In the Braverman article, he never clearly states which side of the argument he favors. He merely explains the historical concepts of the division of labor and science and how these ideas developed into a form of control over the worker. Although Braverman provides an answer of where division of labor stems from, “apparently inherent in the species character of human labor as soon as it becomes social labor,” this does not reflect the causality of the division of labor in complete detail. This inherent characteristic is created by the social labor norm that, if a worker provides a service (labor) he expects a return. Thus, the force behind the division of labor is profit making/capital.
Upon creating a division of labor, the division of labor in detail breaks down the division further. Now the worker is forced to perform a single or specific task. Although division of labor is apparent in society, division of labor in the workplace is a way of producing efficiently. Because the worker only does one task, he is not encouraged to know the skill necessary to create a product. In this, the sub division of labor in detail is a detrimental harm to education. It encourages labor standards and creates a glass ceiling for those forced into the workplace. In order for the division of labor to succeed, there must be a form of control. To control the labor and enforce standards there is management that oversees the entire process. The mastermind behind the buying of commodities, dividing-up labor, etc. to create a product efficiently and at the lowest cost possible to gain more capital. Therefore, the force behind the creation of division of labor is what makes the unskilled workers give up their freedom and become managed or governed within the workplace. It’s a bit ironic that instead of capitalism serving the people, people become slaves to capitalism.
1 comment:
While it is true that the division of labor in detail does forestall an initial need to learn anything beyond the single component of the production process for which the worker is responsible, it does not necessarily curtail advancement opportunities. Let us utilize a worker on a Ford assembly line as an example. The worker is initially tasked with tightening two bolts on the vehicle frame. This task, while rote and mechanistic, perfectly matches the unskilled worker's ability level. Had the position demanded more, it is unlikely that the worker would have been selected, given his limited experience and skill. As such, the division of labor in detail allowed for the gainful employment of a member of society not yet ready to assume the responsibility associated with a more advanced position. Ford, which utilizes division of labor in detail, employs multitudes of unskilled workers in this manner. Lamborghini, by contrast, relies on highly skilled artisans and craftsmen, more in line with the principle of general division of labor. If Lamborghini is the only employer in the market, the worker for Ford's assembly line will likely remain unemployed, a status that guarantees a lack of personal development. However, by working on the assembly line, the individual is a productive member of society and has an opportunity for growth. When his superiors note his excellent rate of work and enthusiasm, they will likely recommend him for further training, which increases his skill level and improves him, a cycle that is likely to repeat many times over the course of a dedicated worker's life. This worker, now a highly trained and prolific citizen, may have very well remained unemployed without the opportunity yielded by a low skill division of labor in detail produced position.
Post a Comment