculation Debate in the Age of Big Data” (NLR, 2019, https://newleftreview.org/issues/II116/articles/evgeny-morozov-digital-socialism). In this article, Morozov critiques the idea that technology will somehow reinvent capitalism. He argues that technology-enabled capitalism (technology within the logic of markets) is STILL capitalism and thus it does not escape challenges produced or compounded by capitalism. However, what if technology enablers could be applied beyond the realm of capitalism? Morozov posits that the public sphere could apply modern technologies (e.g. social media, knowledge management platforms, advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, etc.) to efficiently coordinate and solve problems outside the markets. Fascinating! But Jason and Juan Pablo are skeptical. Maybe not for the reasons you expect... In this episode, we address: the Austrian-British economist Friedrich Hayek’s successful theory of the relationships between knowledge, prices, and human behavior; markets vs. non-markets vs. new markets; existing technology enablers and how they map across the private and public spheres; challenges associated with technology ownership and maintaining a democratic process; and the problem of turning knowledge into meaningful action. We also harken back to our ongoing debate surrounding whether massive financial incentives are required to inspire innovation or make people want to solve the world’s most pressing social challenges. For more on this, listen to our previous “listener case study” episode called, “The Protestant Ethic, Instrumentalizing Everything, and Devotion to Work.” The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: twitter.com/Panopticpod
 Patreon: www.patreon.com/panopticpod
 Website: www.panopticpod.com/
 Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-…st/id1475726450 Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Pan-Optic is pleased to present part three of our three-part series on radicalization and ideology. In today’s episode, we address: individuation and socialization; a critique of generalizable interests; existential and absurdist interpretations of the ”ideological grounding” problem; the people side of mergers and acquisitions; applications to change management and strategic communications; and more. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: twitter.com/Panopticpod
 Patreon: www.patreon.com/panopticpod
 Website: www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-…st/id1475726450 Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Today’s episode is Pan-Optic’s first ever "personal case study" response, where we react to listener Sep’s account of working in big tech and grappling with feeling intellectually and morally limited by her work requirements and the logic of the firm. In reacting to Sep’s personal case study, we explore: Max Weber on the protestant work-oriented ethic; the tendency to justify something’s existence by instrumentalizing its purpose; Jason’s aversion to divine command theory; being socialized and acculturated within neoliberal and meritocratic structures; research on what motivates high-output performers; and who should be let on the plane first. Thank you Sep for an excellent submission. We hope we did you justice. Pan-Optic is always accepting personal case study submissions. Share your story by contacting us at panopticpod@gmail.com or through any of our social media platforms. We look forward to hearing from you and reacting to your story. Addendum: we are issuing a correction after failing to do our homework... Sep, who we addressed using he/him/his pronouns, goes by she/her/hers pronouns. HUGE apology to Sep! We really feel bad about this and won’t make the same mistake again. Thank you for going easy on us and for making our first personal case study reaction possible and so much fun. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-…st/id1475726450 Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Pan-Optic is pleased to present part two of our three-part series on radicalization and ideology. In today’s episode, we address: the moral and legal implications of ideological discrimination; the extent to which government can avoid values-oriented decision making; a clear functional definition of ideology vs. a general definition of ideology; canonical social theoretical literature on ideology (Emile Durkheim and George Herbert Mead); the so-called ”loan wolf” phenomenon; and categorizations of violent activity. Part two sets the stage for our further reflections on notions of the good and the need to ground ideology in some normative framework to reliably identify “extreme.” The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-…st/id1475726450 Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Pan-Optic is pleased to present our three-part series on radicalization and ideology. In the knowledge age and especially in the COVID world, institutions are pressured to change the way they operate and do business frequently and rapidly. We spend much time pontificating about the need to transform workforces (us included), but often without considering the psychological precursors to attitudinal and behavioral change. To help address this problem, we consult the literature on radicalization and ideology with a mind toward the following questions: how do people fundamentally ideologically change? And how can we apply this knowledge to inspire adoption of change in the real world? In part one, we address: a framework for understanding how someone adopts violent ideology; why framing and frame alignment are key to making ideology stick; the case of “Boston Bomber” Tamerlan Tsarnaev; ethnographic approaches to capturing human intelligence; and the importance of identifying notions of the good or generalizable interests to differentiate normative ideology from potentially problematic ideology. Part one sets the stage for follow-on discussions surrounding the legal implications of managing ideology and uses and applications of radicalization theory for change leaders and managers. You may read Jason’s article, “Countering Jihadism in America: A Policy Review,” here: http://www.saisreview.org/2017/03/27/jihadism-in-america/. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-…st/id1475726450 Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Today’s episode starts off with a 30-minute, ad hoc discussion surrounding the recent murder of George Floyd and the ensuing national campaign against police racism. Please refer to Pan-Optic’s website for additional resources on how to support reputable activist groups in the fight against racism (https://www.panopticpod.com/post/pitching-in-to-fight-racism-and-police-violence). During Pan-Optic’s two-part series “Philosophers in Firms,” Jason and Juan Pablo investigate the mystery of why Google hired a philosopher and what this individual does. Along the way, we address the following more fundamental questions: Should firms hire philosophers? Does it make good business sense? How does the business case compare to the moral case? Do they conflict? Today’s episode (part two) explores: philosopher Luciano Floridi’s theory of information; how Google applied Floridi’s theory to navigate complex international legal challenges pertaining to data privacy; change management professional Paul Gibbons’ critique of the change consulting industry; how change managers might leverage the humanities to “philosophically ground” strategic recommendations and improve client outcomes; and opportunities for professionals with strong humanities backgrounds to innovate and make a difference in the consulting world. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-…st/id1475726450 Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

