| |
Response and Reflection
Hafter, D. M. (2003).
The Cost of Inventiveness: Labor’s Struggle with
Management’s Machine, Technology and Culture, 44, pp. 102-13.
Hafter's "The Cost of Inventiveness: Labor’s Struggle with
Management’s Machine" illustrates the application of the social
construction of technology to studying the history of industry in
relation to the organization, management, its workers and its technology. Hafter first discusses
some of the most important technologies of our time and their influence
in industry, and discusses the focus of the discipline up to this point
in time. Hafter then states that "We need to shift our attention
to concentrate on the workers’ role in technology, and to
appreciate the tremendous power they had to make technological
solutions succeed, fail, or change."
The discussion continues and he mentions how "Marx ignored how much
individual skill remained as industry evolved from handicraft to
machine production." He emphasizes that more time needs to be
devoted to the study of worker behavior during the industrial
revolution. To illustrate his points, he discusses the
traditional apprentice and master approach for textile industry during
the industrial revolution, and brings to light the many contradictions
and from our traditional understanding and what actually occurred
during the industrial revolution in France and many other parts of the
industrialized world.
One very important aspect of his prose is the role of women in the
textile industry. Women were perceived in our history as
unskilled workers unable to contribute to production in an
economy aside from domestic work. However, a more thorough
examination of the history of the textile industry tells us that this
is not the case. Women were a critical part of the labor market
and were not able to officially join the trade as either an apprentice
or master. Eventually, women because cross-skilled because they
worked for different masters. This became such a threat that
women were not allowed, under law, to teach their husbands the skills.
IN essence, women were forced to protect business trade secrets
across guilds.
As pointed out by Hafter, these points are "important markers for
women’s history, showing that gender politics, rather than innate
capacity, labeled female workers unskilled." The Silk industry
was also heavily dependent on female workers that gathered mulberry
leaves to feed the silk worms, unwinded the silk from the cocoons, and
weaved the plain silk.
So how does this analysis contribute to our understanding of
technology, the nature of work, and industry over time? Hafter
puts it best: "Much of our knowledge about past industry comes from
official sources, describing legitimate business transactions. Based on
these sources the story of technology appears to be an account of
rational and progressive evolution. But from the ground it looks quite
different." It would appear that an examination of other sources
reveals that our generalization of industry and its development over
time may be tainted, or at minimum, lacking completeness. For a
complete understanding of history, we must examine both those
legitimate sources, and those that may not have been considered
legitimate.
|