original site: http://www.spc.uchicago.edu/ssr1/PRELIMS/Strat/stadd.html#JAMESON
from Society of Social Research
Althusser, Louis.''Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.'' In Lenin and Philosophy. London: NLB, 1971. Pp. 121-72.

Anthias, Floya. ''Constructing 'Race' and Ethnic Phenomena.'' Sociology 26:3 (1992): 421-438.

Becker, Gary. Human Capital, 2nd Edition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1975.

Bertaux, Daniel, and Isabelle Bertaux-Wiame. ''Artisanal Bakers in France: How it lives and why it survives.'' in The Petit Bourgeoisie, Ed Frank Bechhofer and Brian Elliot. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981.

Blaug, Mark. ''The Empirical Status of Human Capital Theory: A Slightly Jaundiced Survey.'' Journal of Economic Literature 14: (1977): 829-55.

Bosk, Charles. Forgive and Remember. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Boweles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books, 1976. Chapters 1-5.

Cohen, G.A. ''Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978. Chapter 3 - ''The Economic Structure.''

Hamilton, Gary, G., and Nicole Woolsey Biggart. ''Market, Culture, and Authority: A Comparative Analysis of Management and Organization in the Far East.'' American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): 552-594.

Hartmann, Heidi. ''The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union,'' pp 1-42 in Women and Revolution, ed Lydia Sargent. Boston: South End Press, 1981.

Hochschild, Arlie. The Managed Heart: The Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Chapters 1-3, 6.

Jameson, Fredric. ''Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.'' New Left Review 146 (1984): 52-92. (Also in Post-modernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991.).

''Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses''

The ultimate condition of production is the reproduction of the conditions of production, brought about through 1.) the reproduction of the productive forces, and 2.) the reproduction of the existing relations of production.

1.) The reproduction of productive forces is essentially the reproduction of labor power. This is ensured by giving labor power the material means with which to reproduce itself: by wages. The quantity of value (wages) necessary for the reproduction of labor power is determined not by the needs of a 'biological' guaranteed minimum wage alone, but also by the needs of a historical minimum. This is not defined by the historical needs of the working class 'recognized' by the capitalist class, but by the historical needs imposed by the proletarian class struggle. In addition, the reproduction of labor power requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order. The school teaches this 'know-how' and ensures the subjection to the ruling ideology. It is in the forms of ideological subjection that provision is made for the reproduction of the skills of labor power.

2.) The reproduction of the relations of production is carried out through Ideological State Apparatuses. Althusser reaches this conclusion through a long critique of Marx's theory of the state, which follows.

Marx divided society into an economic base and a superstructure (consisting of a politico-legal level and an ideological level). The relationship between the two is characterized as the 'determination in the last instance' by the economic base. Marx argues that there is a 'relative autonomy' of the superstructure with respect to the base, and there is a 'reciprocal action' of the base and superstructure. The problem with this formulation for understanding reproduction is that it is largely descriptive rather than theoretical. This can be seen in Marx's discussion of the state.

Marx believed that the state was a 'machine' of repression, which enabled the ruling classes to ensure their domination over the working class, thus enabling the former to subject the latter to the process of surplus-value extortion. This repressive element of the state is what Althusser calls the State Apparatus and consists of the government, the administration, the army, the police, the courts, the prisons, etc. In addition to this, the state also consists of Ideological State Apparatuses which are a number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions, such as religion, education, the family, media, culture, etc.

What is the difference between the State Apparatus (SA) and the Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA)? First, there is only one SA, but a plurality of ISAs. Secondly, the SA belongs to the public domain and the ISA to the private. And most importantly, the SA functions by violence, whereas the ISA functions by ideology. The ISAs are often the site of class struggle because the class in power cannot lay down the law in the ISAs as easily as it can in the SA, not only because the former ruling classes are able to retain strong positions there for a long time, but also because the resistance of the exploited classes is able to find means and occasions to express itself there, either by the utilization of their contradictions, or by conquering combat positions in them in struggle.

Back to the question of the reproduction of the relations of production.... The reproduction of the relations of production is secured by the legal-political and ideological superstructure. It is secured by the exercise of state power in the SA and the ISAs. The role of the repressive SA consists essentially in securing by force the political conditions of the reproduction of relations of production which are in the last resort relations of exploitation. The SA also secures by repression the political conditions for the action of the ISAs. The ISAs largely secure the reproduction specifically of the relations of production, behind a 'shield' provided by the repressive SA. The ISA which has been installed in the dominant position in mature capitalist social formations as a result of a violent political and ideological class struggle against the old dominant ISA (the Church) is the educational ideological apparatus. The mechanisms which reproduce the exploitative relations of production are concealed by a universally reigning ideology of the school.

Two more theses regarding ideology:
1.) Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.
2.) Ideology has a material existence.

How has Althusser changed the concept of 'ideology'? The term ideas has disappeared. The terms subject, consciousness, belief, actions have survived. The terms practices, rituals, ideological apparatuses have appeared.

There is no practice except by and in an ideology. There is no ideology except by the subject and for subjects. The category of the subject is only constit> 

Transfer interrupted!

ideology has the function of 'constituting' concrete individuals as subjects. Ideology interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects.

''Connecting Race and Ethnic Phenomena''

Ethnicity and racism are different but connected discourses for articulating collectivity and belongingness and serve diverse political projects including those of class and nation building. Race categories belong to the more encompassing category of ethnic collectivity. They are mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion based on common origin and destiny. Racism cannot be located exclusively within constructs of race. They use the ethnic category more generally as their essential building block. The fight against racism cannot focus primarily on culturalist concerns because racisms are ideologies and practices which produce political and economic subordination.

The Concept of Ethnos:
Ethos is the Greek work for 'nation.' It is the social construction of an origin as a basis for community and collectivity (Anthias draws on Anderson's Imagined Communities). The notion of where and how the boundary is constructed is diverse, contextual, and relational. It involves processes of relabelling and redesignation. The boundary is a space for struggle and negotiation. Dominant groups exercise cultural hegemony and naturalize their notions of 'community' with their control of the means of communication and cultural production.

Although ethnic boundaries are ideological, they have material origins and effects. Ethnic process are centrally linked to other social divisions such as class and gender and are often implicated in the pursuit of diverse political ends.

Characteristics of ethnic phenomenon:
1.) relational: there is an attribution of difference from the 'other' and identification from within>br> 2.) political: this may be defensive or offensive, exclusionary or usurpatory; its character is given by the context
3.) exclusionary: ethnos specifies boundaries which involve mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion of individuals

The Concept of Ethnicity:
Ethnicity is more than individual identification or collective sentiment, it is the partaking of the social conditions of a group, which is positioned in a particular way, in terms of the social allocation of resources. Ethnicity cross-cuts gender and class divisions but at the same time involves the positing of a similarity and a difference that seeks to transcend these divisions. Ethnicity may be a basis for the pursuit of political projects which may militate against those of class.

The difference between ethnic and nationalist discourse is that national identities involve the postulate of a necessary political or territorial separation. Nationalist projects often articulate the interests of oppressed classes and it is difficult to see them as emanating from an ethnic essence . The flaw of the concept of 'institutional racism' is that racist practices can exist without these being imputed to the racist intentionality of structures.

Race and Racism:
The literature on racism tends to tie it to the postulate of 'race,' restrict it to ideology or color, or define it as attitudes or practices exercised by white people over black people. Anthias criticizes these positions and defines racism as a set of postulates, images, and practices which serve to differentiate and dominate (definition based on work by Cohen). It is the ability to impose world views as hegemonic and is the basis for a denial or rights or equality. Race categorization divides populations in terms of stock or the collective heredity of traits. Racialization is a process by which groups become socially constructed as races. It is important to connect the concepts of race and ethnicity. Racism occurs when race or ethnic categorization is accompanied by discourses and practices of inferiorization and subordination. Racism converts culture into a static and reified expression of the collective or national identity.

from Human Capital (Chapter 2 - 'On-the-job Training')

Human Capital: deals with activities that influence future monetary and psychic income by increasing the resources in people (obviously not news to us, but I just thought it had to be said).

One way that workers increase their productivity is by learning new skills and improving on old ones while on the job. However, future productivity (like everything in economics) can only be improved at a cost.

In the most general of conditions, a profit-maximizing (are there any other kinds for economists?) reaches equilibrium when marginal products for a given time period (MPt) equals wages for that same period (Wt). Or:

MPt = Wt

Training represents a link between present and future receipts and expenditures. In a more complex system, where training is given only during the initial period, a state of equilibrium would be reached where:

(initial MP) + (future receipts in excess of outlays) =
(initial and future wages) + (initial and future outlays on training) +
(opportunity cost of training)

Most on-the-job training presumably increases the future marginal productivity of workers in the firms providing it (and consequently a higher rate of profit for the firm, I would suppose).

General training: increases the future marginal productivity of a worker in the firm but also in many other firms.

As far as economics goes, the big question is why a rational competitive labor market provide general training if it doesn't bring any (or at least not much) return? Answer: firms wouldn't provide general training unless they didn't have to pay any of the costs. The trainee , therefore, bears the cost of general training and the profit from the return. Employees pay for generalized training by receiving wages below their current (opportunity) productivity during the period of training. The depreciation of human capital takes the form of diminishing rates of economic return (earnings) with increasing age of the trained worker. Untrained workers, on the other hand, display a 'flat' curve.

