I wrote:
> This "deskilling" _dehumanizes_ the weaver (the one who executes the > act of weaving) and empowers the expert (who also works for the > capitalist). (cf. Braverman's exposition of Marx.)
Doyle Saylor wrote:
This statement was a powerful; metaphor for me when I read it years ago. This is an important foundation for intellectual property rights as well. And indicates how all humans participate in the work of 'knowing'. I'd like to draw a distinction though. When we consider work this way, i.e. I know 'how' to weave and could do that myself, we see the work as if it is the person themselves. The capitalist takes advantage of the divisions of labor in social relations, and the main social relation connector is language connection. So Braverman's metaphor of de-skilling misses in my view the connector work that is necessary to know work. I can know work by figuring something out myself, but most work comes to me by seeing others and some talk used to connect things. This broadening gives one a better sense of the community, but how we know work through communicating.
relatedly, Braverman conflates the deskilling of jobs (an undeniable fact for old jobs under capitalism) with the deskilling of people. His book implies that the working class is becoming less skilled, when in fact it's the skill content of (preexisting) jobs that's being lost. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
