One of the areas of overlap between D-W's account and that of the Third Wave futurologists he critiques might be the claim that one of the significant developments in the current phase of informated capitalism (at least in the US and similar economies) is a form of re-skilling. What are the implications of narratives of re-skilling from the type of critical perspective that D-W and Robins and Webster are developing (how do their accounts differ? Does the notion of "social Taylorism" come across as less open to oppositional potential than that of the "social factory"?). Which account seems more convincing to you and why? What are the differences between re-skilling in the context of an information economy and re-skilling (if we could imagine the possibility) in a Fordist or industrial context?
Also, I'm going to try something out this week, because I'm interested in hearing from more folks in class: it's a big class for a seminar, and I'd like to make sure everyone gets a chance to participate in the discussion, so I'm asking all of you to come prepared with a point, question, or quote, from the readings that you'd like to have us take up, or at least note, in class. This can be anything from a question about what "immaterial labor" or the "social factory" means to pointing out the relation between meatpacking and car building. Please tie your point to a specific passage in the reading that we can all take a look at and discuss.
I'm going to suggest that you post your reading response not as a "comment" to this post, but as a separate post unto itself. I think everyone can navigate the blog well enough to see one another's posts. Please avail yourself of the linking options if you want to reference one another's posts (or include links to articles, web pages, etc.).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As my own inability to figure out how to produce an independent post on this blog illustrates, "re-skilling" also entails "de-skilling" in that some skills become obsolete by definition. It seems from R&W's account that all re-skilling initiated by capital must ultimately serve to increase its domination in some way. Any other sort of re-skilling activity would need to be seen as an actual or potential "counter-mobilization" that, again by definition, capital must strive to limit or to contain. While I remain suspicious that R&W's descriptions of capitalistic processes are somehow too neat and tidy, so much so that describing disconfirming evidence might be very difficult, the actual examples that R&W provide, along with what has happened since they wrote their book, does tend to support their opinions.
One aspect of my discomfort with R&W, which I hope to become better able to articulate, is my own inability to describe what alternative they might offer to the processes of capital that they describe. That is, is there a chance that they are describing something more inherent in human interactions rather than something that is the modifiable product of a contingent economic system? They seem to feel that so much of what they are describing is inexorably part of capitalism that it seems to imply that things could be different under a different economic system (but also that things could not really be different under a capitalistic economic system). Perhaps this is later in the book--how much has to change for the power relationship accumulation effects that they describe not to come into play? Some of the older socialists like Mumford seemed to be a bit less pessimistic of the inevitability of where all this is going.
I would recommend as a quick and enjoyable read the Mumford piece cited in Ch.4 of R&W (note 100), though their citation for the piece is incorrect. It should be Technology and Culture, 1964, 5(1), pp.1-8. It is available through JSTOR. I like Mumford because he really believes that you can have democracy and socialism--he also believes that the desired goal of socialism is less hours working and more hours creatively enjoying yourself.
----while typing this I got interrupted to complete a phone survey on who I am going to vote for in the Democratic caucus. I did not hang up on the person because of superstition--I am worried that I might have to do a phone survey as part of my dissertation research and I do not want people hanging up on me. How is scientific socialism to deal with such superstitions and is scientific socialism any different that the capitalistic social Taylorism?
Post a Comment