Firms have an incentive to shift training cost to workers to avoid loosing human capital invested in a worker who moves to another firm. Conversely, the property right of the workers in their skills is the source of their incentive to invest in training and accept a temporarily reduced wage in anticipation of greater future returns.

Specific training: training that increases productivity more in the firms which provide it - having no effect on productivity or little use in other firms. Examples would be very narrow on-the-job training or firm expenditures to acquire knowledge about employee talents (provided this knowledge is not shared with other firms). Unlike general training, the cost of specific training is shouldered by rational firms, which are able to secure a rate of return on the increased productivity of its employees in excess of the training costs. In light of the threat of turnover and consequent loss of invested human capital, two general remedies are available to the firm: it may attempt to extract a sufficiently large return from increased productivity to counterbalance loss through turnover; or it may seek to stem the tide of trained workers leaving the firm by offering higher wages (than they could get elsewhere) as an incentive to stay put. In addition, there is also an incentive for a firm to avoid laying off highly (esp. specifically) trained employees - an action that would also represent a lost investment. Long-term contracts, for example, are an important tool used by employers to insure large-scale investments in human capital.

Schooling can be defined as an institution specializing in the production of training - in fact, schooling represents perhaps the most general form of training in modern society. The implications and equlibria surrounding schooling closely parallel the dynamics of general (on-the-job) training outlined above.

Investments made in information about employment opportunities would, likewise, have the same implications as generalized training and schooling (when paid for by workers) and specialized training (where the firms bear the cost and collect the returns).

''Artisinal Bakery in France: How it Lives and Why it Survives'' 1981

B&B begin by noting that Franc is unique among industrialized countries b/c it still retains a large sector of small, pre-capitalist production. This sector accounts for roughly 20% of France's population. B&B portray French bread as not just bread, but as a mode of production. French bread is a product of small, local bakeries which tend to be very small operations, usually family owned and operated. B&B claim that local bakeries have had a long, arduous struggle for existence in modern France against the large agro-industrial companies and their 'capitalist bread.'

How have bakeries been able to survive when other artisinal shops and their goods have long since lost out to capitalism? B&B argue that they survive for several reasons, the most important reason being the sheer determination of the bakers themselves, who endure unspeakably long hours with little economic reward. But it also goes beyond the daily toil. B&B describe a historical process in which bakers changed the way the French thought of bread in order to assure greater sales volume and instill a daily need for fresh-baked bread. B&B also describe the recruitment and training of the bakers.

Today, bakers are not born into baking families as they once were. Today's bakers are self-made men who are trained in the large commercial bread factories. They choose to leave jobs which are much easier in comparison to have their own shop, which only adds to their determination to survive. Another reason is the way in which the bakery is organized. The bakery , and the bread which it produces, centers around a married couple. Indeed, without marriage, B&B imply that there would be no more bakeries! The husband serves as baker, while the wife functions as shop-keeper and business manager. Many bakers are able to open their own shop only when they marry. The able, trustworthy, hard working wife is essential to the artisinal bakery. Also a factor in bakery survival is the French attitude towards bread and 'their' local baker. B&B assert that the French are able assert their independence under a capitalist regime by choosing a local baker, and that one's relations with one'sr is extremely personal. Indeed, one of the largest resources of a bakery is the goodwill and loyalty of its customers.

But now that bakeries have survived, what is their future? It does not look good. B&B claim that they do not wish to be functionalist, but, alas, they are. Bakers accept little economic reward for their labors. Fewer young men are willing to accept this as part of their occupation. Also, bakers have automated most of their process to reduce the need for manual labor. This in turn reduces the need for apprentices. Thus there are fewer apprentices and bakers in training, so the pool of potential bakers is drying up. So, essentially, the bakeries will die out b/c there will not be enough replacement bakers in the future.

This outcome disappoints B&B who argue that the by making bread, the bakers make politics. The bakers do this by embodying the values of hard work and pre-capitalist modes of production in their product. When they purchase artisinal bread, French people also buy into the symbolic value of the product, supporting the bakers and denying capitalism. Bread means more than just bread. The bakers have been successful in holding their market share against huge, capitalist corporate giants, and thus preserving an old way of life and work. When the bakeries are gone, capitalism essentially advances another step.

The last part of the article is spent in defense of B&B's research techniques and the validity and generalizability of their findings. Their data consists of 40 open, free-flowing interviews with bakers, and most of their wives. There was no survey or any statistical analysis, which would have been impractical given the data set.

Criticism: While qualitative research is not empirically undesirable, something about this study seems a little cheesy. There is no discernible method as to how respondents were picked. There is no general interview form which was carried throughout the work. Its methodology is too haphazard

''The Empirical Status of Human Capital Theory: A Slightly Jaundiced Survey''

Blaug does a review of work done in the Human Capital research program, which concludes that 1) human capital researchers have often failed to test their own hypotheses properly and 2) the results they have produced are often weak, or equally well justified by the theoretical explanations of other research programs. However, he thinks HC hasn't done too badly.

Some highlights:
The design of many studies fails to differentiate between on-the-job training which is responsible for workers' increasing earnings and their decision to take a job of lower initial pay (that is, workers rationally choose, taking the long view, to take jobs with lower starting salaries, where they will forgoe present earnings while undergoing training which will increase future earnings) and on-the-job training workers just pick up in a learn-by-doing way, which nevertheless also increases their future earnings? For instance, I did not rationally choose, taking the long view, to work for Charles so that I could learn SAS, a marketable skill. I learned SAS as an unintended consequence of making a different kind of decision; however, I still have a marketable skill, which could increase my earnings (this remains to be seen...).

If it's education that makes such a big difference, why do we still find such strong effects of 'native ability' (which is linked to family background, and father's education), and what the hell is native ability anyway? (the whole iq/achievement motivation/cultural capital controversy). Human capital theory fails to address in a serious way the DEMAND by employers for certain types of employees -- it assumes it, and assumes variations in earnings are due to decisions of employees. An earnings function is a reduced function, that is, it includes effects of both supply and demand.

If it's 'human capital' accumulated in years of schooling that's important, why do we find such strong credential effect (that is, the return of 16 years of schooling (ie, a BA) is not equal to the return of 15 years of school plus the average return of one more year -- there's an effect of having a degree).

What about the fact that returns to schooling are not uniform across the market (this goes back to that demand question)? And what about the fact that quality of schooling may affect returns -- if we just measure years of schooling, we miss these effects.

Blaug sees the 'screening hypothesis,' as he calls it, as a serious threat and/or complement to human capital theory.

Self-regulating labor markets may or may not work smoothly, in the sense of keeping the demand for educated manpower continuously in line with its supply, but they will not work at all unless employers prefer more to less educated workers, ceteris paribus. The human capital research program does not provide an explanation for why employers should have this preference (it could be because of actual school-taught skills, or it could be habits and dispositions picked up in schooling).

Whatever the reason for this postulated preference on the part of employers, the fact remains that all of these desirable attributes cannot be known with certainty at the time of hiring. The employer is therefore faced with a selection problem: given the difficulties of accurately predicting the future performance of job applicants, s/he is tempted to treat educational qualifications as a screening device to distinguish new workers in terms of ability, achievement orientation, trainability, etc.

If this is the case, the observed correlation b/t earnings and length of schooling that human capital folks get so excited about is actually a correlation between schooling and the attributes that characterize trainability. The contribution of education to economic growth, therefore, is simply that of providing a selection device for employers. This leads us to the screening hypothesis, or theory of credentialism.

Credentialism predicts: Educational expansion is unlikely to have much impact on earnings differentials (that is, as more people get more education, their pay won't go up), because an increased flow of college graduates will simply promote upgrading of hiring standards. College graduates will be worse off in absolute terms, but so will high school graduates, and hence earnings differentials by education will remain more or less the same.

However, there is nothing in this argument that is incompatible with human capital theory. The question at issue is whether upgrading can be carried on indefinitely, implying that college graduates are perfect substitutes for high school graduates, and high school graduations for drop outs, and therefore that the educational system is merely an arbitrary sorting mechanism. In this version, the demand for schooling is the same as in human capital theory: screening by employers in terms of educational credentials creates an incentive on the part of employees to get what maximizes the probability of being selected, namely, an educational credential, and this signaling incentive is in fact conveyed by the private rate of return to educational investment.

If college graduates are not perfect substitutes for high school graduates, and so on down the line, it may well be that the true 'social' rate of return to educational investment is positive. In that case, credentialism amounts to a charge that HC is measuring the wrong thing: the social rate of return to educational investment is a rate of return to a particular occupational selection mechanism, and not the yield on resources invested in improving the quality of the labor force. If the difference b/t HC and cred. is discovering whether schools produce or merely identify those attributes that employers value, then the empirical evidence for distinguishing between the two would be what goes on in classrooms.

