the romance of labtour.pdf

8/14/2019 The Romance of LabTour.pdf

1/26

This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]On: 26 September 2013, At: 08:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Economy and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reso20

The romance of labourTony Cutler

Published online: 11 Dec 2006.

To cite this article:Tony Cutler (1978) The romance of labour, Economy and Society, 7:1, 74-95, DOI:10.1080/03085147700000018

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147700000018

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,

and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out ofthe use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147700000018http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147700000018http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03085147700000018http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reso20


2/26

Econom y and Socie ty Vol 7 N o 1 February 1978Review Article by T on y C utler

The romance of labour

Tex ts ReviewedH . Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital Monthly ReviewPress, 1974Brighton Labour Process Group, Th e Produc t ion Process o fCapital and th e Capitalist Labou r Process.Conference of Socialist Economists, The Labour Process andClass Strategie s 1976

The central issue raised by the works under review here concernsth e s tatus of the co ncep t capitalist labour process . The analysisof th e pertinence of this c oncep t involves bo th posing why pro-duc tion processes in capitalist economies should be referred t o auniversal con cep t of labour process and why labour should playth e privileged role which this implies.The works we are considering here at te mp t t o establish theprivileged role of labour in relation t o two key arguments, bothin different ways derivable from Marxist concepts. In the firstcase labour plays a key role for t he reason tha t it is argued to bethe sole agent of th e creation of value. Consequen tly labour is no tmerely the sou rce of surplus-value bu t is also the condition ofexistence of t he reproduction of the value of constant capital(raw materials and means of production). As the production ofuse-values and the prod uctio n of surplus-value are both deemedto be sine qua n o n of a capitalist mode of production then ipsofacto labour plays a privileged role. We will leave aside thetheoretical basis of this argu ment1 concerning ourselves simplywith its internal logic and from this point of view it is to benoted tha t th e extraction of surplus-value is treated b y the worksunder consideration as an objec t of capitalist calculation. Forexam ple Braverman argues:

When the capitalist buys buildings, materials, tools,machinery, etc., he can evaluate with precision their place in


3/26

The romance o f labour 7

the labour process. He knows that a certain portion of hisoutlay will be t ransferred to each unit of produ ction, and hisaccounting practices allocate these in the form of costs ordepreciat ion. But when he buys labour t ime, the outcome isfar from being ei ther so certain or s o defini te reckoned in thisway, with precision and in advance. This is merely an expressionof the fa ct that th e port ion of his capital expended on labourpower is the variable por tion, which undergoes an increase inthe process of production ; for him, th e quest ion is how greattha t increase will be. (Braverman, 1 97 4: 57-8.)While Braverman is not entirely consistent with respect to thisa r g ~ m e n t , ~t plays a cen tral role in his bo ok. T his central rolederives from what he conceives as the problematic character ofthe exploi tat ion of labour . F or Braverman the condit ions towhich workers are subjected in capitalist production processesare inimical to the realisation of the essential characte r of hum anlabo ur . Conseq uently labour is seen as continua lly seeking tosubvert these production processes and the primary object of

capitalist enterprise calculation is to prevent such subversion.Th e distinctive capacity of hum an labou r is . its intelligentand purposive ch aracter, which gives it infinite adaptab ility andwhich pro duces th e social and c ultural conditions for enlargingits own productivi ty, so that i ts surplus product may becontinua lly enlarged. . But if the capitalist builds upo n thisdistinctive quality and potential of hum an labou r power, it isalso this qua lity, by its very in determ inacy, which places beforehim his greatest challenge and problem . The coin of lab our hasi ts obverse side: in purchasing labour power t ha t can d o m uch,he is at the same t ime purchasing an undefined quali ty andquanti ty. (Braverman, 1 97 4: 56-57.)The Brighton Labour Process Group are somewhat morequalified though the logic of their position is not radicallydifferent from Braverman s they argue:

. The labour process requires the participation of thelabourers wh o m ay have objectives other than v alorisation, andm y resist th e revolutionising of th e labour process. (p. 5, m yemphasis.)3Fo r Braverman it is a universal th at labour resists its insertionwithin capitalist production processes and that the primary objectof capitalist calculation is to break do wn this resistance. Naturallyto argue in this fashion requires that universal characteristics of

labour be designated and this is wh at Braverman seeks to d o in


4/26

7 ony utler

th e first chapter of his book . For Braverman human labou r isdefined by its conscious character In hum an work, the direct-ing mechanism is the process of co ncept ual tho ugh t while forBraverman conception always precedes execution this link is notnecessarily one w hich applies to all hum an subjects,The unity of conception an d execution m ay be dissolved. Theconception must still precede and govern execution, but theidea as conceived by one may be executed by another. Thedriving force of labour remains hum an consciousness, bu t th eunity between the two may be broken in the individual andreasserted in the group, the w orkshop, the com munity, th esociety as a whole. pp. 50-5 1 empha sis in th e original.)Th e capitalist class are victims of a kind of ruse of reasonfor Braverman, b ut as unwilling victims they seek to contr ol thevariability of hum an labou r and a substantial prop ortion of hiswork is designed t o sh ow how. This search for con trol is based forBraverman on the concentra tion of the tasks of conception inth e hands of the capitalist class a nd its fun ctionaries with the

working class restricted to the execution of w ork tasks. Essentiallyth e capitalist class is seen as deploying two means to effect thisend at distinct points in time. In relation t o this schema Taylorismplays a dual role, on one hand as a more primitive form of theseparation of conception and execution, on the other as anexemp lar of th e theorisation of the separation. Braverman tells us:comprehensive and detailed outline of the principles ofTaylorism is essential to our narrative, not because of thethings for which it is popularly known topw atch, speed up,etc. bu t because behind these comm onplaces there lies atheor y w hich is nothi ng less than t he explicit verbalisation ofthe capitalist mode of production . (p. 86,

While, however, Taylor functions as a kind of paradigmtheo rist of capitalism in respect of advocating th e conce ntratio n ofth e tasks of conception in th e hands of the manag ement hisposition is equally a kind of primitivism. This primitivism arisesfrom th e fa ct t hat Taylor s objective is t o sub-divide work taskswith the aim of assigning minimum times for their accomplish-ment. As such the focus of enterprise calculation for Taylor is ona set of work tasks defined by reference to agiven set of means ofprod uctio n. Consequen tly Taylorism literally can in n o sense betreated as an exem plar of capitalism to ut cour t bu t is supersededby th e contin uous mechanisation of work tasks. This super-session is only a change in the meth od of achieving the same end:


