maxopedia

I currently work in an extremely specialized industry. When people ask what I do, I usually just say I'm in the IT field. But I don't deal with information technology as a whole - I simply deal with one small part of it. I deal with data-warehousing and business intelligence. But further more, I am even further specialized in my areas of expertise regarding data-warehousing practice: I work mainly with a single, proprietary tool used for these purposes called 'Informatica'.

So, when my computer breaks do I fix it myself? No, I end up calling tech support just like any other asshole (this is partially due to the BS 'common operating environment' and loads of annoyance-ware that HP puts on my computer, but that is neither here nor there).

Supposedly the reason I'm not supposed to fix my computer is because of the efficiency produced by 'division of labor' (from Wikipedia):

Division of labour is the specialisation of cooperative labour in specific, circumscribed tasks and roles, intended to increase efficiency of output. Historically the growth of a more and more complex division of labour is closely associated with the growth of trade, the rise of capitalism, and of the complexity of industrialisation processes.

Division of labor is what results for the 'cog in the machine' experience that I'm sure we've all had at some point or another. If you read the aforementioned Wikipedia article, we find that several economists and sociologists feel the same way about the division of labor, even Adam Smith who is easily seen as viewing the division of labor as an economic engine, wrote that division of labor could lead to 'mental mutilation' of workers. As I'm sure you can imagine, folks like Karl Marx have an even dimmer view of the whole matter.

Ludvig Von Mises, an influential Austrian economist, absolutely loves the division of labor. According to Mises:

The greater productivity of work under the division of labor is a unifying influence. It leads men to regard each other as comrades in a joint struggle for welfare, rather than as competitors in a struggle for existence. It makes friends out of enemies, peace out of war, society out of individuals.

Civilization is a product of leisure and the peace of mind that only the division of labour can make possible.

Every expansion of the personal division of labor brings advantages to all who take part in it.

It is an illusion to believe that one can maintain productivity and reduce the division of labor.

Division of labor has a lot of things going for it. At a certain point, it almost seems like an increasing division of labor is requisite for an ever-expanding economy. You're simply imagining things if you think about it any other way, at least according to Mises.

However, it seems fairly obvious that the further one increases the division of labor, the further the isolation of workers becomes, despite Mises being apparently of the opinion that the 'alienation' of workes is a purely romantic concept.

A vast array of employment possibilities, that increasingly represent large investments of time and effort towards education, further increase the anxiety that workers experience when attempting to determine which cog is theirs to turn. This is alienation of a type far beyond what Marx was ever speaking about. His workers at least could see the machines they happened to be manipulating. Today's information worker simply describes a particular 'state' that may get applied to a particular decision-ish apparatus depending upon the 'states' that others have provided. The worker may not even work on a whole piece of a 'state'. In this super-attenuated condition, why would we not expect a degree of dissolution on the part of our laborers?

Furthermore, their plight is confounded by the fact that their superiors are rewarded with the control over the division of labor. This leaves the day-to-day existence of a modern managed worker to forces largely beyond their control; either quit and figure something else out, or weasel and work your way up until you have more control over your own destiny. In my experience this can turn in on itself and stifle innovation, enthusiasm, and workforce integration.

There also seems to me that there is another argument against promoting the utmost degree of specialization; narrow boundaries of inquiry result in narrow solutions. One could analyze this with a Marxist slant. Keep the proles subjugated by limiting their worldview. Typically, the further you go up the chain of management, the more control is present over the division of labor, and therefore it is more likely that these persons possess skills of a much more generic nature. Based on the fact the most of the world's movers and shakers spend most of their time simply reading to generate new ideas, and analyzing the 'state' of the world, rather than the 'state' of a cash register or its software, limiting yourself to a particular specialty is even more limiting than it initially appears.

Personally, I believe that division of labor is inevitable. Some times, in some instances, it will be simply more efficient for one person to do something than another. While I am not concerned about the existence of specialization, I am concerned about how it is managed. Furthermore, I believe that the rank-and-file worker needs to have more control over the division of labor in their immediate surroundings, else they are left feeling alienated and 'mentally mutilated'.

I would like it recognized that specialization to the degree that we see in certain industries such as manufacturing or technology, is a vulnerability that is thrust onto the worker. The businesses that employ specialized workers do not bear the worker's cost of specialization - namely the possibility of skill and knowledge obsolescence.

It is a fool's game for the modern knowledge worker to assume that specialization is a key to success, despite it being a key to success for the global economy. The greatest rewards will always go to those that are able to 'connect the dots' and transcend the boundaries that the division of labor produces.

Our educational institutions recognize this issue - that is why there is an abundance of interdisciplinary programs like the 'Animate Arts' degree that I received. I believe we should promote as minimal a division of labor is as possible and efficient - true innovation frequently happens when the boundaries that create such efficiency are compromised.