However, most of the work in the screening hypothesis mode has simply contented itself with supplying different causal explanations for facts discovered by the HC research program. Nonetheless, Blaug thinks HC theory will fade, to be swallowed up by the new theory of signaling, a theory generally about how buyers and sellers select each other when their attributes matter but when information on these attributes is subject to uncertainty.

''Forgive and Remember''

This is a study of how surgeons detect, categorize, and sanction error. It is a field study conducted in an elite medical institution (our beloved U of C). Bosk studied two different surgical services, one that highly emphasized research and the other that emphasized clinical practice. The hierarchy of each service consisted on 2 attendings on top who were ultimately responsible for patient care, a chief or senior resident who was responsible for the day-to-day management of the patients, second and third year residents who followed the senior residents' orders, an intern who organized the students, a senior medical student and two or three junior medical students who did the routine 'scut' work.

Methodology: While this was primarily an ethnographic study, Bosk supplemented his field notes with written evaluations of housestaff (subordinates) by attendings, faculty meetings where attendings decided to retain or terminate junior housestaff, and interviews with attendings and housestaff.

Themes of Interest:
1.) How a professional group draws a boundary around itself and determines its own identity through the selection and rejection or recruits.
2.) How superordinates attempt to control performance and how subordinates accept or avoid such controls.
3.) How a professional copes with the existential problem of the limits of his skill and knowledge.

Why Study These Things?
Bosk wanted to refine the Durkheimian insight that each occupational group possesses its own morality. The occupational morality of surgeons tells us much about how members of a profession interpret, act on, and defend their prerogative of social control.

Theoretical Foundations:
Social Control can be broken down into the following categories:
1.) internal = how an individual or group regulates itself on its own initiative
a.) informal = everyday ways that members of a group remind each other of their responsibilities
b.) formal = institutional review; formal accountability (e.g. brown bags)
2.) external = the coercive means at a community's disposal to discipline individuals
a.) informal = random checks by superiors (e.g. the principal who drops in on a classroom)
b.) formal = the official audit; regular, ongoing review of performance

Other studies of social control in medicine and the professions are flawed because they take what an error is for granted. They ignore the phenomenological nature of error as a category of social life and the probabilistic nature of medical decision making.

Four Definitions of Failure:
The types of errors made by surgeons can be classified as follows:

1.) Technical Errors = the surgeon performs his role conscientiously but his skills fall short of what the task requires. These types of errors must be speedily notices, reported, and treated and the mistakes must not be made frequently by the same person. As long as these two conditions are met, attending view technical errors as a normal part of training. They expect housestaff to learn from their mistakes. Supervision and the division of labor are expected to keep these errors at a minimum.

2.) Judgmental Errors = an incorrect strategy of treatment is chosen. These mistakes are more often made by attendings than housestaff because housestaff are not usually given such responsibility. These mistakes occur when attendings try to perform overly heroic surgery or when they fail to operate when the situation demands.

3.) Normative errors = the surgeon has failed to discharge his role obligations conscientiously. These are almost exclusively subordinate errors. The housestaff's conduct violates the working understanding on which action rests. These are breaches of etiquette governing role relations. The most common of these errors are:
a.) breaking the 'no surprises' rule;
b.) the inability to get along with nursing staff; and
c.) the inability to secure cooperation of patients and families.
Normative performance is judged severely because it is seen as an indicator of honesty and responsibility.

4.) Quasi-normative Errors = eccentric and attending-specific breaches of standards of performance. These errors indicate that a surgeon is not a responsible member of a team. Other errors occur due to exogenous factors. These reasons for failure do not implicate the competence of the surgeon in any direct way. The most common of these factors are:
a.) failure from disease
b.) patient procrastination or noncooperation
c.) nursing and support staff error
d.) machine malfunction

Routine Surveillance as Social Control:
Rounds are the major mode of social control and also the least public. There are three kinds of rounds:
1.) Work Rounds: this is the method for organizing work, allocating effort, and checking progress. It is carried out by the subordinates alone. Denying responsibility or knowledge for affairs on rounds shows disinterest in clinical care. Work rounds are a method for subordinates to protect themselves as a corporate group.
2.) Chart Rounds: a review of the patient medical records. This is used mainly to monitor the performance of students.
3.) Attending Rounds: a way for attendings to see patients and check the work of subordinates. The zone of autonomy that surrounds subordinates is 'elastic,' that is, the monitoring of the attendings covaries with the performance of the housestaff.

Three Important Dimensions of Rounds:
1.) Tension between clinical experience and scientific reasoning: attendings stress clinical expertise. It is a claim of authority. The attending constructs the binding interpretation of reality.
2.) The questioning process: an attempt to establish to what order subordinate performance belongs. Subordinates must know the facts of the case (the 'what' questions) and the mode of treatment (the 'why' questions).
3.) The horror story: these are an element of the oral culture of medicine that reminds all that healing is a difficult business and must be done with care. It helps mitigate the tensions of surgical training.

The Legitimation of Attending Authority:
Attendings transform the private troubles that housestaff create for them into public issues in the Grand rounds and Mortality/Morbidity Conferences. Through these, attendings justify their claims to authority by public displays of virtuosity to the entire collegium of subordinates and superordinates. These are very carefully staged presentations of the self. Attendings must account for discrepancies between expectations and outcomes. Unexpected successes are accounted for in Grand Rounds. These assure peer recognition of work and are essentially an ego boost. Attendings also model for subordinates the proper way to behave as part of the medical elite. Unexpected failures are accounted for in the Mortality/Morbidity Conferences. These are the only occasions for public and open criticism of attendings' work. The reasons for failure that are presented are all formal and technical (no normative errors are admitted). Attendings publicly abase themselves (wear the 'hair shirt') before an audience of colleagues and subordinates to show that they have learned a lesson and to show that there is total integrity and complete disclosure of shortcomings, rather than cover-up. Each year more interns are accepted than there are places for senior residents. Attendings evaluate the performance of subordinates in written recommendations. They then discuss the cases in a promotion meeting. The cases are sorted within a value-added logic, that is, the result of each sort narrows the range of possible outcomes for the next sort. Admission into senior ranks provisionally admits one into a colleague network.

Conclusion: Forgiveness and punishment are the poles of a continuum on which responses to deviant acts can be arrayed. Both are necessary if a group is to sustain a distinct identity and boundaries. Corporate vs. Individual Self Control: Bosk distinguishes between professional-self control and professional self-control. Professional-self control is the individual professional's ability to handle responsibility. Professional self-control is the corporate responsibility of the profession to regulate its own internal affairs. In the professions there is a hypertrophy of professional-self control and an atrophy of professional self-control. Adequate controls in the profession exist only to the degree that a corporate moral sense is cultivated equal to the individual moral sense.

Schooling in Capitalist America
[or ''Capitalism... bad'']


B&G engage in a lengthy analysis of the education system in modern capitalist society (ie the US), faulting liberal educational theory for its failure to recognize the position of the educational system with respect to broader social institutions, namely the economy. They believe that the future of educational theory must be tied in with a 'comprehensive intellectual reconstruction of the role of education in economic life,' which in their work takes the form of Marxist analysis.

What school does is prepare youth psychologically for work, a function which they believe employers are not unaware, nor have they refrained from applying considerable political influence in order to have the educational system produce the kinds of workers they want. B&G root their model on classic tenets of Marxism that would make little sense to repeat here. They believe that education plays a dual role in the social production of surplus value:
1) it increases the productive capacity of workers, and
2) helps defuse and depoliticize the potentially explosive class relations of the production process - thus serving to perpetuate the social, political, and economic conditions through which a portion of the product of labor is expropriated in the form of profits.

Several major implications follow from this model of education:
1) prevailing degrees of economic inequality and types of personal development are defined primarily by the market, property, and power relationships which define the capitalist system;
2) the educational system serves to perpetuate the social relationships from which develop an overall degree of inequality and repressive personal development;
3) there is a close (formal) correspondence between the social relationships which govern personal interactions in the work place and the educational system;
4) although the school system has sometimes served the dominant class interests of profit and political stability, it is an unwieldy and often unpredictable weapon/tool prone to the influence of contradictory external forces;
5) the organization of education evolves and takes on distinct and characteristic forms in response to political and economic struggles associated with the process of capital accumulation, extension of the wage-labor system, and transition from an entrepreneurial to a corporate economy.

B&G believe that past attempts at educational reform have failed because they refuse to call into question the basic structure of property and power in economic life. B&G believe that the key to reform is the democratization of economic relationships: social ownership - thus educational reform is linked to the grand scheme of Marxist solutions, namely -socialism. Despite the fact that education has often been used as a central instrument of liberal reformers, the range of effective educational policy (in the US) has been severely limited by the role of schooling in the production of an adequate labor force in a hierarchically controlled and class-structured production system.

In the eyes of most liberal reformers, education has three functions:
1) integrative: helps integrate youth into various occupational, political, familial, etc adult roles;
2) egalitarian: gives each individual a chance to compete openly for privilege and status; and
3) developmental: promotes the psychic and moral development of the individual.

