Award Lecture: Axel Honneth – Democracy and the Division of Labor.



the title was already announced by Milan so I can immediately start taking some what it's very hot in Bay Rock even what are the new Germany to survey the contemporary world of work investment capitalist societies is to be confronted with a series of alarming tendencies on the one hand the heyday of permanent employment and the welfare state seems to have come to an end several decades ago the policies of deregulation that began to be implemented towards the start of the 1980 s led to the erosion of the security afforded by work contracts to the loosening of conditions of dismissal and to the creation of ever more informal precarious and poorly remunerate employment relations taking this phenomena as a whole people often often speak today of a dual ization of the labor market thus pointing to the division of employment relations into a protected category of highly qualified workers and a precarious category of poorly paid unqualified workers in the manufacturing and service sectors on the other hand the looming prospect of automation threatens to result in a great wave of layoffs that the increase in digitalized control processes would seem to imply the redundancy of a multiplicity of jobs based on registration supervision monitoring activities and so on it is to be sure as yet far from clear to what extent this loss of jobs will be compensated for by the creation of new branches in the automation and robotics industry but it seems clear enough that the coming transfer nation we lead to a massive increase in unemployment in light of both of these phenomena it is surely reasonable to speak of a growing crisis of labor in the capitalist countries of the West the most succinctly in cop solution of this development is simply that today more and more the work is more and more unable to sustain and assure the livelihoods of workers and their families given the significance of these developmental tendencies for our labels word it is more than a little surprising that the topics they throw up hardly get a hearing in political philosophy academics within these field carry on as though one might safely ignore this change is taking place in the world of work when investigating both the conditions and dangers to contemporary democracies to be sure all manner of conceivable explanations for crisis phenomena continued to be subjects of discussion the functional irrelevance of political parties deep Parliament ization the loss of national serenity the hollowing out of democratic institutions but the idea that the erosion of secure employment relations might play a causal role in this context goes practically unconsidered I am NOT it should be noted alluding to the by now well-attested phenomenon whereby in the face of growing migration social groups that fear the displacement from the labor market inclined to anti-immigration attitudes and thus come to prefer so-called right-wing populist parties with undemocratic tendencies rather and to draw attention to far more fundamental state of affairs namely that the quality of democratic participation and thereby the functioning of political decision-making depends essentially on the economic presupposition of a fair transparent a maximally inclusive division of labor within a society this is often a park connection between democracy and the division of labor which I would like to investigate in what follows my suspicion is that political philosophy betrays a tendency to neglect the significance of work and employment because it has almost totally lost sight of how democracies are rooted in the economic relations of a given society yet to support the thesis that the quality of democratic decision-making depends decisively on the nature of a society's division of labor I must first demonstrate its general significance for the integration of modern societies I will then be better placed to substantiate the thesis that the readiness of individuals to participate actively in political decision-making depends to a considerable degree on their being in a position to grab their role within a transparent cooperative system and thus to understand themselves as very noble members of a society that will be the first part having sketched the nature of the cause of dependency involved a few remarks will be in order regarding traditional concepts of the division of labor for as we shall see these proof limited and one-sided in a number of respects and so need to be corrected before we can begin to determine what might be the normative requirements on a division of labor more conducive to democratic societies second part finally on the basis of this improved conception of the division of labor I will develop certain normative perspectives that ought to be borne in mind if you want to strive for greater inclusiveness in the process of democratic decision-making that will be the last part so I start with the foundations where I want to lay out why the division of labor is of importance for democracies at all I mean one could ask what has the division of labor to do with the quality of democracy and I will try to say something about that allowing ourselves ourselves a certain oversimplification it's fair to say that there have in modernity being two contrasting conceptions of the sources from which modern societies draw their solidarity and cohesion to avoid unnecessary complications I shall designate these two traditions simply with the names of the authors we have defended the corresponding conception in a particularly representative fashion on the one hand we have the position advocated by Alex Alexis de Tocqueville and Hannah Ireland according to which it is political collaboration and cooperation amongst citizens which establishes the social bond because all adult persons in modern democracies are called upon to participate in political decision-making be it on a communal regional or national level Tocqueville and Ireland expect such ongoing communication to issue in the measure of normative assent required for social integration on the other hand we have the position XM XM player will be represented by marks and dirt on the core intubated is the division of labor which provides for the necessary cohesion amongst the members of modern societies even if Marx projects this integrative effect