Overspecialization in the "division of labour"

[Die Neue Zeit]

Although this original post is mostly in note form, it is intended to spark programmatic discussion on addressing overspecialization in the "division of labour" in a potentially self-directional manner.



General: Functional/technical vs. "social" division of labour (Devine), "specialization" as alternative term for "division" if more prominent in economics
Political: "professional" politicians vs. demarchy
Legal: lawyers, judges, and legalese vs. sovereign commoner jury
Economic: job sharing vs. "sliding scale of hours," "social" division as alienation of labour
Cultural: so-called "economic family" (sexual division of labour)

[Lynx]

Educational: teachers vs. students, indoctrination vs. instilling critical thinking skills :confused:

[al8]

Your notes aren't understandable to me. You would have to elaborate them in a clear manner, if there is to be a discussion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I didn't want the responses to be in note form. ;)

1) Devine talks about two kinds of divisions of labour, like Marx did: the functional and the "social." The former is necessary, while the latter isn't. I also just found out that "division of labour" is still being used in economics, and that no new terms have been used.

2) The role of politician has become so "professionalized" because of a distinct lack of constituent participation (and due to the workweek not being short enough).

3) The role of legalese is keeping lawyers and judges from losing their relevancy. In Ancient Greece, "judicial" power rested with a sovereign commoner jury selected by lot.

4) Lynx talked about job sharing in my thread on the 32-hour workweek, while Trotskyists talk about "sliding scales of hours" in order to implement this. Job sharing has a role in ending the social division of labour.

5) Finally, there is the economic family which has lasted for far too long, wherein women do much more house work disproportionately.

[Lynx]

6) I (proposed) adding education as a form of division of labour. Sorry.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't see education as a social (not functional) division of labour. I don't think most teachers like to "indoctrinate" or, in their vocabulary "teach to the test."

[Lynx]

In my experience, students are subordinate to teachers. Teachers are subordinate to the school curriculum.

[MarxSchmarx]

Let me take a crack at the outline, qualified by noting that as these aren't fully flushed out some of the comments might be redundant.


Devine talks about two kinds of divisions of labour, like Marx did: the functional and the "social." The former is necessary, while the latter isn't. I also just found out that "division of labour" is still being used in economics, and that no new terms have been used.Why not then just call it necessary and unnecessary division of labor instead of the functional/social distinction?




2) The role of politician has become so "professionalized" because of a distinct lack of constituent participation (and due to the workweek not being short enough).Do we really need to be explicit about this division? Why isn't the emphasizing the primacy of the envisioned democratic institutions and calling for the abolition of politicians sufficient?


3) The role of legalese is keeping lawyers and judges from losing their relevancy. In Ancient Greece, "judicial" power rested with a sovereign commoner jury selected by lot.This might be a more fundamental disagreement, but handling legal matters in a specialized fashion with its own vocabulary and whatnot seems a necessary corollary to the rule of law.

The model of ancient greece in this respect is suspect. The solution seems to me to keep the specialization in tact, but expect that everybody be conversant in the relevant legal principles, sort of a "lawyer out of every juror".


Finally, there is the economic family which has lasted for far too long, wherein women do much more house work disproportionatelyThis is fine, but could be expanded somewhat to talk about the role of grandparents, children in the division of labor in the family. I would also focus on the family specifically instead of terming it "cultural".


4) Lynx talked about job sharing in my thread on the 32-hour workweek, while Trotskyists talk about "sliding scales of hours" in order to implement this. Job sharing has a role in ending the social division of labour. Job sharing is OK but also has its limitations and is very nebulous when implemented. For instance, it is often expected that professionals do more mundane work (like the surgeon doing reception work) but it doesn't work the other way around (like the receptionist doing surgery), and that's not always a bad thing.

Automation seems to be the preferable alternative to job sharing. The division of labor among jobs that are pretty mindless or dull (like screwing widgets) can and should be automated instead of making cooks and surgeons do them. But most jobs anybody can do, and I agree cooks should bus tables and surgeons should work the reception from time to time. But there's still something to be said for specialization viz. only having people who have repetition and practice doing certain jobs.



I don't see education as a social (not functional) division of labour. I don't think most teachers like to "indoctrinate" or, in their vocabulary "teach to the test."
In my experience, students are subordinate to teachers. Teachers are subordinate to the school curriculum. Maybe its not so much students versus teachers but students versus the educational system, of which teachers are just the facet they interact with most directly.

