Tweede gesticht van de kolonie Veenhuizen, huismunt geslagen op last van de Maatschappij van Weldadigheid ter waarde van vijf cent 1818 - 1859

Editor: We're looking at an anonymous metal coin from between 1818 and 1859. It’s titled “Tweede gesticht van de kolonie Veenhuizen, huismunt geslagen op last van de Maatschappij van Weldadigheid ter waarde van vijf cent.” It looks pretty rough and worn, which I find compelling. What do you see in this piece? Curator: This isn’t just a coin; it's a token of a complex social experiment. "Veenhuizen" refers to a penal colony, one designed to rehabilitate the poor and vagrant through labor. These coins were used internally. What does it say about social control and visibility when even money becomes a tool of confinement? Editor: That's... grim. I hadn’t considered that. So, it controlled the inmates beyond just physical walls? Curator: Exactly. Think about Foucault's ideas of power and discourse. By controlling the internal economy, they were attempting to control identity and behavior. How might this coin influence a sense of self, of freedom? Is this ‘welfare’ or another form of oppression? Editor: So the inmates couldn’t even really participate in society; they were forced to use currency of very limited value. What does this detail suggest about its makers, the Maatschappij van Weldadigheid? Curator: It reflects the paternalistic, yet often dehumanizing, approach of social reform in the 19th century. The "Society of Benevolence" aimed to ‘improve’ the poor, but on their own terms, with a currency like this which reminds the users who they are and where they are, always. This speaks to the tension between social uplift and the denial of individual agency, doesn’t it? Editor: It does. I’ll definitely never look at a coin the same way again. I had no idea that currency could be such a powerful tool of control. Curator: This coin offers a stark material reminder of the many ethical contradictions inherent to social reform.