of cooperation into a future in digital society has achieved a communist economy he is nevertheless in basic agreement with gherkin on a crucial point only when members of a society cooperate in the labor process necessary for that society's reproduction can there be the normative Accord the required for social integration insofar as socially production can be achieved only collectively each member of society knows herself to be indepted in her work to other members which the result that all members see themselves United in the goal of increasing overall welfare both approaches share a range of businesses bitch for the most part stemmed from their reliance on a high degree of reception yet even makes a direct comparison of the two approaches it soon becomes clear that the second tradition that represented by Durkin and marks both enjoys greater persuasive power and has more general application I will first sketch the weaknesses and difficulties of the first approach Arendt and Tocqueville before outlining the avowed advantages of the second so I come to this tradition beat record and Arendt a talk where the tradition which believes that social cohesion or social integration in modern societies stems from political political color collaboration with in the civil field a first objection to the idea the Democratic communication between citizens can be the source of integration in modern societies goes back to Benjamin constant in his famous very famous text the liberty of the ancients compared to the said of the moderns constant put forward the view that expecting citizens to have to take an interest in the political core determination of the country was contrary to the modern understanding of freedom as individual freedom this adamant prepared the ground for the now widely shared notion that modern democracies are based on a reasonable parole ISM of the Ryan virtues and ethical convictions and that this precludes stipulating participation and democratic decision-making making as a requirement or even obligation whether one prefers to participate in political debates sporting events dancing religious ceremonies and whatever you have there is down to the ethical decision of the individual in the modern constitutional state there can be no obligation to a particular form of life and therefore also not an obligation to a political form of life like Aristotle wanted it to enough that we as citizens have a natural tendency to be politically engaged John Dewey gave this normative ideal of pluralism a psychological complement contending that since humans possess such the Ryan in turists and pursue such diverse projects it would be unrealistic to expect them to suddenly agree agree at some point as to the importance of the kradic activities viewed from this political psychological perspective it would be rather Cantera Kanta intuitive to hope or believe that the members of modern societies might find solidarity and cohesion in a common commitment to political engagement the assumption that participation in the mechanisms of democratic self-government could bring citizens together so as to create a common bond involves making a fatal abstraction from the sheer disparity of human interests and preferences however emphasizing each of these shortcomings of the toc'v in iron tradition its neglect of both the normative principle of pluralism and the empirical effect of pluralism of human interests by no means entails that we should treat the marks European tradition as somehow sacrosanct and error-free the letter has its own weaknesses and prescriptions which I will come to in due course but I first want to set out the respects in bit it is quite clearly superior to the alternative so I come to the other tradition the max what I call the max become tradition bitch believes that it is the division of labor which is the sauce for social integration in modern society I mean this is most clearly articulated by Emile Durkheim in his famous popular division to Traverso surely the greatest advantage of the second conception is undoubtedly the suggestion that the source of social integration should be located in a practice of form of activity that is not subject to the free discretion of or to negotiation between the individual members of a society because each adult individual or at least in formative times at least each the diet made at individual in a modern work based society is fast to support himself and his family through his own labor the way in which various forms of work are interwoven within the overall division of labour should guarantee that the members of a society acknowledge their mutual dependency and thus develop the feeling of common belonging however critically marx might have regarded the conditions of the division of labour in capitalist societies he subscribed through the center of premises of this view throughout his life only through participation in forms of social cooperation that is only through the experience of our working for one another can be acquired an understanding of ourselves as members of a social community yet prior to either marks for Durkin it was Hagar the German idealist who developed a further aspect of the thesis of the division of labour at the source of social integration an aspect that continues to inform our modern said understanding it is to the author of the photography of write that we owe the idea that active participation in the division of labor gives every citizen the opportunity to develop the feeling of being publicly recognized and thus the sense of their own self-worth certainly the idea that we need social recognition and respect if you are if we are to take our place in the public sphere without anxiety or shame has its roots in quite different philosophical traditions it owes a considerable debt not least to scottish moral philosophy which recognized the esteem of anne's fellow citizens as a presupposition of individual self-worth you find that in David Hume and in Edmund Smith he takes up this idea and connects social esteem to the supposition that one contributed to the division of labour in accordance with one's duty heavily influenced by Adam Smith here instead he'll insisted that only he that only he who is willing to fulfill the tasks assigned him within the division of labour in a dutiful dutiful and upright manner will enjoy the