The Deskilling Thesis of Braverman - Essay Example

?Has the arrival of the knowledge economy destroyed Braverman's Deskilling Thesis? The identification and the evaluation of the role and the power ofhumans in the production process have been, traditionally, two critical priorities for sociologists worldwide. Most commonly, the power of humans to persist the expansion of technology has been doubted. Such trend can be particularly identified in the views of sociologists who support the Marxist theories on capital. One of these theories, the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman is examined in this paper. Particular emphasis is given on the interaction of this theory with the knowledge economy; reference is made especially to the fact whether the arrival of the knowledge economy has destroyed the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman or not. The main elements of the two concepts are critically examined. The literature published in the specific field is used in order to check the power of each of the above concepts and their potential perspectives to survive under the terms that current social conditions have been significantly changed compared to the period when the Marxist theories were introduced. At this point it would be necessary to refer to the general framework of the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman, as one of the theories reflecting the Marxist view on the relationship between humans and capital. In accordance with Smith (2000) the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman is based on the proposition that ‘the development of capitalism as an economic system has led to the deskilling of workers’ (Smith 2000, p.327). In the context of the above theory, the deskilling of workers is developed through the gradual replacement of highly skilled workers with others, less trained (Smith 2000, p.327). The latter are expected to take lower compensation, a fact that leads to the limitation of ‘bargaining power of workers’ (Smith 2000, p.327), a fact, which can be characterized as one of the priorities of capitalism. The view of Braverman on the deskilling of workers has been mainly based on the Marxist views on capitalism. However, influences seem also to exist from the work of other theorists, who also supported the expansion of deskilling as a social phenomenon in the context of capitalism: an indicative example is the view of Helmut Schelsky (1954) on ‘the role of automation in the increase of stress at work’ (Schelsky 1954, in Stehr 2002, p.143); Merton (1947) has been another theorist supporting deskilling, which was characterized as ‘enforced obsolescence of skills’ (Merton 1947 in Stehr 2002, p.143). The terms on which the theory of Braverman on deskilling has been based have been extensively criticized; in accordance with Bradley (2000) the particular theory of Braverman promotes ‘a romantic view of skill, ignoring its political and social construction’ (Bradley 2000, p.118). Moreover, Bandelj (2009) notes that the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman is based on capitalism as a trend focusing on the ‘mechanization of labour, the social context of which is heavily ignored’ (Bandelj 2009, p.190). A similar criticism is included in the study of Watson-Boone (1998); the above researcher emphasizes on the following element of Braverman’s theory: in the context of the Braverman theory, the worker is considered to be ‘totally controlled by the capital’ (Watson-Boone, 1998, p.6), a view which could be possibly applied in the past, but in the context of the modern society such perspective cannot be considered as absolute. On the other hand, Kridel (2010) characterizes the view of Braverman on deskilling as partially justified; it is explained that the perceptions of Braverman ‘on the isolation of worker from the production process, as a result of the expansion of capitalism’ (Kridel 2010, p.284) reflected the social and economic conditions of a particular era. Moreover, it is noted that the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman has been used in practice for supporting the need of teachers for being protected towards the mechanization of their role – referring not just to the delivery of the curriculum but also to the monitoring of the performance of students (Kridel 2010, p.284). The above fact proves that the theory of Braverman on deskilling would be applicable not only on manufacturing – related activities but also in industries with different characteristics. In order to understand the potential power of knowledge economy on the Braverman’s Deskilling Thesis, it would be necessary to refer to the elements of each of these theoretical frameworks; then the position of the knowledge economy towards the Braverman’s Deskilling thesis could be easier evaluated. Braverman has developed his theory based on ‘skill’ as a term reflecting personal abilities and competencies. However, the content of the above term, as perceived by Braverman should be criticized. In accordance with Martin (2006) Bravernman and other theorists who supported the concept of ‘deskilling’ were based on the view that skill is a series of competencies acquired through a particular process within a rather short period of time. However, the interpretation of skill, as a term on which the explanation of labour is based, may be differentiated. This fact is highlighted in the study of Martin (2006) where reference is made to ‘skill’ as a series of competencies acquired through a long-term process, meaning the work in specific field for a long period of time. It is explained that skills that have been acquired through such process cannot be extinguished just with the transformation of the nature of work – from handcrafting to manufacturing (Martin 2006, p.39). From this point of view, the basis of the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman would be characterized as lacking of adequate justification – it is possible that a different view on skill has urged Braverman to develop the specific Thesis but no such indications are included in the above theorist’s study. Using the theory of Martin (2006), as presented above, it could be argued that ‘skill’, as an element of the theory of Braverman, cannot be eliminated, even if significant changes in the production processes take place. From this point of view, the arrival of knowledge economy would result to the recovering of skill – which was not extinguished – eliminating the power of Braverman’s Deskilling Thesis. However, the above view could be applicable only in case that ‘skill’ is considered as the result of a long term learning process, and not the result of a limited period of training; in the last case, the theory of Braverman would apply and the ‘skill’ would be considered as extinguished under the influence of industrialization, a fact that would not allow knowledge economy to intervene and support the professional development of the worker. The potential power of the knowledge economy on the theory of Braverman can be also made clear by referring to the following fact: a critical characteristic of the theory of Braverman is the following one: in the context of the particular theory, deskilling is not considered as ‘an incidental outcome for workers’ (Smyth 2000, p.47). Rather, it is believed to be a carefully prepared plan for deskilling through promoting ‘fragmentation and division of work’ (Smyth 2000, p.47). From this point of view, deskilling is related to the political conditions of each era – since it is difficult to accept that the promotion of such plan would be successfully without the consent and the support of the political authorities. Using this perspective, the development of skills of workers is absolutely fragmented. Therefore, there is no field for the entrance or the development of the knowledge economy – referring to the society where the work is so fragmented that there is no space for improving the skills of workers. Such perspective could not be used in modern society – even if the past such problem could be identified. In other words, the appearance of the knowledge economy could destroy the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman in the following context: since in the particular society there has been space for the knowledge economy to be developed, this means that in this society there is no trend for eliminating the chances of workers for professional development, as explained above. Therefore, in such society the knowledge economy would be more powerful from the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman. From another point of view, Edgell (2006) noted that the development of knowledge economy in countries worldwide has not led, at least not entirely, to the increase of efforts for supporting the skills of workers. Instead, there are still industrial sectors, where the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman can apply – referring also to societies where knowledge economy is already established. An indicative example is the services sector and especially the call-centers (Edgell 2006, p.64). In accordance with Edgell (2006) the specific sector has not been particularly benefited from the appearance of the knowledge economy; the reason is that tasks in the particular sector are based on routines which are standardized and which can be performed by non-skilled or low-skilled workers (Edgell 2006, p.64). Regarding the specific sector, the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman can help to explain the lack of the development of workers and the lack of initiatives for changing the routines. It is assumed that the governors do not have the willing to change the conditions and the work routines involved in the particular sector. At this point also, the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman, who supported the existence of plan for the deskilling of workers, is verified. The potential influence of knowledge economy on the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman could be also identified by referring to the perceptions of Braverman on capitalism and its role in deskilling of workers. In accordance with Braverman, capitalism has changed the nature of work; instead of a process based on skills, work has been transformed in a process based on science (Shalla et al. 2007). In this context, the worker who has traditionally used his skills to control his work loses the particular advantage. However, the above view of Braverman is based on the proposition that the worker is not able to develop its skills accordingly in order to be able to understand the scientific rules applied on his work. Through this way, the worker can still keep the control on his work – and the value of the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman is significantly reduced. From this point of view, the entrance of the knowledge economy could benefit the worker. By adopting appropriate knowledge management techniques the worker could develop his skills – which were previously related only to handcrafting – keeping the control on his work. The above view, on the potentials of the worker to align his skills with the needs of his work and the resources available, has been also verified through the empirical research developed in the particular field. Under these terms, it is noted that the view of Braverman on deskilling could be possibly valid in regard to the production processes of the past, where emphasis was given on the mass production of products with similar characteristics, i.e. the standardization in the production routines was the key characteristic of the production process (O’Neil, 1997, p.29). However, through the years and the changes in the customer trends, products of standard characteristics lost their market share. Consumers began to prefer products, which are differentiated – in terms of their characteristics – so that massive production processes could not be applied (O’Neil 1997, p.29). It is in this context that the deskilling theory of Braverman was replaced by the rules of the knowledge economy, a framework that emphasized on the continuous changes in the production processes and the promotion of innovation. In accordance with the issues discussed above, the entrance of the knowledge economy has destroyed, in its major part, the Deskilling Thesis of Braverman. However, this outcome has not resulted because of failures of the particular theory, meaning the potential lack of applicability of its context, but rather because of the change in the social and economic environment in countries worldwide. Moreover, the change in the consumer demands, which has led to the change in the production processes, had to be supported by advanced production processes, where the use of knowledge is of critical importance, a perspective that would not exist in the context of the Deskilling Theory of Braverman. Bibliography Bandelj, N. 2009. Economic sociology of work. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Bradley, H. 2000. Myths at work. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell Clegg, S., Boreham, P., Dow, G. 1986. Class, politics, and the economy. London: Routledge Edgell, S. 2006. The sociology of work: continuity and change in paid and unpaid work. London: Pine Forge Press Edwards, P., Wajcman, J. 2005. The politics of working life. Boston: Oxford University Press Kirby, M. 2000. Sociology in perspective. Oxford: Heinemann Kridel, C. 2010. Encyclopedia of curriculum studies, Volume 2. London: SAGE Martin, G. 2006. Managing people and organizations in changing contexts. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann O’Neil, H. 1997. Workforce readiness: competencies and assessment. London: Routledge Shalla, V., Clement, W. 2007. Work in tumultuous times: critical perspectives. New Baskerville: McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP Smith, T. 2000. Technology and capital in the age of lean production: a Marxian critique of the "New economy". New York: SUNY Press Smyth, J. 2000. Teachers' work in a globalizing economy. London: Routledge Stehr, N. 2002. Knowledge and economic conduct: the social foundations of the modern economy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Watson-Boone, R. 1998. Constancy and change in the worklife of research university librarians. New York: Association of College & Research Libraries Read More