|
"... all owe elements
of their personalities to the jobs they do."
Thus council organization
weaves a
variegated net of
collaborating bodies through society, regulating its life and progress
according to their own free initiative. And all that in the councils
is discussed and decided draws its actual power from the understanding,
the will, the action of working humankind itself.
-Anton Pannekoek
|
[We saw] a condition of society
in which there should be neither rich nor poor, neither idle nor over
worked, neither brain -sick brain workers, nor heartsick hand workers,
in a word, in which all men [sic] would be living in equality of condition
and would manage their affairs unwastefully, and with the full consciousness
that harm to one would mean harm to all - the realization at last of
the meaning of the word commonwealth.
- William
Morris
NON-COMS, PRIVATES, and generals emerge in all
known economies. Economists say this occurs because only a few people
can make intelligent decisions, set policies, manage others, and develop
new techniques, while most can only do what they are told. Few command.
Most follow. Few shoulder responsibility. Most accept passivity. Is
this God's will? Human nature? Or what?
Human Labor
Assume a society with a school system that empowers
every graduate to hold a responsible position. Some graduates are science
buffs while others favor aesthetic involvement. Some are verbal, others
more visual or mathematical. Some take pleasure in creative handiwork
while others despair of manually assembling the simplest product. But
despite this healthy diversity, if we accept that in this hypothetical
example whatever their many differences all
graduates preparing to enter the workforce have learned how to make
responsible choices about social issues, then we can look at how, in
any particular economy, this universal decision -making preparedness
is enhanced or dissipated by the work people do.
In light of the above, if we can keep in mind
the following three ideas about work, we will be well prepared to understand
how work enhances or dissipates skills in different economies.
1. Work produces human qualities.
Inputs to work include tools, natural resources,
products of others' labor, and
workers' energies, skills, knowledge, and social relations. Outputs
include commodities for consumption, unintended byproducts, and workers' altered moods, increased
or diminished skills, and altered personalities. If work is rote, frustrating,
and mind numbing, it dampens skills and self -esteem. If work is complex
and challenging, it enhances skills and self -esteem.
This means the jail keeper, assembly line worker,
personnel manager, and accountant all owe elements of their personalities
to the jobs they do. Likewise, the joy or fear, wisdom or foolishness
that different workers have arise partly from the economic activities
those workers undertake. Of course people are not solely determined
by economic life, nor is economic life uninfluenced, by extra -economic
factors, but it should be evident that economies (as much as kinship,
culture, and politics) affect not only what we can have and do, but
also who we are and what we want.
2. The human qualities work produces in turn
affect what responsibilities we can hold and what level of participation
in decision making we can sustain.
Whether we are knowledgeable, skilled, energetic,
or sociable affects our ability to succeed in work -related decision
making. If we have these attributes we do better. What could be more
obvious? If some of us do one kind of work (systems engineer) and others
do another (receptionist), and if the two produce markedly different
knowledge, skill, and/or dispositions, people doing the different jobs
will have different likelihood of advancing up workplace job hierarchies.
Indeed, when workers do not get their different abilities and inclinations
from schooling or socialization, the only option left is that they get
them from "on the job acculturation."
3. Any economy that produces class divisions must confidence and skill in some and generating
apathy differentiate among new workers building in others. In contrast,
any economy that aspires to classlessness must welcome new workers into
balanced jobs that develop confidence and skills in all.
Suppose a capable young work force enters industry
only to exert little influence over boring work. Regardless of their
initial abilities, suppose only a small percentage win promotions offering
more knowledge, freer workdays, and greater time for study. We can confidently
predict that each time these few climb the promotion ladder, their chances
of falling back will decrease. Each step up will increase their skills
and confidence. In contrast, workers left below will continue to follow
orders and many of their potentials will atrophy for want of "exercise."
This is a class division emerging from the way work is organized, Moreover,
we all know that real -world economies sharply divide conceptual and
executionary tasks in just this way, thereby fostering growing disparities
between those who order and those who obey. Is it possible that organized
differently, economies can integrate conceptual and executionary responsibilities
to foster comparable skills for all actors and eliminate these divisions?
How?
|