B&G outline what they believe to be the two dominant traditions of liberal educational theory:
1)The Dewey School: believe that the 3 functions of education are not only compatible, but also mutually supportive; education can promote the natural movement of industrial society toward more fulfilling work, hence bringing its integrative and developmental functions increasingly into a harmonious union.
2) Technocratic-Meritocratic: argues only for compatibility of functions of education; this view is based on a conception of the economy as a technical system where work performance is based on technical competence; inequality of income, power, and status are, consequently, seen as a reflection of the unequal distribution of mental, physical, and other skills

B&G believe that the politics of education are best understood in terms of the need for social control in an unequal and rapidly changing economic order - by providing a means to integrate 'uncouth and dangerous' elements (among others) into the social fabric of American life. Thus education serves to preserve and extent the capitalist order - which consistently provides disproportional advantage to the dominant class.

B&G cite the existence of a dramatic inequality in years of schooling among those of different social backgrounds - the higher the SES, the higher the level of educational attainment (race and sex are also seen as important variables here). B&G also cite evidence suggesting that the differences observed are not based on IQ. The theme of social control pervades educational thought and policy even up to the present and still remains an overriding objective. The power of schooling has traditionally often been invoked to reinforce the moral training of the family or to compensate for a lack of family nurture. B&G note two significant trends that have occurred with respect to the concept of discipline: 1) the once highly personalized authority of the teacher has become part of the bureaucratic structure of modern society; and 2) discipline no longer aims at just (forced) compliance but more on 'behavioral modification' - internalization of behavioral norms.

In examining school grading, B&G find that (issues of IQ aside) a variety of personality variables were significantly and positively related to grades (eg. Citizenship and Drive to Achieve). People high on these two measures also tend to display low levels of creativity and mental flexibility - traits which are directly penalized with respect to grades.

The authors believe that the oppressiveness of the educational system cannot be attributed merely to oversight, indifference, or stupidity. Rather, the 'business methods' in schools meant that administrators were recruited from the ranks of politicians and businessmen rather than professional educators, so that their orientation was toward cost-savings and control rather than the quality of education. Thus the educational system came to even more strongly reflect the hierarchy of authority and privilege in the capitalist system.

In wrapping up this section, B&G state that the failure of progressive educational reforms stems from the contradictory nature of the objectives of its integrative, egalitarian, and developmental functions in a society whose economic life is governed by the institutions of corporate capitalism.

CHAPTER 3: The Root of the Problem: The Capitalist Economy

B&G state that 'the economy produces people' and view the production of commodities as more of a secondary concern. Their critique of the capitalist economy (a Marxian one) furthers their analysis of education insofar as schooling is a crucial people-producing process. One important observation that they stress is the diametrically opposed natures of the (US) political and economic systems:

The Political System is democratic; and its central problems are:
1) insuring maximal participation of the majority in decision-making,
2) protecting minorities against the prejudices of the majority; and
3) protecting the majority against any undue influences on the part of an unrepresentative minority.

The Economic System, on the other hand, is totalitarian, and its main concerns are:
1) insuring the minimal participation in decision-making by the majority (the workers),
2) protecting a single minority (capitalists and managers) against the wills of a majority, and,br> 3) subjecting the majority to the maximal influences of the single unrepresentative minority.

In the interest of not beating a dead horse, suffice it to say that B&G adopt a very straight (orthodox?) Marxist position regarding capitalism: alienation, reserve army of labor, ideologies, state serving the interest of the economic elite - the whole nine yards. As far as education goes, they suggest that major aspects of the structure of schooling can be understood in terms of the systemic needs for producing reserve armies of skilled labor, legitimating, the technocratic-meritocratic perspective, reinforcing the fragmentation of groups of workers into stratified status groups, and accustoming youth to the social relationships of dominance and subordinacy in the economic system. (trans: the student body is the proletariat in training).

Private ownership of the means of production and a market in labor are the most distinctive (and mutually reinforcing) characteristics of the capitalist economy. Owners of the means of production gain tremendous power in situations where there is a large abundance of workers with only their labor to sell and absence of alternative sources of livelihood (like the US). A necessary step in determining how education can prepare people for working in the capitalist economy involves characterizing the social relations of work. B&G make several observations:
1) over + of businesses in the US were small individual proprietorships
2) there are a large number of entrepreneurial enterprises, owned by one or two small capitalists who are often from the same family and employ a number of hired workers
3) there is a large and growing corporate sector - a sector that dominates the American economy and is dominated by a small number of economic giants
4) a sizable state sector showing a rapid rate of growth
5) the important sphere of domestic or household production that comprises about half of all economically active adults.

Since the combined corporate and state sectors employ about 2/3 of all paid workers and are growing at a much faster rate than the labor force as a whole, the contemporary trend in employment points toward increasing dominance of bureaucratically ordered workplaces. Workplaces where regulations are promulgated by management and decision-making and accountability are organized according to the hierarchical division of labor.

B&G outline the history of economic development: from share-cropping and the putting-out system, to the rise of entrepreneurial capital in the early 19th cent., emergence of the factory system and increasing dominance of large-scale manufacture, and the corporate consolidation from 1890-1920. Each step was characterized by increasing intervention into and control over the actual production process by the capitalist (of her/his representatives). Linking the economy to education, B&G suggest that the birth of the factory system fueled the 19C common-school movement which molded mass primary education, while the rise of the corporate economy fostered the 20C Progressive Movement which lent modern secondary education its characteristic stamp.

Although the overall development of the capitalist economy points toward a dual tendency of horizontal extension of the wage labor system and production for profit, and an increasingly sophisticated deepening of hierarchical mechanisms of control, this process was neither complete nor uniform. This unevenness took shape as rapid growth in the corporate and state sectors and stagnation in the spheres if independent, entrepreneurial, and household production led to an unequally distributed ownership of capital and the associated inequalities in both political power and access to economically relevant information. Superiority of resources accumulated in large enterprises afforded superior market power, more complex organization and planning, use of capital-heavy technology, and a stronghold in government that allowed the big firms to drive out small-scale opposition.

Parallel to (and partially a result of) this uneven development of the corporate sector is the uneven development of the capitalist work force. Groups with distinctive social class, racial, ethnic, and sexual characteristics have been historically drawn into the US labor force in successive 'waves.' For instance consecutive waves on new ethnic immigration provided a series of new recruits to fill the lowest occupational slots in the labor hierarchy. This uneven development leads naturally to the segmentation of workers into distinct groups based on their unique historical experiences in the process of integration into the capitalist economy, based on the relative power they have attained in various sectors, on their relative social, racial, ethnic, and sexual cohesiveness, as well as on their differential treatment by employers. The primary segment: predominantly located in the corporate and state sectors; jobs characterized by high wages and job security (possibly through union influence); bureaucratic order and hierarchical division of labor is the rule; education and credentials are important. The secondary segment: low wages, great employment instability and turnover, little unionization; job ladders are few and short; educational credentials are not important for job entry, nor is rate of pay usually based on skill and training.

What about Class? Class is a group of individuals who relate to the production process in similar ways - property relations and relations of control are key. Classes are important because in US society people do not relate to each other as individuals alone, but also as groups. It is important to remember, however, that classes are not homogenous but rather display significant within-class stratification.

Aside from material satisfaction, functions of work include: economic security of the worker, social relationships among workers and most importantly development of the human potentialities of the worker as a social being, a creator, and a master of nature (this is very early-Marx). B&G content that the segmentation and differentiation of the labor force causes different individuals to have different experiences in production, such that they develop distinct cultures, life styles, interest, and ideologies. Social stratification and fragmentation of the working class are, therefore, intimately related to the experience of individuals in production. The authors offer evidence of this strong effect of work on all aspects of life: occupational status and job satisfaction are related to physical and mental health, as well as longevity; work experience is closely tied to type and amount of leisure activity.

And being the good Marxists that B&G are, this section wouldn't be complete without bring up the prevalence of the alienation of labor - not surprising in a socio-economic system where 'most people view their jobs as, at best, a painful necessity.'

Work, Power, and Technology
Again following Marx's lead, B&G believe that alienated labor is not the necessary consequence of modern technology. Why not?
1) even within the confines of existing technologies work could be organized so as to be more productive and more satisfying to workers;
2) technology itself is not the result of a socially unbiased advance of knowledge, but rather reflects the monopolization of control over technical information by the captains of industry;
3) alienated labor is not a technical but an essentially social phenomenon, since labor is not a commodity but a living, active agent.

B&G also address other 'fallacies' about the advances of the modern economy:

Bad Capitalists say... Good Bowles and Gintis say...
BC: The Industrial Revolution's victory of the factory system over traditional work forms demonstrates the efficiency of the hierarchical division of labor in the context of advanced technology
B&G: Success of the factory system was due to tapping cheap labor supplies, extending the work day, and forcing an increase and the pace of work

BD: Fragmentation and routinization of jobs lends, in itself, to increased productivity despite its deleterious effect on worker satisfaction
B&G: The increase in the number of steps in the production process in the context of the modern factory effectively adds spaces between separate tasks adds does not out weigh the benefits supposedly to be had from coordination of steop, increased dexterity and speed, or mechanization of the process.

