I doubt that division of labor has any effect on the cohesion of groups of workers. If a factory makes nothing but sprocket widgets for an SUV there is an assumption that somehow they are cut off from the satisfaction of making something worthwhile. How can one be happy about making a sprocket widget?
Your arguments are good but I would say the division of labor does not imply the break up of group cohesion. At this level - and I've been there - workers do things and get paid for it. The only consideration (and this is probably true at every level for the great majority of people) is how long and hard must I work, and how much do I get? "Social cohesion" is just as likely among makers of sprocket widgets as among (say) makers of fine furniture - indeed, it may be more likely.
The "meaningful work" so much desired by social workers is probably enjoyed by most workers when they get home from their real work. Which enjoyment may consist of painting a picture, carving driftwood, or erecting a ship in a bottle.
Harry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed wrote:
Ray, I guess this was directed at me. I don't disagree that there is such a thing as group learning. I've seen it in many situations, including sports. Time and again, wealthy team owners have tried to win championships by buying up the very best players. It's worked at times, but mostly it hasn't. Very often, it's teams with good but still rather mediocre talent that go the distance, provided that the team as a whole has developed some form of what appears an almost unconscious understanding of what everybody is doing. We have a hockey team like that here in Ottawa. Until very recently it was the top team in the NHL. Why? Not because the players are that good. It seems to be the coach's special ability to get everybody playing together and in accord. I'm sure the same is true in music. I sing in a choir, or pretend to. Ever so much depends on the director. Some have it, others simply don't.
I believe we lost something as we progressed(?) from hunting/gathering and primitive agricultural societies to societies based on specialization and division of labour, and from small group societies to large group societies. What we lost is an inability to predict and totally trust each other's responses and reactions to given events. This would have been vital to small groups of people trying to survive on the Arctic tundra, in the jungles or in the deserts, and even to people working together as serfs or peasants or medieval craftsmen. It's not nearly as important to people who work in large industrial complexes or office buildings because how they must behave and what they must do is completely codified in things like position descriptions and job classifications. However, it's not entirely lost. My wife has worked with the same small group of people for the past twenty or so years. Within the next couple of years, half that group will retire, something that she is looking forward to with complete dread. Why? Because each member of that small group in intimately aware of the others' habits and needs, and able to fill in for the others, make whatever adjustments are needed for the others, etc. The new people she will have to work with for about six years will probably take take some time to acquire that level of trust and intimacy, if they ever do.
Ed
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003