5/26

T h e romance of labour 77

Th e capacity of hum ans t o control th e labour process throughmachinery is seized upon by m anagement from the beginningof capitalism as the pr im e m eans wher eby pr oduc t ion m a y becontroll ed n ot b y th e d irec t producers bu t b y the owners andrepresentatives of capital Thus, in addit ion to i ts technicalfunction of increasing the productivi ty of labour whichwould be a mark of machinery under any social systemmachinery also has in the capital is t system the function ofdivesting th e mass of worke rs of their control over their ow nlabour . Machinery of fers to management the oppor tun i tyto d o by w holly m echanical means t hat which i t had previouslyat tempted to do by organisat ional and discipl inary means.(Braverman 974: 93 and 1 9 5 ; emphasis in th e original.)So labou r is not only central from the point of view of i tsunique po si t ion as th e sole exploi table elemen t of the productionprocess but equally in term s of its variability in perform ance . T hestrategy to c ontro l labour makes no sense outside the com binationof central i ty to the accumulat ion of capital and i ts supposedly

problematic character in relat ion to i ts performance in theproduction process.There is n o possibi li ty of presenting th e argument against theconcep t of exploi tation here. T o do so would require a complexand necessarily ex tend ed discussion of its theoretical fou nda tionin t h e c on ce pt ~ a l u e . ~Exploitat ion stages a confrontat ionbetween the general categories of agents labourers, who producesurplus value, and non-labourers, who appropriate i t . In th e theor yof exp loitatio n lab our is con stitute d as a generality because alldist inct labours have a co mm on at tr ibu te (a value-creat ing power)and the identity of those distinct labours is established throughthe equation of their produc ts in defini te rat ios in exchange(abstract labour) . Th e concepts of value and exp loi tat ion thereforelegitimate the hegemonisation of the analysis of productionprocesses in Marxist discourse by the general category of labour.If these c oncepts are no t pert inent then labour loses the socialform of generali ty given i t through com mod ity production(abstract labour) abours are no longer equated in this socialmeas ure. How t hen is it possible t o retain a general category oflabour? What is it that th e different types of tasks performed indifferent processes of production have in comm on? Here we com eup against an othe r theoretical elemen t in th e Marxist general con-cept of labo ur, th e anthropology o f humanism.What is it th at equates the operat ions perform ed, say, by agoldbea ter in a ha ndicraft jewellers an d an operative wh o super-vises a tape-contro lled drilling mac hine? Th e fact tha t mem bers


6/26

8 Tonv utler

of th e species horno s pzens are present? But Marx himself showsus th at different types of production do no t assign th e same placeto hum an skil ls , mo tions and at tr ibutes. Skills, for example, arerelative to definite production processes and are acquired (in whatsense are they huma n ? ). Th e role of an element in a productionprocess (whethe r i t be a hum an subject , a machine or a techniquelike control theo ry) can o nly be examined relative to the part i tplays in the process and the determinants which cause i t and notsomething else to b e em ployed. What is the general meaning andpertinence of labour , why should i t be th e focus of analysis ofprocesses of production?We have seen tha t if th e concept of exploitat ion and i ts founda-tion in the theory of value is challenged then the analysis of thelabour process ceases t o have a theoretical un ity. This nnjty canonly be com pensated for by a simple philosophical anthropology.Indeed, this anthropology is important and active in the textsconsidered here. This is evident in the second area in which theprivilege of labour is defined, th e inhe rent resistance of labo ur.In b oth Braverman s b ook and in the Brighton group text th eseparation between conception and exec ution is taken as aprimary and direct objective of capitalist enterprise calculationand in Braverman s bo ok as a universal object of resistance on th epart of labour . Implicit in these arguments are tw o distinctclaims, first tha t essential characteristics of labour can be definedwhich are necess rily at variance w ith the co ndit ions to whichlabour is subjected in capitalist production processes and secondtha t there is a general structure t o th e capitalist productionprocess or a tendency towards such. These condit ions simplyfollow fro m t he con cep t, if there is t o be a universal recalci tranceon th e pa rt of labour this can only be by reference to intrinsicallyharmonious or natural condit ions of labour. If recalcitrance onth e part of labour is to be universal then i t must be a universalfeature of produc tion in capital ist economies tha t these processestake a single general form involving the separation of executionand concept ion.The idea of a separation of execution and conception is thedefinition given by Braverman t o the familiar concept of aseparation of mental and manual labour, this formulation isadopted to avoid the ludicrous implication that there is a puremental or manual labour. In trying to concretise this concep tBraverman makes reference t o th e philosophical co ncept ofconsciousness, Hum an work is consciou s and purposive .(p . 45. I t is for this reason that the separation of conceptionand exe cution deviates from the model of huma n labour and,for Braverman, engenders resistance.


7/26

The romance of labour 9

Th e problematisat ion of t he theoretical foundation s of thegeneral category of labour undermines this central focus of theanalysis of the labour process, the separation of conception andexecution. This concept requires that there be a unitary andgeneral co nce pt of labour which can be subjected t o this division.It requires tha t concep tion and execution have the same stableand general meaning which is applicable to different types ofprocesses of p roduction , t hat concep tion means th e same thing inone as it does in the other. Braverman as we have seen achievesthis generality and stability through an anthropological andprivileged concept of human labour. Conception is the samebecause i t results from huma n purpose. Conception and executionare ideally united in the person of the subject. In this concept oflabour a certain type of prod uction process (conceived as human-harmo nious) is privileged, handicraft lab our (und er conditio ns ofindependent production o r th e conscious association of th eproducers) . Despite his pleas to the contrary this specific type ofproduction process is made the measure of al l production. In i tconception and execution find their unity in the hand and brain ofth e subject (a co ncep tion which is in itself a roman ticisation ofpetty production and involves an anthropo morph ic stance on i tscondit ions of work).Th e privilege of huma n labour takes i t as obvious that man (inthe form of a humanised ideal handicraft produc tion) is th emeasure of all other production processes. Consequently, althoughthis task is never at tem pted in th e works under consideration, acorollary of their arguments will necessarily be the positing of ananthropo morph ic view of th e means of prod uction. The means ofproduction are measured by reference to man because th eseparation of c onception and execution by mechanisation is are-distr ibution of a pre-given set of functions from man t omachine . Such a view embodies th e paradoxical idea thatinnovation in th e means of production is simply th e creation of amechanical mirror f or man . Such a view is therefore based onthe idea not only that scientific practice is the realisation of a pre-given natural world but t ha t th e world is anthropocentric.This form of analysis supposes that other processes separatethese (humanly) united tasks for reasons of human interest (byreason of the action of other subjects the exploiters, whoappropriate the function s of consciousness to themselves).Socialism will remove the interdiction on human labour placed bythese interests and wil l unite conception and execution in aharmonious-human form on a higher technical level ( in theconscious association of the producers).

But in wh at sense is there c onc eptio n in general or execution in


8/26

8 Tony utler

general such that this history of the subversion and return of aharmonious human state can be writ ten? The notion of con-ception used in this case supposes that economic subjects arereducible t o hum an subjects and econom ic calculation t o a unitarye ~ p e r i e n c e . ~ o handicraft producers organise their work bymeans of hum an thou ght and experience in general (categorieswhich are philosophical and not unp roblem atic givens), or ratherby means of defin ite techniques of calculation and und er definitecondit ions. Are the planning and decisions undertaken by a com-plex enterprise solely a prod uct of the thou ght of its operatives,or are they not in some measure products of the form oforganisation, the techniques and the instruments of calculat ionused? petty producer and a large corporation may be com-parable as economic agents they may for example both have tomake decisions about analogous products which compete incertain markets. The corporation (an economic subject) is not ahum an subject . I ts calculation and conception canno t be equatedwith a human consciousness (no r for that mat ter can theindividual petty producers practice be referred to a philosophicalanthropology as if organisational forms were equally irrelevanthere). Conc eption is unified by a philosophical concep t of man(which makes human subjects i ts exemplars) , and by the anthrop o-morphic reduction of economic subjects to this conception ofhuman subjects. Without anthropology the problematic of thelabour process ceases to have a pertinenc e. A concep t of man is itsmeasure and th e fate of th e conc ept i ts sole concern. I stress theword concept for this conscious and purposive essentialism hasprecious little to do with the doings of definite men engaged inproduct ion.Th e o the r side of t he argum ent is the claim th at it is a universalcharacteristic of capitalist pro duc tion processes t o effect aseparation between conce ption and execu tion . As we havealready seen Braverman treats this separation as a direct effe ct ofcapitalist enterprise calculation. However, such an argument isunsustainable since capitalist enterprises do not calculate in valueterms.However, it wou ld still be possible to argue th at a by-prod uct ofthe calculation of capitalist enterprises is to establish prod uctionprocesses which have as an effect the separation of con cep tionand execution . Such a sepa ration is seen in th e work s und erconsideration as characteristic of highly mechanised productionprocesses. This is because mechanisation is seen as allowing boththe execution o f work tasks and th e transfer of the product fromone stage in the production process to another to be preciselytimed: this al lows the optimal integration of the production


9/26


process and the reduction of the t ime spent o n each work task tothe minimum. This is because the mechanisation of productionprocesses is usually accompanied, it is argued, by a reduction ofthe w ork tasks to a nu mbe r of simple, sub-divided opera tions,the whole being co-ordinated by the factory management. Theseprocesses are assumed t o be the most cost-effective and they aregenerally thou gh t t o eliminate less mechanised processes which areassumed t o be necessarily less cost-effective.None of the works under consideration produce a r igorouspresentation of this kind of argument and if it is subject to anexamination of its conditions of operation it can be easily shownto be fallacious. To argue in Marxist terms that there is atende ncy in respect of produ ction m eth ods involves fulfillingthree condit ions: (i) that the internal structure of industrialsectors are deducible from the conce pt of mode of production , inthis case the Capitalist Mode of Pro duc tion ; (ii) tha t the technicalinnovations are deducible in th e same w ay; ( i ii ) tha t the structureof consumption and the composit ion of the social product isdeducible in the same way.It mus t be possible t o deduce the internal structure of industrialsectors fo r a num ber of reasons. Fo r example, since the mainobject of introducing new means of production is to reduce unitcosts the enterprise must calculate on a certain minimum level ofou tpu t to sustain a fal l in unit costs . Clearly a sector where o utp utis less concentrated at the enterprise level7 necessarily createsobstacles to the introduction of means of production involvingsubstantial ini t ial costs as they cannot e spread over a highvolume of outp ut. An other reason why the structure of a sectoris pert inent concerns the length of pro duction runs. I t is com monto find both that highly mechanised systems are designed forspecialist pro du ctio n of eith er a single pro duc t or a particularl imited combination of products and that they are designed toproduce long runs. This means that i t is often uneconomic forenterprises using highly mechanised production to change theirmix of pro ducts o r to produce short runs. Consequen tly i t isofte n advantageou s for such enterprises if the y can sub-co ntractorders to smaller enterprises not subject to these constraints.Consequently the introduction of highly mechanised productionprocesses may be facilitated by the existence of smaller enter-prises in th e same secto r.I t is necessary to dedu e the character of technical innovationsbecause innovations have radically different effects on theminimum volume of output in a given sector and thus on howma ny enterprises may operate in a given sector. It is quite incorre ct

to thin k tha t innovations necessarily favo ur high initial-cost, high-


10/26

8 ony utler

volume ou tp ut ; fo r example, both small electr ic moto rs andworking in plastic have reduced th e initial capital required to setup manufactur ing enterprise^.^ As we have already demonstratedthat the structure of a sector is pert inent in relat ion to the pro-duction m ethods used in th at sector then the character of technicalinnovations can be seen t o be pert ine nt for the reason of theirimpact o n th e structu re of industrial sectors.Th e structure of consumption and th e composit ion of thesocial product is pert inent for the simple reason that differentmaterials lend themselves in radically different ways tomechanised production processes. This may be due to the actualphysical material used or to the differentiat ion of the product( fashion changes in re la tion to art ic les of clo thing for e ~ a m p l e ) . ~Con sequ ently if we are going to talk of tendencies then it will benecessary to deduce th e pattern of consumption and the com-posit ion of th e social produ ct .As far as technical innovations a re concern ed, the Marxistconce pt of capital ist mod e of prod uction involves the conceptionth at since capitalism progressively abolishes craft labou r it open sth e possibility for the application of natural sciences to pro-duction.1 However, as we have indicated the basis for a tende ncywould have t o involve the dedu ction of t he effect of an innovationon th e structu re of a sector. Clearly no such conclusion could bedrawn from the abstract conditions of the application of scienceto production processes.As far as the character of consumption is concerned Marxisttheoretical arguments only operate in respect of a given com-posit ion of consum ption. F or exam ple, the idea tha t the value oflabou r power is con stitu ted by the socially necessary labou r-timerequired t o produce th e comm odities necessary to reproducelabour-power gives no independent m eans of ascertaining whatthese commodities are. On the contrary they are usually directlyderived in a circular fashion from the empirical chara cter ofconsumption patterns.To deduce the internal structure of industrial sectors wouldbe t o argue tha t th e capital ist mode of production entails a givenmod el of en try and exit of enterprises to industrial sectors. Thisargument runs into a number of problems. As we have alreadyindicated the character of p roduc tion processes is reiated t o thenature of the material worked, and in turn t he nature of th e meansof pro ductio n utilised will condition th e minim um scale of capitalrequired to enter a given sector. The minimum level of capital re-quired to e nter a sector wil l also be condit ioned by the character oftechnical innovations. Since both these condit ions are required toaccou nt f or th e structure of an industrial sector and since these con-


11/26

h e romance o labour 8

dit ions are non-deducible from t he concept of a mo de of produc-t i on t hen pso f cto this condition is non-deducible. Equally, ofcourse , en try and exit are condition ed by the availability of financeand by the initial capitalisation of an enterprise, for example, anenterprise wh ich is initally over-valued1 will always find it moredifficult to earn a satisfactory retu rn . Clearly, again it is quiteimpossible to deduc e variable co nditions of financial mark etsfrom a concept of mod e of production .I t is thu s possible to see that the co ndit ions for the argum enttha t capitalist produc tion processes ten d towa rds a separation ofexecution f rom concept ion founders on the fac t tha t theconce pt capital is t mod e of produc tion canno t yield th e condit ionsfor such a tendenc y . Consequently not only d o we have anindeterminacy with respect to what the tenden cy is to tendtowards, but logical ly the concep t capital is t mod e of productionas defined in Marxist terms would not allow us to define suchtendencies .In addition to the discussion of the relationship of labour toparadigm capitalist produ ction processes the works und er reviewdiscuss the dep loym ent of wh at may be called types of labourand labo ur-pow er or wh at is usually grouped und er the rubricof skill levels and de-skilling . In contr ast to t he argu men t, verycom mon in economics and sociology during the 1950 s and 60 sthat capitalist economies would be characterised by increaseddemands fo r skil led labour the consensus in the works unde rconsideration is quite the reverse. For instance the BrightonLabour Process Group argue that :

Deskilling is inherent in capitalist labour process becausecapital mu st aim at having labour fun ctions tha t are calculable,standardisable routines ; because this labour m ust be perform edat the maximum speed and wi th the minimum of poros i ty ;and because capital wants labour which is cheap and easilyreplaceable (op . cit. , p. 25).Th e term de-skilling is now increasingly function ing as aco m m on slogan of theorists of the labour process bu t again it isnot as unproblematic as it initially appears. This is again becauseth e use of the conc ept skill requires the specification of apertinence. It is by no means self-evident why specific tasks oroccup ations should be classified skilled or unskilled7 nor are theterms used with any necessary consistency. Marx s usage was toat tem pt to define the pert inence in terms of the place of a typeof labour-power within a given mode of prod uctio n. This ledhim t o argue in respect of the capitalist mo de of produ ction th at,


12/26

84 ony u t l e r

The distinction between skilled and unskilled labour rests inpart on pure illusion, or, to say the least, on distinctions thathave long since ceased to be real, and, that survive only byvirtue of a traditional convention; . (Marx 1961: 197footnote 1).The pertinence of the skilled/unskilled distinction rested on theoperation of what he thought of as an artisan labour process. Thedistinction was pertinent because the specific knowledge andmanual dexteri ty of the artisan was a given of the labour processin a simple logical sense. This usage may be compared with theway de-skilling is often used: this is in terms of a conception ofskilled labour which is often more or less identified with craftlabour and unskilled labour as the performance of fragmenteddetail tasks. If Marx s argument is followed, however, such aconception would not be pertinent because artisan or craftlabour-power is only pertinent vis 2 vis a labour process where,by definition, labour-power of a given type is indispensable.Marx regarded the skilled/unskilled distinction in this sense as notpertinent to a capitalist mode of production, with its corresponding

labour process , since no particular type of labour-power couldbe classed as given in respect of the mode of production.It is to the credit of the Brighton Labour Process Group thatthey are aware of this difficulty in the conventional view ofde-skilling although they leave the problem somewhat up in theair: one of the aspects of de-skilling they tell us:. . . Is the replacement of the relationship between labour andtools by the relationship between labour and machines.Basically this comes to the replacement of the craftsman bythe machine operative. I t could be that these two relationshipsare simply incommensurable so that t o speak of de-skilling hereis confusing (in as much as the notion of de-skilling seems toimply a quantitative unilinear scale of some kind, whereascraft and machine-operative skills may require differentscales). p. 25 .What, however, the Brighton group do not bring out here iswhat governs the usage of these concepts in Marxist arguments andhow this relates to the concept mode of production . Thus de-skilling defined as craftsman to machine-operative is in fact a com-parison of a labour process characteristic of distinct modes ofproduction1 i.e. what is confused is a term apparently defined asinternal to a mode of production ( de-skilling under capitalism )with terms defining labour processes characteristic of distinctmodes of production.


13/26

he romance of labour 8

If this means of characterising skill is jettiso ned , how ever, adistinct pertinence is required. Th e Brighton group give in fac t twodistinct pertinences. Th ey suggest th at de-skilling mu st be lookedat in terms of th e supply of labour-po wer, capital wan ts labourwhich is cheap and easily replaceable. (ibid.) But like Bravermanthe y w ant t o see de-skilling in terms of the exercise of con trolover labour within th e pro duct ion process .We have already discussed th e la t ter typ e of argument , for to besustained it involves the postulate th at labour is universallyrecalcitrant; an assumption which has already been criticised. Thelink betwee n skill and th e supply of labour-power is differentproblem, however.Here the clear pertinence to the distinction is in terms ofwhe ther labour-power with a set of capacities is available to u nder-take given range of tasks. This is the kind of procedu re ado ptedby Bright in his article Does Au tom ation Raise Skill Require-m e n t ~ . ~ right p roduces a scale of mechanisation based on thecriteria th at a higher , more complex level of mechanisationinvolves a transfer of functions to machines. The question Brightwants t o pose i s to what e x ten t the demands on labour-powerchange when there is an increase in mechanisation measured onhis scale. Bright s proced ure is, however, radically different fr omth e propo nen ts of the idea of de-skilling .Although he uses the term skill in the paper it is effectivelysimply translatable into capacities required of labour-power. Inothe r words it is no t defined in the d icho tom ous terms skilled1unskilled which operates in th e Marxist con cep t of the artisanlabour process. For Bright distinctions in requirements are onlysignificant in respect of t he supply of lab our and in tur n in respectof the relation of a given work-force to different levels ofmechanisation. Bright s problems are thus managerial in a broadsense, his problems are the relevance of the existing capacities tothe range of work tasks required, the relevant wage levels etc.Fu rth er Bright s argu me nt is in term s of a given level ofmechanisation. While he studies the experience of a range ofindustries in terms of a scale of mechanisation he certainly doesno t posit any tendencies . Th e propo nen ts of de-skilling , ho w-ever, do posit a tend ency to produce processes which de-skill .The problem is that the Brighton group produce two dis t inctpertinences.The y wan t t o consider de-skilling in the light of labour-supplyconsiderations and in terms of the separation of conception andexecut ion as a means of control of labour. Th e dis t inct per t inences,however, produce totally d ifferent con cepts of skill . As we havealready seen in an argument such as th at of Bright s skill divisions


14/26

8 Tony utler

are measured by reference t o a given set of work tasks, in oth erword s there is no essential scale of skill bu t one which simplychanges with reference to the wo rk tasks under co nsideration.In contrast the division of conception and execu tion isthought in terms of a necessary polari ty, the craft ldetai l labourdistinction. As we have already seen this distinction must beessential for it work s within a circle of mutually d efining terms.Th e need for supervision arises from th e infraction of the naturalform of labour and th e co nsequent recalcitrance of labour , therecalci trance engenders th e need t o separate conception andexecu tion, the separation engenders recalcitrance and so on.We can therefore see tha t de-skilling is quite falsely used t ocover both these pert inences. In the f irst case the dichotomouscon cep t of skill is in no way necessarily pertin ent, in the secondcase it plays a defining role. Equally the treatm ent of the de-skil1ing -labour su pply relation in th e Brigh ton grou p s analysis ismuc h less rigorous th an Bright s. F or Bright the relationship issimply o ne b etwee n capacities of labou r-pow er and tasks. The re isno implication that this relationship ccounts or the supply oflabou r since there is no reason why skill level sho uld determinelabour supply.This is, however, n ot simply a lapse, ther e is a crucial difficultystemming from the treatment of problems of the distr ibution oflabour-power as effects of th e produ ction p rocess and this ismo st clearly highlighted in Braverman s tre atm ent of the IndustrialReserve Army. For Braverman the Industrial Reserve Armyincludes:

Th e masses of labou r sloughed off by th e rapid m echanisationof industry (and this includes not just those wh o lose theirjobs, but , much more im portan t numerically, those who keepcoming in to the employme nt market a t a t ime when t radi tionaloppo rtunit ies for industrial employ men t are shrinking. (p. 382.and

Th e masses of former agricultural labour in th e colonies andneocolonies. These masses are thrown off by the process ofimperial ist penetrat ion i tself, which has disrupted the tradit ionalforms of labour and subsistence. Th us Western Europe andthe United States now draw upon a labour market whichextends in a broad band from India and Pakistan in the eastacross northe rn African and sou thernm ost Europe al l the wayto t he Caribbean and ot her port ion s of Latin America in thewest. Indian, Pakistani, Turk ish, Gree k, Italian, African, Span ish,West Indian and other workers supplement the indigenous


15/26


underclass in northern Europe and ma ke up its lowest layers.(p . 384-5.At the same time, in a process which cuts across racial andnational lines, th e female portion of the population has becomethe prime supplemen tary reservoir of labour. Women formthe ideal reservoir of labour for the new mass occupations.(p. 385.)The concept of Industria l Reserve Army embraces both adeterminant and a postulated function. However, in so far as wetalk of a tende ncy t o produce an Industrial Reserve Arm y orrelative surplus-population it is necessary that such a surpluspopu lation be treated as an effect of the determinant. For Marxthe accumu lation of capital is accompanied by a rise in the org aniccomposition of capital:Since the demand for labour is determined no t by the amo untof capital as a whole, bu t by its variable c onstitu ent alone, tha tdemand falls progressively with the increase of the total capital,instead of, as previously assumed, rising in prop ortion to it. Itfalls relatively t o th e magnitude of the to tal capital and a t anaccelerated rate, as this magnitude increases. With th e growth ofth e tota l capital, its variable part or th e labour incorporated init, also does increase, but in a constantly diminishing prop ortion .(Marx 1 96 1: 629.)

T h u sTh e labouring popu lation. produces a long with the accumula-tion of capital produced by it, the means by which itself ismade relatively superflous, is turned into a relative surpluspopulation; and it does this to an always increasing extent.(op . c i t . : 631 . )Clearly then it is impossible to talk of an Industrial ReserveArm y outside this set of de terminants. In contr ast Braverman sIndu strial Reserve Ar my is radically heterogeneou s. For Marxthe Industrial Reserve Army is constituted by a process wherebya given working population is subject to a tende ncy to expandproduction without a corresponding growth in employment, therise in the organic composition of capital which fun ction s as them ot or of this process is equally for Marx progressive. I t isimp ortan t to realise tha t Marx s argum ent is theorised in relationto a hypothetical working population such that the tendencyoperates on the working population. What goes on outside thisworking population is simply not relevant to the argument. Thus

th e form ation of th e Industrial Reserve Army is achieved,


16/26


17/26

T h e r o mance of labour 9

economy and on a world scale . This means that the nat ionaleconom y plays a total ly different role in the two cases .In the case of wom en th e nat ional econom y is the medium forthe operat ion of the tende ncy, i .e . the argument operates as if nyapparent ly capi ta l is t nat ional econom y could fun ct ion as such anexemplar because the differences between capitalist nationaleconomies are n ot per t inent . W hen, however , we come t o the caseof immigrant labour i t appears on one hand tha t the worldeconomy is the sphere of real isat ion of the mo de of produc t ionand that differences between nat ional economies are pert inent .Differences between nat ional economies appear to be pert inentbecause Braverman posits a set of countries exporting labour(broadly speaking th e under-developed countries) and a series oflabour impo rting countries (th e advanced capitalist countries).However if the differences between national economies arepert inent i t is hard to see how this can be consis tent withBraverman s initial argum ent. If we treat an y national eco nom y asa realisation of the capitalist mo de of pro duc tion (presumingtha t i t exhibi ts the necessary pert inent features) then we assumethat in any such nat ional econom y the tendencies of the capi ta l is tmo de of produc t ion operate by defini t ion. In this case this wouldmea n t ha t all such national eco nom ies generate Industrial ReserveArmies. I f so why, i t might be asked, is i t the case tha t the importor export of labour should be deemed pert inent a t a ll .Braverman s argum ent is continually dogged by his confusionover the concep t of Industr ia l Reserve Army. This leads him totreat any pool of labour-power utilised by advanced capitalisteconomies as an Industrial Reserve Army, thus manifestly con-tradicting the unifying feature of an Industrial Reserve Army asdefined by Marx. Thus women enter ing the labour-force areclearly not displaced by changes in the organic composition ofcapital and immigrant labour is obviously not a homogeneousgroup. For Braverman the Industrial Reserve Army becomesmerely a conve ntional term totally split away from its theoreticalsignificance.In non e of these argum ents is there an y grasp of the pro blema ticcharacter of the concept Industr ia l Reserve Army , and the natureof the link between determinant and function. We have alreadydiscussed Marx s concep tion of th e de term inan ts of the IndustrialReserve Arm y, th e function is discussed in the following terms:

With accumulat ion, and th e development of th e productivenessof labour that accompanies i t , the power of sudden expansionof capital grows also. Th e mass of social wealth, overflowingwith the advance of accumulat ion and t ransformable into


18/26

9 ony utler

addition al capital, thru sts itself frantically in to old branches o fproduct ion whose m arket suddenly expands , or in to newlyform ed branches, such as railways etc., the need f or which growsou t of the developmen t of the old ones. In al l such cases, theremust be the possibility of throwing great masses of mensuddenly o n th e decisive points with ou t injury t o th e scale ofprodu ction in oth er spheres. (Marx 1 961 632.The determinant of the Industrial Reserve Army is argued byMarx to arise from the effects of the rise in the organic com-position of capital which in turn arises out of the supersession ofthe constraint of the supply of labour under a capital ist mode ofproduction. This constraint arises i t is argued from the f ini tel imi t to the working day, to the in tens i ty of labour under giventechnical c ondit ions and the f ini te l imit to t he w orking population.However, the pro du ctio n of an Industrial Reserve Arm y preciselynullifies the pertinence of the latter condition and in discussingthe function of the Industrial Reserve Army we can discern animpo rtant contradict ion in Marx s argument.When the function of the Industrial Reserve Army is discussedit is in terms of the labour requirements of specif ic capitalistenterprises. However, where the determ inants of th e IndustrialReserve Arm y are discussed it is in terms of th e tot al social capital.In oth er words the l imit on t he working population is posed as aglobal l imit of the mode of production, a l imit on th e accum ulationof capital in the context of given technical conditions. Capitalistenterprises, however, as Marx himself argues, do not makecalculations in such terms. Indee d in th e first chaper of V olume I11of Capital Marx argues th at ente rprise calculation is und erta ken infactor-price terms, i.e. tha t a ch eap factor of pro duc tion issubstitute d f or a dear one. If we take this argum ent seriouslywe can see that the process which purports to form an Industrial

Reserve Army i.e. a perm anen t surplus popu lation in fact wou lddo nothing of the kind. In so far as capitalist enterprises followMarx s conc eption of calculation th en th e effect of the displace-ment of labour that it depresses wages, as Marx argues it does,would be to engender substi tut ion of labour for means ofproduction. In other words if factor-substi tut ion plays a key rolein the determ ination of the surplus popu lation th en it logicallycannot produce a permanent p ool but ra ther a f luctuating groupwhose size varies with relative factor prices. In this sense iffunction and determinant are l inked then the prescribed functioncould no t be performed.As we have seen above Marx conceives the function of theIndustrial Reserve Army as allowing for the rapid expansion of


19/26

he romance of labour 91

production without affecting the labour supply of other sectors.This implies tha t a permane nt pool exists to fulfi l1 such needs, bu tif the size of th e pool is dep end ant o n relative fact or prices thenlogically no perm anen t po ol could exist ; congruence of rapidexpansion of production with an available supply of labour couldno t be subsumed u nder the tendency t o produce an IndustrialReserve Army bu t would simply result from a conjunction of tw oquite d ifferent sets of determinants.We have sought to show th e major defects of the texts unde rreview; now by way of a conclusion let us at tempt to signal thebasis of these defects.We have already indicated th at th e labou r process as analysedin the texts is treated, however unrigorously, as deducible fromthe concept of mode of production. National economies are thustreated as realisations of tendencies defined in respect of themod e of produ ction. This practice simply effaces the differencesbetween these theoretical concepts, since as we have indicatedmodes of pro duction are not characterised by features whichconsti tute th e boundaries of national econom ies at given pointsin time, such as currency, monetary policy, regulation of themov eme nt of labou r e tc. As we saw in t he case of Braverman streatme nt of th e Industrial Reserve Army these factors areintroduced in an d ho and cont radic tory way to supplementwhat is non deducible from the concept of capital ist mode ofprodu ction w itho ut seriously confronting th e lat ter s theoreticalinsuffiency.In this respect i t is worth pointing out some importanttheoretical differences between the two concepts. Mode of pro-duc tion implies a set of universal featur es which are conc retelyrealised, temporali ty being treated internal to the mode ofproduction as a development of itself, i .e. in terms of tendencies.A national economy is quite dist inct from this posit ion in thesense tha t the character of its boundaries are variable. To takean example pert inent to our concerns here an economic policyof capitalist nation-states on unem ploym ent is of recent da te andinvolves specific conditions.Such a policy, for example, is not conceptualisable in terms ofan argument where employment levels are seen as a function ofreal wages set by bargains between em ploye rs and workers. This issimply because in this case the regula tor of the level of emp loy-me nt is th e set of individual bargains. Thus, for example, a centralplank of Keyn es argum ent against th e classical the ory ofemployment is aimed at destroying such a posit ion. For Keynesthe argument is no t pert inen t for the reason tha t wage bargainsare not made in terms of a set of commodities but in money


20/26

9 onv utler

terms, the bargain sets the money-wage not th e real wage.17In so far therefore, as the regulat ion of emp loym ent is to be anobject ipso facto i t must be an object of governme nt e conomicpolicy.This is a quite d ifferent si tuation fro m the kind of administrativeintervention envisaged, for example, by Beveridge before theFirst World War and effected in the introduction of labourexchanges. For Beveridge the problem of unem ploym ent isprimarily a facet of localised labour mark ets which expan d thesize of the 001s of available labou r beyo nd the optim um . The keyxam ple o this proble m was casual labou r, particularly studied byBeveridge in relation to dock labour. There Beveridge identified avicious circle effect . Any strategy operated by t he worker withint h e structure of casual labour would necessarily reinforce theproblem. Thus if labourers stayed at a single wharf in order toimprove their chances of work this would simply increase thelocalisat ion of the labour markets and consequently increase thesize of th e labou r reserve in the docks. However, th e mo bilework er moving from wharf t o wharf would simply increase theelement of randomness in obtaining emplo yme nt by increasingcom peti t ion at th e wharfs thus reinforcing casual labour.The point here is that while Beveridge and Keynes can be saidto favour state intervention this omnibus category is quitemeaningless. In Key nes case wage bargains are n o t able t o regulateemployment levels since such levels are not set by these bargains.Fo r Beveridge, however, th e casual labou r prob lem is the excep tionwhich proves the rule , the labour exchang e is in fact th e realisationof free m ark et principles. Th us as we have seen in Beveridge sargument casual labour is accounted for in terms internal toitself.Keynes argument take s seriously the fa ct tha t wage bargains areeffected in money terms. The second key problem in the textsunder consideration is that they do not examine the significanceof the separation of economic enterprises in capitalist economiesnor i ts corollary, the term and character of capital ist enterprisecalculat ion. This leads to what may be called a productionisterror.I t is implici t in all th e works under consideration that capital istenterprises are concerned t o extrac t surplus-value more or less as adirect object of calculation. We have already indicated theproblems of this posit ion bu t i t has further impo rtant ramifications.The stress on the production process assumes that capital istindustrial enterprises are more or less solely concerned with pro-ducing comm odities and sel ling them and tha t their calculation isentirely governed by these concerns.


21/26


However, capitalist calculation d oes n ot involve th e po siting ofa pregiven privileged source of funds. Naturally, in the case ofindustrial capitalist enterprises since the means of productionacquired represent a deploym ent of capi ta l , then equally the meansof produc t ion are a potent ia l source of income to the enterprisebut this in no way precludes alternative sources playing a majorrole or a pred omin ant o ne ; for example, the f low of funds fromthe acquisition of financial assets. Similarly an industrial enterpriseis by no means restr ic ted t o what is conventionally though t of asindustrial calculation. T hus , for exam ple, industrial conglomeratesuse calculations concern ed t o realise capital gains, engendering abasis for cumulative acquisitions by acquiring enterprises with highearnings relative t o their capital value. Such calculations are byand large indifferen t to the sph ere of operation of the enterpriseand are based on leaving the management of the industrial plantto the exist ing management .19The texts under considerat ion al l share the idea that labourexhibits some universal characteristics which are denied underconditions of capitalist production processes. This position con-sequently implies an ontological andlor epistemological stance. Itwould no t b e germane at this point t o discuss the generalcharacteristics of this position bu t it is easy to see th at it leads t oseries of contrad ictions. As we have already seen the alienation oflabour is conceptualised in terms of a mov eme nt from consciouslabour t o the mechanical perform ance of detail tasks in arepetitive manner. In turn this is personified in representativelabourers , the craftsm an, the unskilled labourer. This dual rolefor this dichotomous position, as means of criticising capitalistproduction processes and as tool for their analysis, raises aparticularly acute problem. For Marx as we have seen the skilled1unskilled distinction is pertinen t to a pre-capitalist mo de ofproduction. In this respect the critique of alienated labour isnecessarily a critique, in Marxist terms, from the standpoint of apre-capitalist mode of production. Clearly then, whether oneaccepts this particu lar way of characterising the position o r not, i tis clear tha t the ideal role played by craft labour is no accident,notwithstanding disavowals on the part of many of the authorsconcern ed. T he analysis of the labour process is certainly fashion-able bu t this fashion seems part of a classic line, and we can besure that this new line will evoke a nostalgia all to o familiar.


22/26

ony utler

Notes1. I would like to thank Paul Hirst for help in re-writing the article andBarry Hindess and Athar Hussain for useful comments.2. For example, The point at which the worker is cheaper than themachinery which replaces him or her is determined by more than a meretechnical relationship: it depends as well upon the level of wages, which inturn is affected by the supply of labour as measured against the demand.(Braverman 1974: 237.) This is not to say, however, that Marx is consistenton the question of calculation since while he treats capitalist enterprisecalculation as being undertaken in cost terms there are also points, no t justused for exemplary purposes, where enterprise calculation is undertaken invalue terms.3. It is unclear here, at least to me, what is meant by workers whose soleobject is valorisation .4. See Cutler, Hindess, Hirst and Hussain (1977) Part I5 See Cutler, Hindess, Hirst and Hussain (1977) Part I and Ch. 116. See Cutler, Hindess, Hirst and Hussain (1977) Ch. 11and (1978) Part 117 This is because calculations of this type are made at enterprise level,not plant level.8 See for example, Prais ( 1976) pp. 52-53.9. See for example, the classic analysis of Bright (1958: a : Ch. 1 ). Thisbook is an outstanding work on the question of mechanisation of productionprocesses.10. See, for example, Balibar s analysis in Althusser and Balibar (1970:241-243).11 Obviously the valuation of a company depends upon the prevailingconditions of capitalisation, these are necessarily conjunctura l in character.12. The teleology of tendencies often distorts the posing of interestingquestions, thus, f or example, Sohn-Rethel tells us, The more a modern plantis utilised below its rat ed capacity the higher rises the unit cost of its outpu t,and this coincides with the need for lowering prices and decreasing cost tomeet an insufficient, if not receding market demand. The modern planteconomy has made production inadaptable to the postulates of a marketeconomy. (C.S.E. 1976 : 31.) Unfortunately Sohn-Rethe l fails t o considerwhether the constraint on the operation of plants of a high fixed cost, highvolume character actually limits their incidence. Recent evidence (see Prais(1976)) suggests that concentration is much more marked at the enterpriselevel than at the plant level, and advantages of scale are primarily financial.13. More precisely craft and mechanised labour processes are no tidentified with particular mode of product ion in a unique way; thus a numberof pre-capitalist modes of production would be characterised by craftlabour processes and presumably both capitalism and socialism would becharacterised by mechanised labour processes .14. Bright (1958: b).15. Obviously, for example, the capacity to organise trade unions directlyaffects the conditions of labour supply and such conditions do not correspondto t he capacities of th e labourers involved in any universal way.16. On more general ramifications of this problem see Hussain (1977).17. See Keynes (1973) Ch s 2 and 19.18. See Beveridge (1930: 81).19. See for example Lynch (1971).


23/26


ReferencesAlthusser, L. and Ballbar, E. 1970)Reading Capital . London, New Left Books.Beveridge,W. H. 1930) U n e m p l o y m e n t :A P m b l e m o f I n d u s tr y . London,Longmans.Braverman, H. 1974) Labor andMonopoly C api ta l . New York and London,~ o n t h l ~ k e v i e wress.Bright, J. 1958: a) A utomat ion andManagement . Cambridge, Mass., HawardU.P.Bright, J. 1958: b ) Does AutomationRaise Skill Requirements? HarvardBusiness Review, vol. 36, no. 4.Brighton Labour Process Group 1976)7 hc Produc t ion Process o f Cap i tal andthe Capitalist L.abour Process, Xerox.Conference of Socialist Economists1976) The Labo ur Process and ClassStrategies. London. Stage 1.

Cutler, A. J. Hindess B., Hirst, P. Q.and Hussain, A. 1977 and 1978) Marx SC api ta l and C api ta l is m T o- l lay ,vols. 1and 2 London, Routledge and KeganPaul.Hussain, A. 1977) Crises and Tendenciesof Capitalism , E cono my and Soc ie tn / ,vol. 6 , no. 4 .Keynes, J. M 1973) T h e G e ne ra l T h e o yof l :mploymen t , ln t er es t aw d Mon ey .London, Macmillan.Lynch, H. H. 1 97 Financial Performanceof C onglomer a tes . Cambridge, Mass.,Harvard U.P.Marx K. 1961) Capital , vol. 1 Moscow,Foreign Languages Publishing House.Prais, S. J. 1976) T he E vo lu tion o fGiant Firms in Britain. Cambridge,Cambridge U.P.

Some important VAN GORCUM itles:T h e e t h n o lo g ic a l n o t e b o o k s o f K a r l M u m . (Studies of Morgan, Phear,Maine, Lubbock). Transcribed and edited with an introduction by LawrenceKrader. 2nd e d. 1974. 15 X 23. XI1 454 p.ISBN 90 232 0924 9 Cloth f 87,75

In the series DIALECTIC A ND SOCIETYhave been published till now :1 . KRADER, L.: T he A s ia ti c Mode o f P r oduct ion . Sources, Developmentand Critique in the Writings of Karl Marx. 1 9 7 5 . 1 6 X 24. XIV 454 p.ISBN 90 232 1289 4 Cloth f 98,90A major task of this book is to set forth in ordered outline the theory ofMarx s economic formation of society preceding the capitalist in history.Here a new theory of the relation between capitalism and the Asiatic modeof production in the development of political economy is offered.2. KRADER, L.: Dialec ti c o f C iv il Soc ie t y . 1976. 16 X 24. XI1 279 p.ISBN 90 232 1428 5 Cloth f 59,OOFor the comprehension of modern society, the central place is given to thehistory of its basis, the succession of the Asiatic, servile, and modernmodes of production, then to its superstructure, the state.

VAN GORCUM PUBL. P.O. BOX 43 ASSEN Holland)


24/26

Notes on uthors

Greta Jones studied history at University College, London andcompleted a Ph.D. at the London School of Economics in 1974on Darwinism and social thought . Since then she has workedas a Research Fellow in the Department of Astronomy andHistory of Science at Leicester University on the question of thepopularisation of science. At present she teaches in theDepartment of Politics, Philosophy and History at the NorthernIreland Polytechnic.

dr ian W eigh t s born 1951, obtained B.A. (Hons) in sociologyfrom Liverpool University in 1975. present a research studentin the Department of Sociology at the Liverpool University,writing a Ph.D. thesis on the sociology of Max Weber.

T o n y C u tl er teaches sociology at Middlesex Polytechnic and isco-author of M a r x S Capital and Capi ta l i sm Today with BarryHindess, Paul Hirst and Athar Hussain, published by RoutledgeKegan Paul.

Printed in Great Britain y Butler Tanner Lt d From e and Londort


25/26

ForthcomingET H N IC N D R C I L

STUDIESA n e w n t e rn a t io n a l o u rn a l o f e t h n ic , c u l t u r a l a n d r a c e r e l a t i o n sE d i t o r s :J o h n Ston e, Fel low of St Antony's Col lege, Oxford, and ResearchOfficer in Race Relations at the University of OxfordN o rm a n Fa inste in, Department of Urban Affairs and Pol icy Analysis,Ne w School for Social ResearchSu sa n Fain stein , Department of U ~ b a n lanning, Rutgers Universi tyH en ri Gio rdan , fco le des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales

Articles scheduled for Volume Number 1 include:A. R ic hm on d Migration, ethnici ty and race relat ionsA. M a zr u i Negri tude, the Talmudic tradit ion and the in-tellectual performance of Blacks and Je wsM C r o s s Colonial ism and ethnici ty: a theory and com-parative case studyJ. H ur st f i el d ' Internal'colonialism :White, Black and Chicanoself-conceptionsC. C o u lo n French political science and regional diversityReview articles:A. H. Halsey Ethnicity : a primordial social bond A review ofEthnicity: Theory and Experience edited byNathan Glazer and D aniel P. M oyn ihanShort reviews:J o h n S t o n e Race Relations by Oliver C. CoxK e n n e t h K i r k w o o d Interethnic Relations by Emerich K FrancisF rances Svensson Ethnicity and Mobilization by Tom G . SvenssonS t e p he n B u r m a n Red Black and Green by Alphonso PinkneyC h r is M c C r u d d e n Housing and Race by David H McKayH a n n a n R o s e Race and Ethnic Relations by Gordon Bowkerand J ohn CarrierRace Ethnicity and Social Change by JohnStoneEditorial matters-articles, books for review and other con tributionsmay be sent to an y one of the editors.ETHN IC AN D RAC IAL STU DIES w i l l be pub li shed fou r times ayear--January, April, Ju ly and October. The first issue wi ll appear inJanuary 1978.The annual subscription rate for Volume 1, 19 78 is 9.00 (US 18.00);f6. 00 for BSA members, 12.00 for ASA mem bers. Subscriptionorders and requests for further inform ation should be sent to :

Journa ls Manager, R outledge Journals,Broadway House, Newto wn Road,Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG9 1 EN, E nglandROUTLEDGE KEG N P UL

39 S t o r e S t re e t, L o n d o n WC1


26/26

the romance of labtour.pdf

Documents