[Cult of Reason]

I agree with most of MarxSchmarx's post, but not this:


surgeons should work the reception from time to time

I have two problems with this:

1. A surgeon working at reception is a waste of their skill and education.

2. Operations can last a very long time (when they are mentioned in the news it is often mentioned that they last over 24 hours, presumably with the same surgeon(s) throughout) and may well be stressful due to what is at stake. At the very least surgeons should be allowed not to do the drudgerous stuff.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Let me take a crack at the outline, qualified by noting that as these aren't fully flushed out some of the comments might be redundant.

In outline threads such as this, redundancy is never a bad thing. ;)


Why not then just call it necessary and unnecessary division of labor instead of the functional/social distinction?

I suppose you have a point, since both divisions of labour are in a sense "social" (the former being "socially necessary"). I'll keep this in mind when something gets formulated out of all this.


Do we really need to be explicit about this division? Why isn't the emphasizing the primacy of the envisioned democratic institutions and calling for the abolition of politicians sufficient?

Comrade, that's already part of the minimum program for workers' power (although the remaining politicians should have working-class living standards). The "self-directional" implications of addressing overspecialization may yield some redundancies.


This might be a more fundamental disagreement, but handling legal matters in a specialized fashion with its own vocabulary and whatnot seems a necessary corollary to the rule of law.

The model of ancient greece in this respect is suspect. The solution seems to me to keep the specialization in tact, but expect that everybody be conversant in the relevant legal principles, sort of a "lawyer out of every juror".

Forgive me for being heated up here. The legalese I'm referring to goes beyond well the legal basics you've mentioned (overly long sentences/"clauses" riddled with legalese garbage come to mind).


This is fine, but could be expanded somewhat to talk about the role of grandparents, children in the division of labor in the family. I would also focus on the family specifically instead of terming it "cultural".

My mistake, then.


Job sharing is OK but also has its limitations and is very nebulous when implemented. For instance, it is often expected that professionals do more mundane work (like the surgeon doing reception work) but it doesn't work the other way around (like the receptionist doing surgery), and that's not always a bad thing.

The receptionist could do some bartending. ;) I am well aware of the limitations of having cooks performing surgery. :D

[Lynx]

Job sharing is OK but also has its limitations and is very nebulous when implemented. For instance, it is often expected that professionals do more mundane work (like the surgeon doing reception work) but it doesn't work the other way around (like the receptionist doing surgery), and that's not always a bad thing.
In my mind, the primary objective of job sharing is to reduce structural unemployment to zero. Participation in the workforce is extended to as many people as possible and the overall workload per person is immediately or eventually reduced.
Forcing skilled workers to perform undesirable tasks is a coercive method and should be considered only as a last resort. The preferred methods are incentive based.

Maybe its not so much students versus teachers but students versus the educational system, of which teachers are just the facet they interact with most directly.
Agreed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In my mind, the primary objective of job sharing is to reduce structural unemployment to zero. Participation in the workforce is extended to as many people as possible and the overall workload per person is immediately or eventually reduced.

Forcing skilled workers to perform undesirable tasks is a coercive method and should be considered only as a last resort. The preferred methods are incentive based.

So what do you make of Marx's supposedly "transitional" Manifesto demands for the "Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture" and for "Free education for all children in public schools [...] Combination of education with industrial production"?

[cyu]

A surgeon working at reception is a waste of their skill and education.


...what if they were a lousy surgeon but a great receptionist? :laugh:

Seriously though, I think it should be up to the surgeon. If he wants to work in reception for a while, let him. If he doesn't, don't force him.

Psychologically speaking, most people want to feel important. If a person is a great receptionist and a bad surgeon, then he would naturally gravitate to being a receptionist if he's given positive reinforcement from his peers. If he's a lousy surgeon, but still wanted to be one, it would be in the interest of everyone to either give him better training or a similar, but alternative path to follow.



I am well aware of the limitations of having cooks performing surgery.


There are two main people involved here: the cook and the patient. If the patient actually wants the cook to perform surgery on him (and the cook is willing), I don't see a problem with that (as long as he's making an informed decision, and not one based on deception).

[MarxSchmarx]

In my mind, the primary objective of job sharing is to reduce structural unemployment to zero. Participation in the workforce is extended to as many people as possible and the overall workload per person is immediately or eventually reduced.