fruits of social recognition in particular a consciousness of his own self worth the idea has since become deeply angered in our culture which sees validation as individual in the public sphere as tied to the condition that one contributes through one's own labor to in the increasing the welfare of a society as a whole the third argument in favor of the Marx Durkheim tradition can best be understood at the negative compliment of the sigilian ceases to be sure he'll its own discussion of the rebel in German death verbal the underclasses shows him following up on the suspicion that involuntary unemployment can bring visit all the psychological dangers concomitant with counting as superfluous in one's own eyes he saw that this can then lead to social deprivation today we might instead speak of the dangers of social death but it was only later and that sociological studies turned these suspicions and speculations into an empirically plausible thesis PHP unerring in this regard brought the famous study of Mally entire by Murray Yehuda and her colleagues as it was the first to demonstrate the psychologically drastic consequences of long-term unemployment Maria Juana was by the way one of the very very few female members for a short time of the Institute for Social Research as you know the Institute for Social Research was a male Institute only men were operating there and they were not very active in recruiting women but Maria would have made it and she was pioneering in doing a period search on unemployment and the consequences of those affected by long-term unemployment suffered from a rebel detoriation of their sense of time and the increasing loss of the communal solidarity cultivated at the workplace but the most devastating experience was a sense of becoming superfluous of no use within society at large it is not difficult to see the findings of this and similar studies and since and we had thousands of empirical studies all reaffirming the results of malaya aura of this and similar studies as providing empirical support for Haggard's thesis may mean that we achieve a consciousness of our own self-worth in and through our socially recognized contribution to the division of labour if we take all three points together it seems reasonable to conclude that the marks per composition offers this superior solution to the problem of ascertaining the possible source of integration in modern societies it is not participation in democratic decision-making but the division of labor which has the greatest potential for generating a sense of cohesion amongst members of society and thereby for contributing to the integration of individuals who are otherwise neutrally indifferent to one another yet before I can turn to the shortcomings and weaknesses of this Marx Durkheim conception a further step is required even at this early stage I should at least indicate by the quality and intensity of Democratic Democratic participation should depend on the condition of the division of labor in a given society so far we have seen to some extent right might be plausible to expect social integration to be a function of incorporation within the division of labour but it remains completely unclear by this should then have positive effects and when it comes to the will and capacity of individuals to participate in the democratic process of deliberative purpose of decision-making for now a few words should suffice to clarify this connection at least in its broad outlines the connection I had in mind can be illustrated by means of a shared intuition happy any one of us will from the outset simply dismiss the content the content contention that nothing influences the will and capacity for democratic participation more than the social conditions that determines ones working life the slimmer the opportunities for having a say in the shade assumed by own ones or labour the lower one's primary income and the worse the reputation of the work in question the weaker the individual's faith in her own political efficacy what common sense anyhow suspected has since been confirmed by a variety of software logical studies the degree to which one believes oneself to oneself able to effect some kind of change or exercise some form of influence on prevailing political circumstances depends to a considerable extent upon man's position within the social division of labour given what we know it is not so much the size of one's income as the social condition of one's job employment security complexity and meaningfulness of work square scope for exercising influence in the workplace and so on and so on which determines the belief that once contribution carries weight in the democratic decision-making of course the strength of this belief is not only let alone automatically dependent on one's occupational position within the division of rail the political cultural climate of a society also has a considerable influence on how much political heft and individual suspects they might carry in his very interesting out of their graphic novel return to rhymes with two hours DTE every bomb gives a powerful it's a French intellect Ron probably already translated I don't know I mean so the novel is at Oregon's Didier Arriba gives a powerful description of how in the 1950 s and 60s even lowly unqualified workers in the French province were deeply convinced of their own political strength and power thanks to their representation by the then still powerful Communist Party this faith in their political efficacy first began to fade as everyone makes clear when the party gradually started to lose influence affecting its ability to function as a representative organ of proletarian experiences and concerns but only historical conditions in bicha is no strong labor movement as today to compensate for the weak sense of Sephiroth afflicting the industrial service sector proletariat the correlation I described above can come into effect and hindered summarizing a wealth of empirical data Carroll pavement American political theorist Cara pavement notes that the letter once say at the workplace and the less challenging the activities that define one's occupation the bigger the faith in Matt's own political efficacy for now I treat these various observations as sufficient support for the thesis that the intensity and quality of democratic participation