No other known form of work organization is more productive than the hierarchical division of labor. (I'm not sure what the authors' point here was aside from the fact that the bad capitalists had to be wrong)

In fact, the factory system emerged as the dominant form of production because it was an effective form of economic and social control. The factory system: 1) prevents the individual workers from gaining enough knowledge about the process to go into business for themselves, and 2) provides legitimation for the employer as the coordinator of the production process. The factory system did win out on technical grounds in the end, but only because: capitalist producers had the large amounts of financial resources necessary to make use of the new technology; only large firms with political clout could assure inventors of patent protection for innovations; and inventors allied with capitalist partners or went into business for themselves.

Employers have 3 objectives to keep in mind when pursuing profit and the perpetuation of their class status:
1) technical efficiency: work should be organized to maximize output for the given set of inputs
2) control: decision making power should be retained at the top of the hierarchy; fragmentation of workers at a variety of subordinate levels prevents a solidary workers' interest from forming and challenging their superiors - basically a 'divide and rule' strategy
3) legitimacy: authority relationships must be organized in such a way as to appear just, or at least inevitable; these relations cannot, therefore, violate the norms of the wider society.

The right of the superior to direct must be based on generally held cultural values - often sexual or racial stereotypes, or credentialing. All in all, the hierarchical division of labor maximizes the control of management, increases the accountability of workers by fragmenting jobs and responsibility, and thwarts development of stable coalitions among workers.

Structure of Economic Inequality
B&G support the assertion that the roots of inequality in the US are to be found in the class structure and the system of sexual and racial power relationships. The school system is then but one of several institutions which serve to perpetuate this structure of privilege. Education, while reflecting the structure in privilege in society at large, is relatively powerless to correct the underlying institutionalized economic inequality. Since WWII the level of wealth inequality has remained unchanged. Further, arguments that universalistic criteria for hiring should select for the most qualified applicant regardless of sex, race, etc. seem unconvincing in light of the negligible (modest at best) strides women and racial minorities have made toward economic parity. The segmentation of the labor force, in fact, weakens the power of labor as a whole and acts as an immediate case of much of ht inequality between men and women/whites and blacks/urban- and rural-born/etc. - basically the primary economic sphere is advantaged at the expense of the secondary.

To further promote a picture of an institutional basis of inequality, B&G suggest that an over-emphasis on wage/salary disparity obscures the importance of other aspects of income such as rent, interest, dividends, profits, capital gains, and other benefits of owning property which account for over half of the inequality.

B&G feel that among the most important attributes that serve as occupational 'entrance requirements' in the US are traits acquired at birth and traits acquired through personal development. Given the over-riding concern for profitability (and for the owner perpetuation of class status) in the capitalist economy, several worker characteristics are likely to be used by employers:
1) cognitive capacities and concrete technical and operational skills;
2) personal traits that enable the individual to operate effectively in a work role;
3) modes of self-presentation, which may be valuable to the employers in their efforts to stabilize and legitimize the organization's structure of power as a whole;
4) ascriptive characteristics; and
5) credentials - which the employer may also use to promote legitimacy.

In general, B&G feel that the individual employer, acting singly, normally accepts social values and belief and will violate them only in the interest of long-term financial benefits. The broader prejudices of society are used as a resource by employers in their efforts to control labor. In this way, the pursuit of profits and security of class position reinforces racist, sexist, and credentialist forms of status consciousness. Empirical findings suggest several characteristic of the relation between education (also training) and occupational advantage. Education and training work most effectively in improving economic situation for those who are already economically advantaged - ie. have high status in the economic hierarchy. Next, among 'workers' return to schooling is virtually the same for men and women, whites and blacks. Further, the economic return to schooling depends on class of origin as well as present class status. Finally, an increase in earnings with advancing age is positively related to: being white and/or male; higher levels of education; relative high hierarchical occupational location. Empirical findings also suggest that age significantly affects income independently of job tenure.

CHAPTER 4: Education, Inequality, and the Meritocracy

Continuing the analysis of the previous chapter, B&G here introduce the 'legitimation hypothesis,' which suggests that a major element in the integrative function of education is the legitimation of preexisting economic disparities. The educational system legitimated economic inequality by providing an open, objective, and ostensibly meritocratic mechanism for assigning individuals to unequal economic positions. It fosters and reinforces the belief that economic success depends essentially on the possession of technical and cognitive skills - skills which it is organized to provide in an efficient, equitable, and unbiased manner on the basis of the meritocratic principle. In US economic life, legitimation has been intimately bound up with the technocratic-meritocratic ideology, the hallmark of which is the reduction of a complex web of social relationships in production to a few rules of technological efficiency. The robustness of this meritocratic ideology derives largely from its incorporation into an array of major social institutions - including factories, government, and schools.

 The linking of technical skills to economic success indirectly via the educational system strengthens, rather than weakens, the legitimation process:
1) the day-to-day contact of parents and children with the competitive, cognitively-oriented school environment buttresses the technological perspective on economic organizations;
2) the status allocation mechanism acquired heightens legitimacy by rendering educational attainment dependent not just on ability, but also on motivation, drive to achieve, perseverance, and sacrifice; and
3) frequent failures gradually bring a student's aspirations into line with his/her probable career opportunities.

So, through competition, success, and defeat in the classroom, students are reconciled to their social positions. B&G make the point that according to the meritocratic ideal, with the objective of social efficiency, admissions on the basis of test scores and other measures of performance should be justified by the fact that 'smart' people benefit more from college - in terms of increasing cognitive capacities, earnings abilities, and productivity. Evidence, however, points to quite a different reality - return to higher education is independent of prior test scores. The authors wish to stress that the meritocratic orientation of higher education, rather than serving economic rationality, is actually a facade that facilitates the stratification of the labor force.

Education, Income, and Cognitive Attainment:
The traditional technocratic-meritocratic perspective suggests that education increased people's income by increasing an individual's cognitive abilities - which in turn translates into higher productivity and greater income. B&G find that only a minor portion of the substantial statistical association between schooling and economic success can be accounted for by the school's role in producing or screening cognitive sills. They propose a model where 'years of schooling' acts as important mediating variable.<

Education, in effect mitigates indirect effects between: 1) socioeconomic background and adult income/occupational status, and 2) childhood IQ and adult IQ. B&G's argument is that the mental-skill demands of work are sufficiently limited, the skills produced by our educational system sufficiently varied, and the possibilities for acquiring additional skills on the job sufficiently great so that skill differences among individuals who are acceptable for a given job on the basis of their criteria (including race, sex, personality, and credentials) are of little economic importance. Ie. skills are not as important as you think they are, and selection for hiring may well be made in the end on the basis of some other criteria.

Next the dynamic duo turn their attention to dispelling the rumor that intelligence is important in economic success. Their line of though follows much the same line as the previous section. B&G present empirical evidence to support their contention that the emphasis on IQ as the basis for economic success serves to legitimate an authoritarian, hierarchical, stratified, and unequal economic system, and to reconcile individuals to their objective position within this system. After reviewing the various positions surrounding the IQ debate and presenting some (IMOH) dubiously manipulated empirical findings, B&G conclude that the fact that economic success tends to run in the family arises almost completely independently from any inheritance of IQ, whether it be genetic or environmental. Further, a family's position in the class structure is reproduced primarily by mechanisms operating independently of the inheritance, production, and certification for intellectual skills. Long and short: IQ is not an important criterion for economic success

CHAPTER 5: Education and Personal Development

In this chapter B&G ''suggest that major aspects of educational organization replicate the relationships of dominance and subordinancy in the economic sphere. The correspondence between the social relation of school and work accounts for the ability of the educational system to produce an amenable and fragmented labor force. The experience of schooling and not merely the content of formal learning is central to this process.'' If this sounds familiar, it probably should since B&G pretty much make about one or two points over and over and over and over again over the course of the reading.

Reproducing Consciousness

The reproduction of the social relations of depends on the reproduction of consciousness, the key concern being how it is that people come to accept their present economic and social conditions. B&G believe that the economic system (ie. social relations of production) will be embraced when:
1) The perceived needs of individuals are congruent with the types of satisfaction the economic system can objectively provide - it a harmony between the needs which the social system generates and the means at its disposal for satisfying them.
2) There generally exists in the consciousness of community members the view that fundamental social change is not feasible, unoperational, and utopian. This may come about as a 'divide and conquer' strategy on the part of dominant classes to promote social distinctions that cause a fragmentation of the conditions of life and the consciousness of the subordinate classes. To this latter aspect, B&G link the phenomenon of alienated labor.

Through a variety of institutional relationships, the educational system tailors the self-concepts, aspirations, and social class identifications of individuals to the requirements of the social division of labor. The two main objectives of the dominant classes in educational policy are the production of labor power and the reproduction of those institutions and social relationships which facilitate the translation of labor power into profits.

Educational institutions are structured to meet these objectives in several ways:
1) schooling produces many of the technical and cognitive skills required for adequate job performance
2) the educational system helps legitimate economic inequality- ie. the meritocratic ideal
3) school produces, rewards, and labels personal characteristics relevant to the staffing of positions in the hierarchy 4) the educational system (through the pattern of status distinctions it fosters) reinforces the stratified consciousness on which the fragmentation of subordinate economic classes is bases.

All major institutions (including education) in a 'stable' social system will direct personal development in a direction compatible with its reproduction. The forms of consciousness and behavior fostered by the educational system, therefore, must themselves be alienate, in the sense that they conform neither to the dictates of technology in the struggle with nature, nor to the inherent developmental capacities of the individual, but rather to the needs of the capitalist class.

The Correspondence Principle
The educational system integrates youth into the economic system through a structural correspondence between its social relations and the relations of production. The structure of social relations in education habituates students to the discipline of the workplace, as well as developing types of personal demeanor, modes of self-presentation, self-image, and social class identifications - all of which are crucial to job adequacy. More specifically, the educational structure's vertical authority lines and relations between administrator:teacher, teacher:student, student:student, and student:work replicate the hierarchical division of labor in the economic sector. Alienated labor is also the result in the schooling system. Different levels of education, further, feed workers into different levels within the occupational structure and, correspondingly, tend toward an internal organization comparable to levels in the hierarchical division of labor.

The differences in the social relationships among and within schools, in part, reflects both the social background of the student body and their likely future economic positions. For example working class (and minority) parents seem to favor stricter educational methods, as a reflection of their own work experiences which have demonstrated that submission to authority is an essential ingredient in one's ability to get and hold a steady job.

A study by Binstock isolated several organizational traits consistently related to various educational institutions: behavior control (strict rules and external compliance) v. motivational control (unspecified, variable, flexible task orientation - internalized norms) leader v. follower orientation In re-examining the results of studies by Meyer and Edwards, B&G stress the importance of 'personality factors' (eg. submission to authority, temperament, and internalized control) along with standard meritocratic measures of cognitive performance (eg. the SAT) in predicting educational achievement (grade-point average). Submission to authority, in particular proved to be a relatively strong predictor of grades. Internalized control showed considerably less and temperament showed no predictive utility for grades.

B&G also cite the work of Brenner, who identifies a significant correlation between grades and all measures of supervisor evaluation. After reanalyzing the data and performing various statistical manipulations (ie. controls), B&G find that grades no power to predict either worker conduct or worker productivity. This leads to two conclusions: 1) grades predict job adequacy only through their noncognitive component, and 2) teachers' evaluations of behavior in the classroom are strikingly similar to supervisors' ratings of behavior on the job.

Family Structure and Job Structure
Issue of education aside, family background also accounts for a significant portion of the association between schooling and economic attainment. For instance about 1/3 of the correlation between education and income is due to the common associations of both variables with socioeconomic backgrounds (even holding IQ constant). That is, people whose parents have higher-status economic positions tend to achieve more income themselves independent of their education, but they also receive more education.

The experiences of parents on the job tend to be reflected in the social relations of family life - the family socialization through which children tend to acquire orientations toward work, aspirations, and self concepts, preparing them for similar economic positions themselves. In addition, the family helps to reproduce the sexual division of labor: 1) wives and mothers normally embrace their self-concepts as houseworkers, passing these onto their children through the differential sex role-typing of boys and girls within the family, and 2) children tend to develop self-concepts bases on the sexual divisions which they observe around them. The male-dominated family with its characteristically age-graded patterns of privilege and power, replicates many of the aspects of the hierarchy of production the firm.

Kohn suggests that individuals holding higher- and lower-status jobs value different personality traits and aspects of the job, on the basis of the variable degree of occupational self-direction (including freedom from close supervision, degree of initiative and independent judgment, and complexity and variety of a job) among workers. B&G - never ones to leave well enough alone - see it differently. They thing the Kohn's 'self-direction' is the same as their 'internalized norms.' Even high status workers (who should exercise a considerable degree of 'self-direction') are probably super-socialized so as to internalize authority and act without direct and continuous supervision to implement goals and objectives relatively alienated from their own personal needs.

Returning to the well, yet again, B&G use Kohn's findings - that higher-status parents emphasize their children's self-direction, while working class parents stress conformity to external authority - to support their thesis that correspondence between the relations of economic production and the social relations of various institutions is indicative of a process whereby individuals are prepared to take their appropriate place in the unequal hierarchical division of labor, which they nevertheless come to view as legitimate. You know what they say, 'You can lead a dead horse to water but ...

As a final note on B&G. They are very anxious to portray a view of economic and educational processes that jives with the particular (Marxist) programme they are seeking to promote. While the development of a Marxist perspective on education is certainly something valuable, i.m.h.o. B&G tend to overstate their points and present 'reanalyzed' empirical findings that seem to be quite selectively chosen. And as I mentioned earlier, it seems to me that some of their manipulations of data are not quite kosher, but I'm not sure I can exactly put my finger on all of it since I had a hard time at points trying to figure out just what they were trying to do with their data. For example, it looked like at one point they were trying to show that IQ didn't have an effect on grades by taking the top decile (or something like that) in grades and controlling for IQ in this group. They said there was no significant independent effect of intelligence - duh! Maybe it's just me, but it would seem like there shouldn't be a whole lot of variation in intelligence among just those with top grades (or any within any other similarly narrow category). Also, in the portions of the readings where they deal with correspondence between the relations of production and those of other social institutions, B&G basically stick to a pretty straight correspondence argument. They don't go very far in outlining a causal argument to help explain the correspondence effect - I think that would have make their positions more convincing.

''The Economic Structure'', from Karl Marx's Theory of History

1. Ownership rights in productive forces.

The economic structure of a society is the whole set of its production relations. Production relations are relations of effective power over persons and productive forces, not relations of legal ownership. But is it is convenient to represent production relations as relations of ownership. Want to explore some the features of the concept of ownership? Do let's.

There is a difference between partly owning something, and owning part of it.
1. I can wholly own all of my couch.
2. I can partly own all of my couch (that is, Jen and I buy it together).
3. I can wholly own part of my couch (that is I have title to one half and Jen has title to the other); and, of course,
4. I can partly own part of my couch (I have a half interest on one half of the couch, Chris has the other half interest on that half of the couch, and Jen owns the other half),

The last three conditions of my couch ownership are difficult to discriminate between in practice. Since we're Marxists, let's extend this discussion to labor power, where it is more interesting. Let's also collapse our categories so that they look like this: 1=X owns all of o; 2,3 or 4=X owns some of o; if none of conditions 1-4 hold, then X owns none of o.

Then, let's assume everyone in the world is male, and make a table of immediate producers like this one:


This Guy Owns ... of His Labor Power ... of The Means ofProduction

Slave . . . . . . . . None, zippo, . . . . . . . . zilch nada
Serf . . . . . . . . . . Some . . . . . . . . . . . Some
Proletarian . . . . . . . All . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nada
Independent Producer . . All . . . . . . . . . . . . . .All
Grad Student. . . . . . .??? . . . . . . . . . . . . . ???
Homemaker . . . . . . . ??? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ???

Table 1 leaves out five combos of ownership of one's labor power and the means of production, so let's make...

TABLE 2 Type . . . Labor Power . . . .MOP

1 . . . . . . . nada . . . . . . all
2 . . . . . . . some . . . . . . .all
3 . . . . . . . none . . . . . . .some
4. . . . . . . some . . . . . . . none
5. . . . . . . all . . . . . . . . . some

1. doesn't make any sense, because if X is the sole owner of all the MOP he uses, he is entitled to use them without the direction or interference of another person. But, 1. also states that X has no authority over the disposition of his own labor power. Given that this guy owns no labor power, he cannot own all of his means of production.

2. also is impossible, because you can't have unrestricted enjoyment of means of production if your labor power is even partly owned by another.

3. is a case where a slave retains some rights to his MOP; for instance, he may be able to sell or lease them.

4. is a possible transition between a serf and a proletarian, covering serfs who have lost their land (MOP) yet retained some of their traditional duties.

5. is the case of a proletarian who owns some of the MOP, or an independent artisan or peasant who does not own all of them.

Now, Table 1 purports to distinguish between slaves, serfs and prols within the category of subordinate producers. But, while the slave and serf cells are sufficient to be a sub prod, a person can still own his labor power and none of the MOP and NOT be a subordinate producer: for instance top-salaried architects. What is a subordinate producer then?

Subordinates have superiors who enjoy the rights they don't have. Let's note three facts about our subordinate producers in Table 1: i) They all produce for others who do not produce for them. ii) Within the production process they are commonly subject to the authority of the superior, who is not subject to their authority. iii) In so far as their livelihood depends on their relations with their superiors, they tend to be poorer than the latter. Each non-producer typically receives more of the fruits of production than does the producer. Considering Ed Laumann's criticism that Marxism doesn't recognize the contribution of the entrepreneur, Cohen would have this to say: Yes, the capitalist assumes risks in exchange for the profits he enjoys when they do not materialize; this, however, does not reduce subordination, but tends to consolidate it. Just because there's some reciprocity, that means there may be some justice in the subordination, but there is not a lack of subordination.

The proletarian's subordination ensues because, lacking the MOP, he can ensure his survival only by contracting with a capitalist whose bargaining position enables him to impose terms which effect the worker's subordination.

Even if a worker owns some of the MOP, he can't be an independent producers unless they are means of production he can use outside of subordination to a capitalist to produce enough to live. Lack of means of production is not so essential to the definition of a prol as is the fact that he has to sell his labor power in order to obtain his means of life.

This is the proper way to set up the definition of a proletarian, because it defines the class with reference to the position of its members in the economic structure, their effective rights and duties within it. A person's class is established by nothing other than his objective place in the network of ownership relations, however difficult it may be to identify such places neatly.

There are as many types of economic structure are there are kinds of relations of immediate producers to productive forces. Social forms (eg, socialism, capitalism, slavery) are distinguished and unified by their types of economic structure, as individuated by the production relations dominant within them.

A mode of production is a way of producing. There are three senses, the material mode, the social mode, and the mixed mode

i) the material mode. This is the way men work with their productive forces, the kinds of material processes they set in train, the forms of specialization and division of labor among them. There is a change in the economic MOP when enclosed fields replace strip farming, when power looms succeed handlooms, etc. Here mode means nearly the same as 'technique.'

ii) The social mode. The social properties of the production process have three dimensions:
1) productions' purpose: for use, or for exchange (barter) or for exchange-value, or for maximum exchange value
2. the form of the producer's surplus labor. This is the way surplus labor manifests itself in the society in question. Under capitalism, it manifests itself as a quantity of exchange value: surplus labor is revealed only in the disguised form of profit on investment of capital.
3. the means of exploiting producers (or mode of exploitation). This is the means whereby the producer is made to perform surplus labor. What enables the capitalist to exploit the prol is the prol's lack of surplus labor,which forces him to contract with a capitalist on terms which exact surplus labor from him. Here exploitation proceeds by means of the labor contract, and is therefore mediated by exchange.

iii) The mixed mode.. that's when Marx used the term mode of production in a comprehensive fashion, to denote both matrial and social properties of the way production proceeds, its 'entire technical and social configuration.' ??

''Market, Culture, and Authority''

H & B look at 3 approaches to explaining the industrial arrangements and strategies of 3 rapidly developing countries: S. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.

There are some aspects of the economic development of these countries which are similar:- their economic success is fueled by exports- they have few natural, especially mineral, resources- they are dependent on industry for wealth- they are intertwined historically and culturally. Despite these similarities, they have different forms of firm organization. Following Granovetter, H & B argue that in each country the firm is 'embedded' in networks of institutionalized relationships and these networks have a direct effect on the types of firms that develop, the management of the firms, and general organizational strategies.

Types of Firms in Each Country:
Japan has enterprise groups consisting of linkages among large firms. There exists relational contracting between equals. (e.g. intermarket groups)
South Korea displays less diversity in networks than in Japan. There are large, hierarchically arranged sets of firms managed by the state.
Taiwan has family firms and business groups. There are low levels of vertical and horizontal integration and a relative absence of oligarchic concentration.

The Market Explanation: (Alfred D. Chandler and Oliver E. Williamson)
This is a developmental thesis of institutional change based on changing market conditions that argues that the invention of the corporation accelerated the rate of industrialization in the U.S. and American management ideas spread abround to the industrializing world. This theory emphasizes state industrial policies and entrepreneurial responses but it cannot account for the different organizational arrangements in the 3 countries nor does it offer an unqualifies explanation for any one country.

The Cultural Explanation:
This theory tries to link organizatinal patterns with the cultural practices of the larger society. These organizational practices are generalized expression of such social factors as belongingness, loyalty, and submission to hierarchical authority. However, there is too much focus on secondary causes and it is necessary to take the market into account. This explanation is also better for explaining a 'cultural complex' (i.e. region) than individual country differences.

The Authority Approach:
H & B advocate a political economic approach with a Weberian emphasis because this incorporates economic and cultural factors and allows for historical diversity. The Weberain view holds that many factors (such as task requirements, technology, class and status compostion, etc.) contribute to organizational structure, but most important are 'principles of domination.' These are normative justifications that determine authority and encourage obedience. This approach broadly conceptualizes organizations as structures of authority. The differences in these 3 countries arose from different historical and political experiences in which leaders had to legitimize a system of rule.

South Korea follows a strong state model whereby the state actively participates in the public and private spheres of the economy. This type of structure arose out of a time of crisis (war) for the country.

Japan has a strong intermediary power model where the state coordinates the activities of the intermarket groups of large firms. This system arose because of the presence of the emperor who is the symbol of political unity.

Taiwan has a strong society model which allows familial patterns to shape the course of industrialization. This coincides with the overall state policy to limit participation in the private sector, especially people's economic livelihood.

The authority explanation has historical and structural adequacy. Economic and cultural factors are important in understanding growth of markets and economic enterprise, but the form or structure is better understood by patterns of authority relations in society.

''The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism''

Marxist analysis provides insight into the laws of historical development, but Marxist categories are sex blind. Only a feminist analysis reveals the systemic character of relations between men and women, but feminist theory has been blind to history and insufficiently materialist.

Marxism and the Woman Question:
Most Marxists look at the relationship between women and the economy instead of between women and men. Hartmann divides Marxists into 3 categories:

Early Marxists: Engels argued that women were not oppressed within the proletariat. Women's participation in the labor force was the key to their emancipation. This early perspective failed to recognize the difference between women and men's experiences under capitalism and that men had a vested interest in women's subordination.

The 'Everyday Life' School: All aspects of our lives are seen to reproduce the capitalist system. Zaretsky argued that women labor for capital and not for men. The separation of home from workplace and the privatization of housework creates the appearance that women work for men. Capitalism causes the division of private and public lives and the end of capitalism will end the oppression of both men and women. This view denies the importance of inequality between men and women and argues that division not inequality is the main problem.

Marxist feminism: These theorists subsumed the feminist struggle into the struggle against capital. For example, Della Costa argued that housework perpetuates male supremacy and maintains patriarchy. Women should demand wages for housework thereby making themselves products of surplus value and part of the working class.

These three approaches fail to analyze the labor process within the family sufficiently. They understand women's oppression as another aspect of class oppression. They fail to recognize that men have a material interest in women's oppression. Marxism enables us to understand the structure of production, the generation of a particular occupational structure, and the nature of the dominant ideology, but it is a theory of 'empty places.' The categories of class are sex-blind, they do not explain why particular people fill particular places.

Towards a More Useful Marxist Feminism:
Many feminist theorists have used Marxism as a method of social analysis - historical dialectical materialism. Mitchell and Firestone are too examples, however, Hartmann criticizes their approaches for not developing a materialist conception of patriarchy. Mitchell sees patriarchy only as ideology; and Firestone overemphasizes biology and reproduction in her approach. Radical feminists contribute to the discussion by emphasizing patriarchy in their work. However, their conception of patriarchy is not historically grounded and their focus is largely psychological instead of economic.

Towards a Definition of Patriarchy:
Hartmann emphasizes the need to recognize men's power and women's subordination as a social and political reality. She defines patriarchy as a set of social relations between men which have a material base and which, though hierarchical, create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women. She focuses on the material base of patriarchy which is formed by men's control over women's labor power by excluding women from access to essential productive resources and by restricting women's sexuality.

Patriarchy is a form of sex/gender system. According to Rubin, a sex/gender system is the set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity and in which these transformed sexual needs are satisfied. Our current sex/gender system is a patriarchy because it is a hierarchy of male dominance. Capitalism creates the places for a hierarchy of workers, but does not determine who will fill which places. Gender and racial hierarchies determine who fills the places.

The Partnership of Patriarchy and Capital:
The union of patriarchy and capital was not inevitable. Men sought to keep high wage jobs for themselves and to increase male wages generally. Women's' home responsibilities reinforced their inferior labor market position. Patriarchy divided the working class by allowing one part (men) to be bought off at the expense of another (women). Patriarchy legitimates capitalist control and delegitimates certain forms of struggle against capital.

Toward a More Progressive Union:
It is necessary to isolate the mechanisms of patriarchy by looking at who benefits from women's labor power, uncovering the material base of patriarchy, and investigating the mechanisms of hierarchy and solidarity among men.

A struggle to establish socialism must be a struggle in which groups with different interests form an alliance. The sexual division of labor within capitalism has given women a practice in which they have learned to understand what human interdependence and needs are. While men have long struggled against capital, women know what to struggle for.

The Managed Heart

As we know, The Managed Heart deals with flight attendant and certain aspects of their work experiences. AH is particularly struck by the fact that with flight attendants (FAs), the emotional style of offering the service is part of the service itself - FAs have to appear to love their jobs. In addition to the physical and mental work involved, AH introduces the term emotional labor as one of the key points of her analysis. Emotional Labor is the management of feelings to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display; and since it is sold for a wage, it has exchange value. Emotional work (or management) are terms used to refer to emotional labor when it takes place in a private context and carries use value. FA is an ideal example of this kind of labor, since it requires one to induce or suppress feeling in order to sustain the outward countenance that produces the proper state of mind in others.

The cost of emotional work to the laborer, however, is possible alienation or estrangement from the aspect of the self used to do the work. AH relates her analysis in the book to three relevant discourses:
1) Labor: the growth of the service sector means that 'commuinication' and 'encounter' occupy a more centralized role in the work process of many laborers (cf. Daniel Bell 1973)
2) Display (of feelings): this deals mostly with Goffman's accounts of display work and face-to-face interaction.
3) Emotion: i.e. what it is and how to manage it

AH considers emotion work not as simply a private phenomenon, but also in a social/relational context. For instance, she introduces the concept of gift exchange, suggesting that acts of emotional management are not just private acts but are used as exchange in relationships under guidance of feeling rules. Feeling rules are standards used in emotional conversation to determine what is rightly owed and owing in the currency of feeling (emotional capital? - as if we needed another kind of capital). We recognize a feeling rule by inspecting how we assess our feelings, how other people assess our emotional displays, and by sanctions issuing from ourselves and from others. These rules and the rule reminders by which they are recognized vary from group to group. Since there are both gender and class patterns to the civic and commercial use of human feelings, AH believes that this constitutes a relevant sociological topic. pIn fact, she thinks that a social role is partly a way of describing what feelings people think are owed and are owing.

Display is a natural result of working on feeling. AH identifies two kinds of acting: Surface Acting: is just what it sounds like. People manage their outward appearance, so it is physical not actual emotional manipulation. It is a simulation of emotional affect. Deep Acting: can be done either by directly exhorting feeling or by making indirect use of a trained imagination. This involves emotion memory which AH treats in a noun-like fashion, as something that a person has. Feelings are objects that can be manipulated. Memories must seem real now, so actors believe that an imagined happening is really happening now. We can see examples of deep acting in every day life when we try to stir up a feeling we wish we had or to block/weaken a feeling we wish we did not have. FA's have to do both at work, which makes it like emotional overtime.

AH makes extensive allusions to the theatre to explain how emotional labor works. Along these lines, she talks about a personal stage with personal props used in deep acting (and surface acting too, I suppose). So, the status or degree of 'realness' of a feeling in part depends on the context - and can be manipulated by using 'props.'

Institutional emotional management:
Institutions arrange their front stages in order to guide the way we see and the way we are likely to feel spontaneously - for example, by means of protocols for interaction or the physical arrangement of the institutional/work environment. This a way to control the content and course of interaction between individuals in such a way as to make more probably both certain desired material and emotional outcomes.

Misfitting Feelings:
Feelings may be experienced as being inappropriate (misfitting) a situation. There are a number of ways this can become manifest. Two major examples are: problems in timing (dependent on a public standard of the propriety of expressing private emotion); and problems of placing (it is necessary to have the right audience to receive an emotional expression). Although it seems paradoxical, individuals in close relationships may expect to have more freedom from feeling rules and less need for emotional work; in reality, however, the subterranean work of placing an acceptable inner face on ambivalence is actually al the more crucial. The deeper the bond, the more emotional work, and the more unconscious we are of it. She talks about quirks in this context. But I don't think it is the same thing we were talking about. Or maybe it is, hmmmmm....

AH talks about 'psychological bowing' which I believe is supposed to refer to a unit or instance of emotional exchange, where feeling rules provide the baseline for such an exchange. She identifies two general types of exchange:
--Straight exchange: does not (necessarily) have anything to do with hetero's (or 'breeders'). It is an exchange where you use rules to make an inward bow. The focus is making a gesture toward observing a rule, not on the rule itself.
--Improvisational exchange: presupposes the rule and plays with it (to create humor or irony). It calls the rule itself into question.

Both types of exchange presuppose a number of ways to pay psychological dues. For example, we may simply feign the owed feeling, sometimes without intending to succeed; or we may offer the greater gift of trying to amplify a real feeling that we already have; or we may try to reframe an event and offer ourselves for the moment reconstituted by successful deep acting. Spontaneous feeling here becomes a choice of what gestures to make. Nonpayment or antipayment are negative responses. Guilt or worry acts as a promissory not - upholding the feeling rules for the person. Pretending is a statement of deference to another, an offering. Tribute is an offering of feeling so generous that it actually transforms a person's mood and thoughts to match what others would like to see. Aside from psychological bowing, the medium of emotional gift exchange may be used to maintain reciprocity. Such a relation may be between equals or there may be a status relation with respect to claim to emotional reward.

Emotional dissonance (analogous to cognitive dissonance) is the strain that results from maintaining a separation between feeling and display over an extended period of time. The commodification of feeling (through emotional work) in the case of the FA's has a number of consequences: sexualization of the work role (catering primarily to a male business class passenger), emphasis on appearance (physical and emotional display), and a sense of dispensability and dependence on the company.

To be 'professional' in the context of FA's refers to mastery of a body of knowledge that allows them to accept and adhere to rules of standardization dealing with appearance, behavior, attitude, etc. Part of the blurring of feeling and display is the appeal (by the company) for FA's to think of the plane cabin (where she works) as their home (where she does not work) and of the passengers as guests (or family). As a result anger must be suppressed and blame on passengers redirected away from them. Suppression of 'negative' feelings is made more difficult by other problematic work conditions: crew size, exclusion of blacks and men from FA staff, institutionalized sexism, medical problems related to the job, and the company's anti-union position.

One possible solution is collective emotional management (this is basically analogous to dealing with the prelim by sitting around and bitching about it and the department). Such team solidarity (as seen in banter, joking, etc.) can improve morale, but it can also strengthen grudges against the company or passengers. Emotional management is accomplished by transmutation (private to public) in three basic elements of emotional life:
1) Emotional Work: is no longer a private act, but a public act which is bought on one hand and sold on the other.
2) Feeling Rules: are no longer simply matters of personal discretion negotiated with another person in private, but are spelled out publicly.
3) Social Exchange: is forced into narrow channels.

The cost of this process is that the worker must give up control over how work is to be done. Emotional response to a situation is dictated by S.O.P. from up the hierarchy. The general source of stress is the task of managing estrangement between self and feelings and between self and display. People who do emotional work for a living share three dilemmas that other kinds of workers do not:

1) How to identify with your work role and with the company without being fused with them:
Issue: potential for 'identity confusion'
Solution: 'Depersonalization' of the self. Either by considering the non-work self the only 'real' self or (more commonly) by deciding that each self is real in its own different way and time. The result, either way, is that for these workers feelings are thought of not as spontaneous, natural occurrences, but as objects they have learned to govern and control.

2) How to use deep acting capacities when you are disconnected from those you are acting for.
Issue: Being 'phony'
Solution: Fall back on surface acting
3) How to maintain self-esteem without becoming cynical if you are doing deep acting for an audience from whom you are disconnected:
Issue: Maintaining the illusion
Solution: Define the job as 'illusion making' and remove the self from the job, take it less seriously.

When feelings are successfully commercialized, the worker does not feel phony or alien; s/he feels somehow satisfied in how personal her/his service actually was. Deep acting is a help in doing this, not a source of estrangement. But when commercialization of feelings as a general process collapses into its separate elements, display becomes hollow and emotional labor is withdrawn.

''Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism''

In this essay, Jameson lays out the differences in culture between the modern and postmodern periods. He also devotes a lot of time to the effects of these changes on the individual. Jameson is concerned with the cultural expressions and aesthetics associated with the different systems of production. He is not interested in a mechanism of change. This is a primarily descriptive article. Jameson draws on the fields of architecture, art and other culturally expressive forms to illustrate his arguments. The heaviest emphasis is placed on architecture. It is essential to grasp postmodernism as discussed here not as a style, but as a dominant cultural form indicative of late capitalism.

Postmodernism is differentiated from other cultural forms by its emphasis on fragmentation. Fragmentation of the subject replaces the alienation of the subject which characterized modernism. Postmodernism is concerned with all surface, no substance. There is a loss of the center. Postmodernist works are often characterized by a lack of depth, a flatness. Individuals are no longer anomic, because there is nothing from which one can sever ties. The liberation from the anxiety which characterized anomie may also mean a liberation from every other kind of feeling as well. This is not to say that the cultural products of the postmodern era are utterly devoid of feeling, but rather that such feelings are now free-floating and impersonal. Also distinctive of the late capitalist age is its focus on commodification and the recycling of old images and commodities. A prime example of this is Warhol's work, as well as Warhol himself. Jameson refers to this cultural recycling as historicism - the random cannibalization of all styles of the past. It is an increasing primacy of the 'neo' and a world transformed into sheer images of itself. the actual organic tie of history to past events is being lost.

All of these cultural forms are indicative of postmodernism, late capitalism, or what Jameson calls 'present-day multinational capitalism.' (Yessirree, Jameson is a Marxist.) Jameson claims that there has been a radical shift in our surrounding material world and the ways in which it works. He refers to an architectural example, a postmodern building Symbolic of the multinational world space which we function in daily. We, the human subjects who occupy this new space have not kept pace with the evolution which produced it. There has been a mutation in the object, unaccompanied as yet by an equivalent mutation in the subject; we do not yet possesses the perceptual equipment to match this new hyperspace. Therein lies the source of our fragmentation as individuals.

This latest mutation in space, postmodern hyperspace, (the Bonaventua hotel is the example) has finally succeeded in transcending the capacities of the individual human body to locate itself, to organize its immediate surroundings perceptually, and cognitively to map its position in a mappable external world. This is the symbol and analougue of our inability at present to map the great global multinational and decentered communicational network in which we find ourselves caught as individual subjects. We are now a world where spatial differentiation is more important than temporal differentiation, which was dominant in past eras. Late capitalism aspires to a total space, a vastness of scale heretofore unknown.