Hmmm... OK, then the source of our disagreement is really about the objective of job sharing. What is the real point of full employment if everybody has shitty jobs? The goal of job sharing I think should be so that nobody has "good jobs" and nobody has "crappy jobs", even though the crappy stuff has to get done. Full employment is important, yes, but so is happiness on the job.


Forcing skilled workers to perform undesirable tasks is a coercive method and should be considered only as a last resort. The preferred methods are incentive based.

This gets to CYU's point as well. Yeah, sure, but where does coersion end and incentives begin? For example a hospital where surgeons are really respected and get to perform meaningful surgeries with high renumeration, versus a vanity cosmetic surgery place that lets people do surgery all the time but pays like shit. Is the former really any less coercive than our frequent charge that workers are "forced" to sell their labor?



surgeons should work the reception from time to time I have two problems with this:

1. A surgeon working at reception is a waste of their skill and education.


I will posit to you that it is only so under two assumptions. (1) Only a handful of people can be surgeons, and (2) surgery skill is therefore scarce. If everybody the world over can do the job they want, if anything I suspect there will be a glut of surgeons and the scarcity would disappear. So the waste of this abundant resource, in the form of human capital, will be of little consequence.

Now as a transitional program you probably have a point, the solution would be to empower receptionists by making them managers, having them schedule the shifts of surgeons and that kind of thing.



2. Operations can last a very long time (when they are mentioned in the news it is often mentioned that they last over 24 hours, presumably with the same surgeon(s) throughout) and may well be stressful due to what is at stake. At the very least surgeons should be allowed not to do the drudgerous stuff.

At the same time nobody should work more than 20 hours a week. If the surgeon puts in the time because they have to due to their job, then sure they can take the rest of the week off. But they shouldn't be doing multi-day surgeries week after week for their own sake as well.


Comrade, that's already part of the minimum program for workers' power (although the remaining politicians should have working-class living standards). The "self-directional" implications of addressing overspecialization may yield some redundancies.

Precisely. So perhaps you should link the democratic, political program with the specialization problem and highlight that many of the issues not discussed in specialization are implicitely dealt with elsewhere, e.g., abolishing the political class.


Forgive me for being heated up here. The legalese I'm referring to goes beyond well the legal basics you've mentioned (overly long sentences/"clauses" riddled with legalese garbage come to mind).

I think some examples could illustrate your point.

More broadly, there is to be sure bad legal writing out there, but I must confess I still view this as just bad writing you get in every field, and singling out specialization in the law before other explanations, like the fact that some people never really bothered to learn how to write clearly, is a bit unfair.


The receptionist could do some bartending. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif I am well aware of the limitations of having cooks performing surgery. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

Right my point was that you should make clear you're not just reshuffling work schedules, you're trying to break down the hierarchical nature of modern industry, where cooks are better than bussers and surgeons better than receptionists. Even under pay equality there are intangibles like creativity, control over one's work, etc... that need to be specifically addressed when trying to break down capitalist habits that developed out of the economic incentives for specialization.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If everybody the world over can do the job they want, if anything I suspect there will be a glut of surgeons and the scarcity would disappear. So the waste of this abundant resource, in the form of human capital, will be of little consequence.

Now as a transitional program you probably have a point, the solution would be to empower receptionists by making them managers, having them schedule the shifts of surgeons and that kind of thing.

At the same time nobody should work more than 20 hours a week. If the surgeon puts in the time because they have to due to their job, then sure they can take the rest of the week off. But they shouldn't be doing multi-day surgeries week after week for their own sake as well.

Whoa! Is this a "transitional" criticism of my 32-hour workweek material? ;)


Precisely. So perhaps you should link the democratic, political program with the specialization problem and highlight that many of the issues not discussed in specialization are implicitely dealt with elsewhere, e.g., abolishing the political class.

How does this sound?

The absence of any mention of grassroots mass assemblies is due to their incapability to perform administrative functions on a regular basis. Also, this demand implies simplification of laws and of the legal system as a whole, dispensing entirely with that oligarchic legal position of Judge and at least curtailing that legalese-creating and overly specialized position of Lawyer.


I think some examples could illustrate your point.

More broadly, there is to be sure bad legal writing out there, but I must confess I still view this as just bad writing you get in every field, and singling out specialization in the law before other explanations, like the fact that some people never really bothered to learn how to write clearly, is a bit unfair.

I'll have to look into this further indeed.


Right my point was that you should make clear you're not just reshuffling work schedules, you're trying to break down the hierarchical nature of modern industry, where cooks are better than bussers and surgeons better than receptionists. Even under pay equality there are intangibles like creativity, control over one's work, etc... that need to be specifically addressed when trying to break down capitalist habits that developed out of the economic incentives for specialization.

Could you please elaborate on this?

[Cult of Reason]

I will posit to you that it is only so under two assumptions. (1) Only a handful of people can be surgeons, and (2) surgery skill is therefore scarce. If everybody the world over can do the job they want, if anything I suspect there will be a glut of surgeons and the scarcity would disappear. So the waste of this abundant resource, in the form of human capital, will be of little consequence.

Now as a transitional program you probably have a point, the solution would be to empower receptionists by making them managers, having them schedule the shifts of surgeons and that kind of thing.

If there is an abundance of people who can do surgery, I would think it more logical to have the best surgeons do surgery all the time (after all, lives are at stake) and have any reception work done by lesser surgeons (the junior doctors, perhaps?). That would result in a higher quality of surgery than having a simple sharing scheme, as well as being an incentive toget better at surgery so that you do nt have to do drudge work.

I would be a little wary of having surgeons managed by those who are not surgeons. For a start, the srugeons might well think, "What do they know?"

In general, I think the best/more responsible/higher prestige jobs should be done by those best qualified and the more boring ones done by the less qualified. This has two effects: it would increase quality of service through better allocation (which is something abundance does not address since abundance is about quantity, not quality (directly, at least)) and it would provide incentive for people to improve themselves. Of course, the drudgerous jobs should still be eliminated as quickly as possible.

[cyu]

If there was an abundance of people who could do surgery (perhaps because of a lot more emphasis on it in the education program), then I don't think it would be considered a "prestige" job anymore.

I would imagine a democratic economy would be one in which everyone votes on how many surgeons or janitors are needed. Sure surgeons may be given more respect in our current culture, but if your economy simply needs more janitors than surgeons, then I'm sorry, surgeons just aren't as important for that particular economy as janitors, at least according to the people voting on their economy.

So if the electorate has decided that they need more janitors than surgeons, then it follows that they believe the janitors' jobs are more important... which isn't to say the surgeons' jobs are absolutely useless, unless they were voting for 0 surgeons. It would just be a sign that having more surgeons would be useless.

In any case, as long as the electorate is in charge of the economy, then basically everyone's job is already considered necessary and wanted by the general population. The next question would be how to convince them to actually want to do those jobs, if simply knowing that they are important isn't enough for the janitors or surgeons.

More on that is at
http://www.revleft.com/vb/dealing-parasites-t105004/index.html
http://knol.google.com/k/j-y/equal-pay-for-unequal-work/gcybcajus7dp/6#

[Lynx]

So what do you make of Marx's supposedly "transitional" Manifesto demands for the "Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture" and for "Free education for all children in public schools [...] Combination of education with industrial production"?
I'm in favor of more trade schools, and of armies of skilled workers who are also critical thinkers.

Hmmm... OK, then the source of our disagreement is really about the objective of job sharing. What is the real point of full employment if everybody has shitty jobs? The goal of job sharing I think should be so that nobody has "good jobs" and nobody has "crappy jobs", even though the crappy stuff has to get done. Full employment is important, yes, but so is happiness on the job.

This gets to CYU's point as well. Yeah, sure, but where does coersion end and incentives begin? For example a hospital where surgeons are really respected and get to perform meaningful surgeries with high renumeration, versus a vanity cosmetic surgery place that lets people do surgery all the time but pays like shit. Is the former really any less coercive than our frequent charge that workers are "forced" to sell their labor?
It depends on how you view a carrot vs. stick approach. Incentive ~ carrot; coercive ~ stick. A shortage of labour for a particular job indicates the need for incentives, to attract more workers. Only as a last resort would you force someone to do necessary yet undesirable work. The Pareconist idea of a 'job' appears to be a compromise worthy of consideration.

[MarxSchmarx]

Whoa! Is this a "transitional" criticism of my 32-hour workweek material? ;)


nah I think the 32 hour work week is a start, just not the destination.



Precisely. So perhaps you should link the democratic, political program with the specialization problem and highlight that many of the issues not discussed in specialization are implicitely dealt with elsewhere, e.g., abolishing the political class.How does this sound?

The absence of any mention of grassroots mass assemblies is due to their incapability <INABILITY> to perform administrative functions on a regular basis. Also, this demand implies simplification of laws <SIMPLIFYING LAWS> and of the legal system as a whole, dispensing entirely with that oligarchic legal position of Judge and at least curtailing that legalese-creating and overly specialized position of Lawyer.
WEll but is it true that mass assemblies will replace law courts? I guess a jury is what you call demarchy by any other name, but there's an important distinction of legislation versus adjudication.

also edits mine.



Right my point was that you should make clear you're not just reshuffling work schedules, you're trying to break down the hierarchical nature of modern industry, where cooks are better than bussers and surgeons better than receptionists. Even under pay equality there are intangibles like creativity, control over one's work, etc... that need to be specifically addressed when trying to break down capitalist habits that developed out of the economic incentives for specialization.Could you please elaborate on this?I'll refer you to the stuff on "balanced job complexes" spelled out in the parecon literature. Those guys phrase it better than I probably could and it's the gist of what I'm trying however clumsily to say here.


If there is an abundance of people who can do surgery, I would think it more logical to have the best surgeons do surgery all the time (after all, lives are at stake) and have any reception work done by lesser surgeons (the junior doctors, perhaps?). That would result in a higher quality of surgery than having a simple sharing scheme, as well as being an incentive toget better at surgery so that you do nt have to do drudge work.I dunno, it's not always about what's best but rather what's adequate. Even for something as important as surgery, most surgeries can be done by people with professional training, they not need be masters and the improvement is so marginal, is it worth sacrificing the social objective of limiting the scope of the division of labor?

The adequacy/optimality distinction also gets to your point later on about the issue of allocation versus abundance.

Quantity, and not quality, seems to be the issue when there's scarcity. Of course it makes no sense to feed starving people poisonous food, but at the same time why fret over whether we are providing them enough caviar?

In food as well as the services that "desireable jobs" provide, adequacy not optimality strikes me as a very reasonable compromise in a post-capitalist order.


I would be a little wary of having surgeons managed by those who are not surgeons. For a start, the srugeons might well think, "What do they know?"And I'd posit that that attitude is borne of a bourgeois mentality implicit in the specialization of labor. It has a kernal of truth but is also a social construct. After all surgeons put up with the bullshit of insurance companies in America or Argentina (and the state insurance company in the rest of the developed world) telling them how to provide care.



So if the electorate has decided that they need more janitors than surgeons, then it follows that they believe the janitors' jobs are more important... which isn't to say the surgeons' jobs are absolutely useless, unless they were voting for 0 surgeons. It would just be a sign that having more surgeons would be useless.

In any case, as long as the electorate is in charge of the economy, then basically everyone's job is already considered necessary and wanted by the general population. The next question would be how to convince them to actually want to do those jobs, if simply knowing that they are important isn't enough for the janitors or surgeons.

QFT

[Die Neue Zeit]

WEll but is it true that mass assemblies will replace law courts? I guess a jury is what you call demarchy by any other name, but there's an important distinction of legislation versus adjudication.

Sorry - I quoted from my PCSSR work there.

Let me clarify: the judges would be replaced by sovereign commoner juries (preferrably selected by lot). The actual demand, remember, is:

All assemblies of the remaining representative democracy and all councils of an expanding participatory democracy shall become working bodies, not parliamentary talking shops, being legislative and executive-administrative at the same time and not checked and balanced by anything more professional than sovereign commoner juries.

I'm cynical about the "assemblies of an expanding participatory democracy" being soviets (based on factory committees). ;)

[MarxSchmarx]

Sorry - I quoted from my PCSSR work there.

Let me clarify: the judges would be replaced by sovereign commoner juries (preferrably selected by lot). The actual demand, remember, is:

All assemblies of the remaining representative democracy and all councils of an expanding participatory democracy shall become working bodies, not parliamentary talking shops, being legislative and executive-administrative at the same time and not checked and balanced by anything more professional than sovereign commoner juries.

I'm cynical about the "assemblies of an expanding participatory democracy" being soviets (based on factory committees). ;)

Yeah I was gonna say I did remember you saw a role for some review of the actions taken by popular assemblies.

Although we should continue this discussion about juries chosen by lot. There's a lot to be said for having a "fair" trial, and it's not clear to me a lottery system guarantees this. But this is beyond the scope of the present thread, food for thought.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, the bolded text wasn't there until I read a forwarded e-mail from one of Paul Cockshott's colleagues on demarchy, which further reinforced Cockshott's musings on lot-selected juries vs. elected judges ("Against Republicanism"). Only at that point did I understand the need for some checks and balances.