depends to a considerable extent on how inclusively transparently and fairly the division of labor is organized is organized the more members of a society have the chance to pursue complex complex tasks and secure places of work where they can Co determine its character organization and goals the greater will be the degree of political participation in democratic processes i I think one reason for the praxis group to have such a strong interest in workers co-determination in the industrial sector had exactly that background idea I mean as you know the Praxis group was extremely interested in reshaping the Indus industrial firms and organizations by arguing for workers co-determination even even not only workers co-determination that firms owned by workers which then would have the chance to determine the conditions and goals of their own work and the background for this strong Ireland was exactly the same idea I just presented so the consequences of these ceases for political philosophy are much broader in scope than may at first be apparent for as soon as we acknowledge how democracies depend on a rightful and fair organization of Labor it becomes hard to justify the fairly standard decoupling of democratic theory from questions concerning the sociology of label indeed from socioeconomic questions quite generally the organization of labour in a society is not metal external to democratic practices rather it is an internal component of its functioning it was authors such as the American pragmatist John Dewey and the British Socialist G D H Cole who time and again pointed out how nonsensical it is for democratic theory to consider the citizen only in terms of his political but not of his economic law for he cannot simply discard his role when the economic process organized around the division of labour as soon as he comes to act as a political subject and this means that Amma cravaack theory has to regard him in terms of the interplay of both functions in interplay to be sure which is characterized by mighty pretensions before I can pursue the question of what this means for third division of labour I have first to turn to the difficulties of the Marx Durkheim tradition that I have already alluded to on more than one occasion once we have this clearly in view we will be in a position to take on the question of which normative perspectives need to be borne in mind when it comes to the organization of a division of labour that had the of involving a greater number of citizens in democratic decision-making so second point this is shortened or if he consider the concept of the division of labor as introduced by Adam Smith in developed in various directions by Marx and Durkin a host of shared deficiencies and shortcomings immediately come into view all three approaches suffer to differing degrees from first restricted conception of what has to count as socially necessary work from secondly the deterministic assumption that the dominant form of the division of labor at any given time will be conditioned solely by technological demands and thirdly from committing the mechanistic fallacy and so categorically excluding the possibility that specific fields of activity might have alternative compositions and types of occupations quite different boundaries as I say all three authors do not commit these errors at the same extent Marx for example was thoroughly convinced that the future would see much more fluid boundaries between different fields of activity although his thinking was just as reductionist as Smith or Durkin when it came to the question of which activities should count as labor within capitalist societies in what follows however I will abstract from these differences and simply elaborate a little on each of the three deficits listed above we will then be in a position to see why these unwise to continue to operate with the traditional concept of the division of labor so first mistake or deficiency as for the first question of how to define the very labor to be divided in modern societies all three authors seemed to share the certain conception at the half of this tense industrial physically arduous wage labour deployed in large or small scale operations that transform raw material into finished products with the aid of machine power to put the point differently Smith marks and Durkin all three were prisoners of a vocabulary in which labor is equivalent to physical effort is supposed to serve the manufacturing of material goods and is organized in the form of neutrally d-terminal contracts what is called a backstage label from the beginning this now she was far too one-sided and came at a high price because it tended to break it out at least the following kinds of socially necessary labor first and most important service work in all its organizational forms from compulsory and in tendered labor to debt bondage through the through to contractually regulated wage labor which taken together make up the greatest share of overall employment in the industrial countries of the West at the end of the 19th in the beginning of the 20th centuries I mean this is incredible because then you read Marx your thing or others Durkin to you'll see that the majority of work exactly at that time that is the second part of the 19th century the majority of all work is industrial labor and this is completely false I think it is almost 80% in Great Britain of Labor is service level and not industrial labour eighty percent which is incredible for those of you who know the famous I think it's it's either Netflix serious Downton Abbey I don't know you see I mean it is one household how many servants are working there yeah this is a small family I mean parents and three daughters as far as I remember and there are 10 servants working for them and you have to imagine this is not one single family this is all all over England so to relieve out servant work of that kind and that was not simply lately it was an other kind of organizational that the the organization of that work was differently was simply enormous lead reductionist yeah they concentrated on industrial labor and left out what was the majority of work they also left out all other cultural activities in the various forms it assumed both in the time of Smith math and dirt and and to some extent still today they excluded the residue of slave labor