During Pan-Optic’s two-part series “Philosophers in Firms,” Jason and Juan Pablo investigate the mystery of why Google hired a philosopher and what this individual does. Along the way, we address the following more fundamental questions: Should firms hire philosophers? Does it make good business sense? How does the business case compare to the moral case? Do they conflict? Today’s episode (part one) explores: the downcast job market for humanities and philosophy PhDs; the rationale for apparently superficial corporate ethics statements; the moral and functional analyses of Google's statement of ethics; why Google hired the ”in-house philosopher” Damon Horowitz and what he does; and the uses and applications of thought leadership and implications for authentic critical thinking in business contexts. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-…st/id1475726450 Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Our Foundations Crossover P.3 — In light of the ongoing COVID-19 situation, today’s segment (part three of our three-part crossover with Our Foundations podcast) couldn’t be more apropos. What happens when you equip strategic actors with predictive analytical power? Some may say we’re living it. In parts one and two, we traversed: the 18th century rise of the liberal public sphere; the 20th century breakdown of communicative-participatory democratic procedures; the 90s burgeoning of neoliberalism; the rise of modern military contractors in post 9/11 America; and the state’s increasing dependence on corporations to fight wars. These constituent parts share at least one common theme: increasingly surgical, private applications of strategic action. In today’s segment, we explore the rise of a new type of strategic actor: the modern technocrat. Due to the pandemic, industry urgently shifts to digital work environments; people are uniquely dependent on digital social platforms to stay connected. Data is knowledge and knowledge is power accreting around Silicon Valley. Will the technocrats use this power to expand or constrict democracy? The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-…st/id1475726450 Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Our Foundations Crossover P.2 — In theory, public discourses should influence law creation in a democracy. But has big advertising undermined the legal objectives of communicative action? After 9/11, why did the U.S. outsource approximately 50% of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to companies like Blackwater? Surprisingly, the answers to these questions may intersect and provide fodder for worrying about strategic applications of advanced technology today. Juan Pablo and Jason are pleased to present part two of our collaboration with Our Foundations podcast. We recommend listening to part one first. The conversation just gets bigger and bigger, as does the administrative state’s reliance on contractors. Should we actually be worried about this? Hope you enjoy! The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Our Foundations Crossover P.1 — What happens when you arm strategic actors with big data and predictive analytical power? Juan Pablo and Jason are pleased to present Pan-Optic's collaboration with the Our Foundations podcast, further reflecting on some of the challenges (and solutions) posed by strategic communications throughout Western history. As part of this collaboration, we explore: the rise and fall of the bourgeois public sphere; shifting powers of corporate and government institutions in post-9/11 America; modern private military contractors, Silicone Valley tech corporations, and technology consultants; and practical strategic applications of technology and their effects today. Pan-Optic and Our Foundations present different, sometimes competing political views of the world. Our differences made for a truly fascinating conversation that listeners of both podcasts will appreciate and hopefully learn from. Please join us for part one of our first podcast crossover experiment. (And let us know what you think!) The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Episode 9 is part two of our exploration of Aaron Benanav’s critique of the so-called “automation discourse.” We further probe the hypothesis that system overcapacity caused the collapse of manufacturing labor demand. What happens to the job market when manufacturing labor is down and the cost of living is up, chronically? Which possible economic solutions do we have in our toolbox to affect meaningful, productive workforces? In an attempt to answer these questions, we weigh the costs and benefits of a universal basic income (UBI) versus a green new deal. And in conclusion, we reexamine the effects and potentials of technology and automaton through a new lens. Recommend listening to Episodes 7 and 8 first. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Episode 8 is part one of our exploration of Aaron Benanav’s critique of the so-called “automation discourse.” But first, let’s recap: in Episode 7, Jason broke down local political discourses on automation and offshoring. Why does Andrew Yang believe that automation killed 4,000,000 manufacturing jobs in rural America? Why does Elizabeth Warren believe that offshoring has been far more destructive than automation? To answer these questions, we conducted a lit review of recent academia on the economic effects of technology; identified potentially problematic data collection techniques; and compared competing interpretations of GDP and unemployment trends. But today, Juan Pablo throws “a monkey wrench into the works” by introducing Benanav’s concept of “system overcapacity.” Is it possible that the local political discourses on automation and offshoring are missing the point? How might global excess supply contribute to waning labor demand? From Benanav’s perspective, neither automation nor offshoring is the root cause of unemployment; rather, both automation and offshoring are market responses to waning labor demand. Join us for part one of our discussion. Part two will post in a few weeks. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Welcome to Pan-Optic’s third “Reflections” episode featuring our most reactionary, stream of consciousness rambling yet. Jason and Juan Pablo relate current, salient political headlines to core Pan-Optic themes and previous episodes. In chronological order, we: brainstorm private sector and non-profit applications of critical theory, and debate the limitations of the “business case”; react to the Democratic Presidential Primary debates; and discuss the American politics of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani’s assassination, and climate change / industrial policy in the context of the Australian fires. Full disclosure: this was supposed to be a short episode… On that front, we failed miserably! Nevertheless, we covered a lot of ground in two hours. More importantly, we had a lot of fun. Whether you agree or disagree with our perspectives, Pan-Optic welcomes your participation. Engage with us on Twitter, Instagram, or through the chat box on our website: www.panopticpod.com. We’re delighted to address any dissenting views on future episodes. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

To kickoff the New Year, Pan-Optic returns to the subject of automation. In today’s episode, Jason and Juan Pablo uncover dominant political discourses surrounding the fall of U.S. manufacturing labor. Why did 22% of American manufacturing plants shutdown between 2000 and 2014? What happened to the victims of mass job displacement? In the context of the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primaries, there are at least two relevant discourses: the fall of American manufacturing labor was caused by (1) the offshoring of production to countries with cheap labor or (2) the rise of advanced automations. How might potential voters assess these discourses? They may consider: difficulties associated with interpreting labor statistics; competing definitions of automation; the uses and applications of labor reducing technologies in the U.S. and throughout the world. In preparation for this episode, Jason and Juan Pablo read Automation and the Future of Work by Aaron Benavav, social sciences professor at the University of Chicago. Benavav offers an alternative critical perspective on the fall of U.S. manufacturing labor: what if neither offshoring nor automation is the cause of mass job displacement, but rather, both offshoring and automation are symptomatic of an increasingly stagnant, global economy that seeks indefinite growth? Are candidates like Elizabeth Warren (proponent of the offshoring discourse) and Andrew Yang (proponent of the automation discourse) somehow missing the point? We invite Pan-Optic listeners to revisit Episode 3, which describes philosopher Bernard Stiegler’s dystopian vision of a future defined by hyper-dependency on artificial intelligence. The contents of this episode are perhaps also dystopian, but in a different way. Listen to Jason and Juan Pablo debate the economics of automation, which may or may not threaten to transform the nature of labor forever. Along the way, we promise to strengthen your political toolkit to make informed voting decisions and influence your less politically savvy peers at cocktail parties. *This episode is part one of a three-part series focusing on labor demand. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Happy Holidays Pan-Optic listeners! Welcome to our second "Reflections" episode and first ever Holiday Special. The purpose of today’s episode is to conduct a “pulse-check” of the podcast. We reflect on the following questions: What is Pan-Optic about? Have we evolved on this question over the last 6 months? Who is our target audience and what do we want our listeners to takeaway from our discussions? Also, who are we -- our backgrounds, interests, and aspirations? And finally, what are some topics that we hope to cover in 2020? Along the way, we respond to some criticism from Reddit; we talk about religion and what the holidays mean to us; and we riff on David Fincher’s Mindhunter, radicalization, the mercenary firm Blackwater, high performing ESG stocks, and much more. We’ve grown faster than we anticipated since launching in August 2019. Help us sustain this growth and make Pan-Optic the most energizing, interdisciplinary podcast by submitting your ideas and feedback through the chat box on www.panopticpod.com. We look forward to hearing from you in the New Year. Otherwise, grab a drink, relax, and enjoy the show! The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

Today’s episode is part three of a three-part series on strategic communication. But unlike part two, today’s episode is through and through philosophy. We come full circle with Habermas who argues that strategic action is purposive, calculated manipulation of others. While communication itself is oriented towards increasing understanding, strategic action seeks to undermine communicative norms, to produce effects by increasing misunderstanding. And this is bad for democracy, claims Habermas. But is it fair to require such a narrow definition of strategic action? Aren’t there purposes and calculations behind every action — even communicative actions? Jason presents practical, relational scenarios attempting to bring Habermas down to every day life. Meanwhile, Juan Pablo defends Habermas’ critique of strategic action. Is the exercise of strategy to affect relationships ever morally desirable or permissible? Tune into the debate and let us know where you land. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

This is the second episode of a three-part series focusing on strategic communication. In today’s episode, we wrap up our conversation on the Socratic Method as a kind of strategic action in disguise; we discuss the value of intra- and interpersonal audits to unveil hidden interests prior to engaging in negotiation, debate, or conflict; and we compare strategic communicative techniques - namely, Harvard Business School’s “principled negotiation” (Getting to Yes) versus Chris Voss’ psychological trickery (Never Split the Difference). Through all this, Jason argues that strategic communication is tied to a selfish substrate. In other words, we cannot not do it. But we can refine our strategic communicative skills to build stronger, more collaborative relationships that generate mutual value. Juan Pablo cross examines Jason’s argument and observes that strategic communication requires some level of deception that is ultimately anti-democratic. Alternatively, shouldn’t we aim to create more understanding, not less, through communication? Today’s episode offers a healthy combination of critical analyses and practical insights applied to situations that you frequently encounter in the workplace and everyday life. Stay tuned for part three, where Juan Pablo presents the full Habermasian critique of strategic communication, culminating in our most heated debate yet. We recommend listening to each part in chronological order. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

This is the first in a three-part series focusing on strategic communication: what is it, how does it work, what are its strengths and limitations, is it morally defensible, and is it even avoidable? In today’s episode, we examine the Socratic Method in practice: a rambunctious debate on the nature of justice between Socrates and Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic. In theory, the Socratic Method is an open, transparent dialectical process of uncovering truth. But in practice, the method trespasses into the territory of strategy. Did Socrates’ commitment belong to the truth, or to winning at Thrasymachus’ expense? What can leaders in the modern world learn from this hilarious exchange? What are some real life situations in which a Socratic strategy pays dividends? Jason and Juan Pablo discuss, laying the groundwork for our most heated debate yet. We recommend listening to each part in chronological order. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Reflections #1. This is the first in a series of more reactionary, topical conversations that Juan Pablo and Jason are doing as part of the development of the Pan-Optic podcast. Today, we discuss popular criticism of writer/director Todd Phillips' Joker, the so-called "comic book genre" in general, the role of the markets in directing resources to particular types of cinema (while alienating others), and filmmaker/philosopher Alexander Kluge's perspective on cinema as a public sphere medium with political effects. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

In this episode, we briefly trace the history of automation, consider some of the more salient consequences of modern technology, and review philosopher Bernard Stiegler's dystopic critique of modern technology. What happens when we exteriorize knowledge into automatons? Bad, bad things, says Stiegler. But is all the pessimism justified? Juan Pablo and Jason debate. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

In this episode, we discuss Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, focusing on how one might operationalize Nietzschean master morality in the modern world. We compare the leadership styles of Donald Trump and Elon Musk, asking: who's the better Nietzschean, why, and what does this mean for us? We also continue the conversation that we started during Episode 1, further reflecting on stakeholder theory and "creating shared value," as well as touching on the potential limits of capitalism to solve our most critical problems. Spoiler alert: Juan Pablo is more skeptical than Jason. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

In this episode, we discuss the so-called "Hawthorne Studies," a series of studies in 1920s Chicago to examine possible relationships between environmental conditions (e.g., lighting) and labor productivity. Business schools often teach that the Hawthorne Studies' greatest achievement was revealing a relationship between workers' sense of being supervised and increased output. But this may not be the whole story. We analyze one of the Hawthorne Studies (where subjects were tasked to assemble telephone relays) from Foucaultian, stakeholder theory, and personal anecdotal standpoints. We also attempt a critique of Foucault. This is our first episode. Go easy on us. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx