On Thu, December 25, 1997 at 16:40:45 (-0800) James Devine writes:
>
>What this says to me is that the growth of the so-called "information
>economy" coincides with the process of deskilling that Braverman
>highlighted. The second worker -- the symbolic analyst -- has taken some of
>the first worker's decision-making power away, separating conception (by the
>analyst) from execution (by the reporter and/or picker).
I'm not so sure I agree that the growth of the info economy coincides
with deskilling. Didn't this sort of separation long precede the
information age? At least, that's the picture I get reading David
Noble and others.
>One of the reasons our society _needs_ all sorts of computers is that the
>separation of conception from execution has centralized as much as possible
>of the decision-making in a small number of hands, so that as much
>information as possible must be put into those hands.
But, if this concentration of decision-making occured long ago, what
do computers add? More efficient control? I'm sure computers aid in
the control of labor somewhat, but do they really add anything
fundamentally new? Computers are great at aggregating data, at rapid
processing of it, at relating data, and at remembering data. Bosses
can get counts of workers in Vietnamese factories, weekly pay figures
in maquiladoras, etc. But, when it comes down to it, real control
strategies are things that computers cannot help with, except
peripherally.
I'm curious, what sorts of information is available today to a boss
that wasn't available to one living 100 years ago? Is it any
different, or does it just get there faster and more accurately?
Also, aren't the great bulk of computers doing things other than
controlling people?
Ironically, in the computer software industry, at least from my
experience, the workers are more difficult to control, because the
separation of conception and execution, not to mention the measurement
of work effort, is so difficult in programming. A good programmer can
pump out 10,000 lines of code a day. A brilliant programmer can put
out 2,000.
> Of course, it also goes the other way: the
>development of info-processing and communication technology facilitates and
>thus encourages the deskilling of labor.
Of course, it only does that by design. There is no necessary
deskilling effect from development and deployment of info
technologies. Computer-centralized information does not necessarily
mean human-centralized control of information. One might also claim
that as the information age has become more mature, and computers more
widespread, the American public has become better-informed: just think
of the hassle Doug Henwood would have typing out his LBO and
mimeographing the thousands of issues he sends out. I'm not entirely
kidding, either. I think that the American public is better- (that is
not to say well-) informed today than it was in 1950, the dawn of the
information age. Along with this, methods of keeping the public away
from actually using that information politically have become more
advanced. But here, I think we have to turn to an examination of the
law, which Ellen Dannin's piece shows is extraordinarily important,
and something I think that has been sorely neglected by progressives.
Bill