the merciless exploitation of bitch in large segments of Western Europe mainly as you know in the former colonial powers Great Britain also in France partly of Western Europe created the economic and material preconditions for capitalist industrialization the steadily increasing number of white-collar occupations in the financials at sector law firms and political organizations made necessary by the rapid growth of Trade and Industry and they left out finally of course what we now understand the scandalous variety of physical and psychological labors within the sphere of the household and family which were carried out for the most part by women and indirectly constituted a significant contribution to economic growth in light of this enormous emissions we face the general question of which activities within a society should be designated as labor in an economically relevant sense in the first place it makes little sense to count as labor any kind of activity or performance that pursues a socially useful goal doing so means including purely private activities pursued for their own sake with such a broad understanding of the concept of labor the difference between voluntary participation in a choir or chorus or performing a spot of Do It Yourself in your own house on the one hand and on the other side gainful employment in the Opera House called the choir or working professionally as a painter or decorator all that disappears a provisional route of these difficulties is a suggestion that we count as labor only those activities that are required for the material and cultural reproduction of a society at a given time and so contribute to their added value in a broad sense and it is clear then that the household worked by women is necessary work because without it the economy would be able to to be reproduced all activities and performances they do not facilitate directly or indirectly the reproduction of a society in Kalen state should does not be characterized as labor I believe out the difficulty and come to this second point the second deficiency the second deficiency contained in the traditional concept is it's more no causal view of the factors responsible for a given division of labor all three of the authors I mentioned simply take for granted that the differentiation between individual performances and their coupling with corresponding items of machinery is conditioned solely by the technological pressures of increasing economic efficiency thus both Smith and Marx were of the view that the transition from the agrarian world of the peasant smallholder to the industrial world of capitalism is to be understood as a progression from outer key to economic specialization but that this was far from being the case and that this transition was in fact much more complex and socially contested is the central thesis of michael fiore and child's Abel's famous study of the division of labor at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution this is a famous research called the second industrial divide and it is researching the situation of the division of labor at the beginning of the quick industrialization in England and in France according to their reserves at the beginning of the 19th century there were two viable alternatives formed a thickest future combination of humans killed with new technology namely on the one side the mass production of goods through the adoption of highly specialized skill sets in machinery and on the other side craft production of specialized articles through the use of general resources in Peoria sans a bird's view the fact that only the first alternative mass production was realized was not a result of technological necessities but exclusively of the distribution of power and wealth those who controlled the resources and written the return form investment chose from the available technologies the one most favorable to their interest accordingly one should not see the path to forests or Taylorism I mean the the standard industrial production form in the 20th century in the first part of 20th century so one should not see the path to Fordism the dominant form of capitalist production in the 20th century as something unavoidable as though it reflects some iron law of technological progress razza it was the active suppression of small-scale craft industries in the middle of the 20th year of the 19th century driven by power in the interests of profit which led some decades later to standard a standardized assembly manufacturing becoming the dominant model of production generalizing on the basis of this historic refining can say that the dominant form of the division of labour in a given society is not the necessary consequence of efficiency driven economic pressure since at almost any point in time there are comparable efficient possibilities for combining instrumental capacities and technical methods the decision as to which particular combination is preferable is mostly due to the outcomes of political economic conflicts this brings me to the third weak spot of the traditional concept of the division of labour named it's presupposition of an over overly mechanistic picture of individual fields of activity and occupations the complaint the traditional picture of occupation is two mechanistic refers to its notorious renal neglect of quite how variously one might draw the boundaries between poor individual tasks in both the industrial and in the service sector depending on the outcomes of political negotiations and conflicts either more of Heuer responsibilities and functions might be assigned to predict particular fields of activity a famous example of the indeterminacy is so associated with individuating different jobs and occupations is famously the hospital we are the activities or the universities by the way same thing there are many activities and responsibilities of one occupation of a nurse for example end and those of another occupation of a doctor say begin is always a matter of tough negotiations and political decisions that is the business of drawing boundaries between the two fields of activity nurse here and doctor there is not conditioned by any inherent necessity or constraint and it does always open for revision ultimately these boundaries have to be socially stipulated and this goes for almost all occupational fields not just that of the hospital they are practically always possibilities for reconfiguring the scope of a given occupational domain and its characteristics tasks for adding certain responsibilities and removing others are even for creating entirely new bundles of activities if the critique of determinism targets the false notion that the bay and distribution of an entire society modes of labor and production are compared by the apparent ease of economic rationalization the critique of mechanism takes aim at the misleading idea that individual occupational fields are divided up as they are because the nature of their respective constitutive task demands such a division I mean easy to see her for a long time in Germany it was taken as a component of the job of a secretary also to to prepare the coffee for the professor yeah it was taking as a constitutive part of her job and it was only by struggles on the scope of the job that this changed then in ten years now it is not longer part of the job of the secretary to prepare the coffee for the professor but the professor has to do it by himself and I think it's a very good change and a drastic change but it only tells you that it is not clear how to think of the limits of borders of a specific occupation this is always up for negotiation and the clears case is famously the hospital because there is a lot of sociological research how difficult it is to exactly delineate the borders of the job of a nurse reviewing this various shortcomings it seems it advisable to use a traditional conception of the division of labour as a framework proposing our guiding question which for might be both fair and conducive to democracy as we have seen they all suffered for much a much too narrow idea of Buddhist what should count as labor from additive deterministic account of why certain modes of production and forms of work dominate at different times and from excessive in mechanistic view of the Constitution of different fields of activity and occupation once we correct for these failures we attain an essentially more comprehensive an open-ended picture of a society's division of labor it is not only that we now have to include domains of activities that have thus far been largely excluded service labor household work I mean housework and so on and so on in addition all of these necessary performances also offer much more room for Minerva when it comes to their reconfiguration reorganization and recombination then was traditionally assumed even if this religious would require potentially complex in long term measures this should not be an obstacle to reflection on divisions of labor that are more conducive to to to democracy in what photos I would like to attend to outline a normative perspectives that could serve as guiding principle for just such a reorganisation of the division of labor this to repeat should not be anything like a normative idea but a second set of practical requirements the short or long term relays which would help to bring the world of work into alignment with the demands of democratic participation so the last chapter which is shown in the tradition of marxist thought which willingly or unwillingly we all inhabit there's a strong tendency to reflect on future transformations in the world of work using relatively utopian categories as though that future lies on the far side of a temporal chasm from the present it is not uncommon to hear talk of a possible future in which labor has set every aspect of alienation in rigidly experienced as fully meaningful in which indeed every worker can freely switch back and forth between different fields of activity as their abilities and desires dictate such ideas are certainly attracted yet viewed in the sober light of day they are quite uninformative as to bitch direction and improvement of our present capitalist division of labor ought to take the notion of overcoming entirely the elimination of labor is either too vague in its mega political premises or far too specific and so far as it continues to be oriented by the self-directed activity characteristic of craft production the seductive image of a rhythmical transition between contrasting occupations you'll remember the famous Marx quote and in the morning fish in the afternoon real rare cattle in the evening I mean this image not only Severus severely underestimates the amount of effort and knowledge acquisition required for vast range of specialized jobs but also betrays an astonishing tendency to ignore the ongoing persistence of menial arduous degrading work I mean work which was called by Michael Walzer the political philosophy simply dirty work I mean we have a lot of dirty work and we will not get rid of that dirty work in the next hundred years yeah so what to do with dirty work that's a very very important question so we if we put our question namely which changes are needed to bring workers to increased self-consciousness autonomy and believe in their own political efficacy to the Marxist tradition their answers may well act as Spurs to the imagination but not necessarily provide sources of illumination an alternative to the Marxist legacy is suggested by a major current theory of the normative conditions of a fair division of labor to be sure his own efforts in this respect are themselves marked by a series of idealizations and an occasional indulgence in wishful thinking yet overall he pays considerably more intention attention to the real difficulties and constraints that conditions the world of work than does Marx in my view a sensible way of proceeding if you want to follow in the footsteps of Durkins theory is to start from his diagnosis of anomic or platonic pathological forms of the division of labor and to extract some positive criteria that we can use as points of orientation so if I try to do this I come to three central points which could inspire our imagination of how to think about a reorganization of the division flavor Durham is convinced first that society should work towards rendering work more meaningful and cooperative in such a way that the Anila individual worker whatever her position has the chance to understand how her own role fits into the usually apart whole of interconnected activities that make up the overall division of labor if this can be achieved that is if each workers station thoughts her an overview of how her performances are internally connected with those of others she will acquire a stronger sense of the social value of her everyday activities Durham expects such measures to lead not only to a heightened collective consciousness of reciprocal interdependence but also to an increase in each worker sense of self worth learning that one's own activity represents a practically irreplaceable reel in the overall mechanism of the division of labor shot in standard cases increase one's pride in months own accomplishments of course different spheres of activity present different challenges to cultivating a consciousness of such interdependency the more certain jobs are at the lower paid end of today's service sector individualized anonymized and disparate such a various delivery and such as various delivery and cleaning services the more difficult it might be to even find approaches to investing such occupations with a meaningful role in their own war or division of labor but this only means that the propagation of such forms of work should be resisted by all means possible and not only because of the inner great pain precarious and enormous pressures that characterize them what is called today the service proletariat but also because the employees themselves barely had the opportunity to make use of their established right to effective but to effective participation in the democratic process yet in view of all the spheres of activity in which the very mode of occupation and the very nature of the work contract does not already undermine the claim to democratic participation it is my joy to raise the levels of institutional imagination so as to increase collective consciousness of the irreplaceable function of various tasks within the division of labour the argument the arsenal of possible methods here ranges from the symbolic illustration of race across the dependencies through the expansion of cooperative team-based work to the financial and social reevaluation of fields of activity whose indispensability to software production has previously enjoyed only limited visibility I mean the main struggles in at least Western capitalist societies with regard to this is today care well yeah the complete underpayment of care work which is increasing everyday and care work I mean for example work in hospitals with old people you know dying people is completely under pain daring that organized and not even visible to the public so the this is a real scandal scandalous fact of the way we are at the moment dividing the labor in society when it comes to exploring such possibilities there is much to be learned from the by now usually forgotten reform projects of both capitalist and former communist countries that aimed at civilizing the world of work a second theme that comes to the fore in your accounts diagnosis of anomic forms of the division of labor bears on the increasing thinning out and spiritual and intellectual impoverishment of evermore jobs as a result of growing specialization like Aaron Smith before him Dirk and fear that low-skilled ma non ma not one not Thomas word could lead in the long term to a loss of intellectual awareness a decrease in general curiosity in the world one inhabits and thus to political disengagement in the case of both right and blue-collar workers having to perform the same small-scale routinized tasks over weeks months and years invites the danger according to the account of losing the tools necessary for democratic participation the suggestion he puts forward for counteracting these tendencies boils down to enriching the function abundant of activities of individual workers by redrawing the boundaries between different occupations letting a clear understanding of the extent to which the classification and differentiation of various spheres of activity is a matter of political conflict and negotiation he recommends enriching those sets of tasks that exhibit apparently particular tendency to restrictiveness and one-sidedness of in the case of housework for example one might think of the example of keyboard scene and how the task in question could be undertaken in turn by different members of a housing cooperative and in the case of central but for the time being these necessary services one could imagine then being discharged by self-governing groups through teamwork the only reason by organizational imagination today operates within such narrow boundaries is that the work contract concluded by free between three legal subjects remains the governing model for all employment relations and this brings me to the third recommendation we find outlined in Durkheim that's last them in his diagnosis of enough anomic forms of the division of labor Durkheim's greatest concern is focused on the danger that contracts concluded between employer and employee might be influenced by pressure and coercion not unlike Marx he believed that employees often have nothing at their disposal besides their labor power and as a consequence a driven time and again by sheer existential necessity to agree to contract or conditions that they would never endorse in circumstances where they could freely exercise their own volition yet unlike Marx Durkheim supposes that this that this evil can be combated through political and legal means that are ultimately compatible with weaken preconditions of a market economy he sees fiscal policy as the primary means to break the superior negotiating power of the owners of capital occasionally even recommending the abolition of individual inheritance rights that was his main instrument and intercoms idea to make labor contracts more fear by getting rid of the individual inheritance rights which is a very risky topic but he was fighting for it within the Socialist Party in France at the beginning of the 20th century none of these countermeasures have lost their political relevance in the more than 120 years since the publication of de la de Pizan du travail associa indeed in light of the gradual dissolution of labor market boundaries business in recent times they are no less worthy of consideration then intercoms own de a frustrating aspect of his recommendations however is how they are directed exclusively at creating fairer conditions for concluding contracts between capitalist and worker he never so much as mentions the possibility that the allocation of work might be undertaking other they invited the mechanism of private contracts for one thing this exclusion of economic alternatives is historically questionable suggesting as it does that individual contracts exhausted the possible modes of organization as a labor in the late night 20 19th century yet I've already alluded to how such various mechanisms of allocation a stepped bondage concealed slavery independent craft production private domestic labor and finally freely enter the world contracts all existed besides one another in the capitalist society Durkheim inhabited even more significant however is that this oversight precludes I mean he makes the same mistake like Marx he thinks all workers are organized in forms of contracts so all workers wage labor this is wrong already in his and he project this in the future believes other than Marx that also the future all work has to do has to be organized in firm of labor contracts and I think that's a big mistake so even more significant dilemma that this oversight precludes Durkin dropped from reflecting on fairer democracy promoting forms of the division of labor beyond an amelioration of the contractual conditions of aged laborers he seems to take it for granted that there could be no other means of organizing labor that might serve the aim of strengthening democratic solidarity thus one searches Jerkins analysis in vain for any mention of the possibility that for example work could be organized through employee run self-governing collectivities that was the idea of the praxis group or through mandatory public service either for a specific age cohort or all adult members of a society both the present and the past furnish us with models for both alternatives to the labor market and give reason to expect that this would increase both the general willingness and capacity for democratic participation several studies and reports show that the inclusion of workers in the operational decision-making processes of industrial enterprises service organizations or state institutions involves an increase not only in worker satisfaction and self-confidence but also in the interest in the political processes of societies at large quite simply when one's own views are consulted in organizational decision-making one feels an obligation to be better informed about wider social developments this applies to considerably greater degree to participation and self regulatory operation be they cooperatively or state-owned a glance the literature on these kinds of enterprise quickly reveals that there is a strong increase in work satisfaction political self-consciousness and democratic engagement as soon as workers acquire collective responsibility for the faith of an organization the allocation of labor why a state dictate is of course a very different proposition as we know especially from the context of military service but if you think instead of for example the increasingly important area of elderly care of childcare we see how their effectiveness in 11n democracy lies less in how they equip people for political participation then in how they communicate knowledge about society's functional interconnections and the problems they face it is to be sure a real step a radical step one that is easy to criticize as a liberal for the state to obligate a specific age cohort or the entire adult population to perform some service for a specified time period for the supposed sake of the common god such compulsory measures can certainly not be justified by mere reference to gaps in the budget and the need for efficiency savings a democratically tolerable justification could however consists in adverting to how in light of growing diversification there is an ever-increasing need to familiarize the population with the everyday demands of social coexistence and the lived circumstances of different classes an additional moral element could be that certain and the jobs should be performed by all members of the population the so-called dirty work because perhaps for a set timeframe rather than there being and the permanent occupation of one and the same usually particularly disadvantaged group the first argument which I gave appears to a virtue of Democratic participation the second to an obligation of social justice I have not invoked either of these alternative to the capitalist mode of organization of socially necessary work in order to recommend them as magic balance that would somehow guarantee the fairer division of labor run friendlier to democracy neither productive self-regulation nor State co-op G K Bevan isolation on combination recruit or the labor necessary for the reproduction of society in its current state on the other hand one ought to avoid Durham's error and not simply lose sight of the fact that modern highly differentiated society can also offer other means of allocating labor then through the incentive system of the market state construction for a limited time frame collective self regulation of enterprises in private or public ownership producers calls all of these various forms of organization able which have ultimately been forgotten in recent decades present alternatives to common rage labor that merit serious consideration what is needed today therefore is a recovery of them suppressed of faith reform projects of the past so then it's a right mixture of institutional imagination political economic realism sociological judgment we can come up with you more dust forms of the division of labor the yardstick of all these investigations reflections and experimental tests must be reorganizing the distribution of socially necessary work in such a way that as many members of society as possible can develop the capacity and willingness to participate in the democratic process for today at least so much seems served so long as we changed nothing in the current form of the division of labor so long as we make our peace that the underpayment powerlessness and excessive burdens of so many fields of economic activity and so long has we failed to counter the intellectual and spiritual impoverishment of countless spheres of labour we will continue the process of precluding a good half of the population from the actual exercise of their right to democratic participation thank you [Applause]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *