Transformation?

Many years ago, when I was a student, I was a deeply committed Marxist in my political beliefs. Later, I toyed with Anarchism, and, eventually, became a rather soft Libertarian Socialist. I held this position for many years and voted for the Labour Party.

But, from the late 1990’s I found that the ‘left, liberal’ position was drifting towards totalitarianism and intolerance. This happened slowly at first but has accelerated at breakneck speed in recent years.

I found myself, at first to my dismay, drifting to the right of the political spectrum as the whole political spectrum shifted.

I found myself agreeing more and more with what are called ‘right wing’ arguments because they were the only political groups that were defending freedom of expression and freedom in general.

I was, and am, aware that there are some very dangerous groups out there on the extreme right, but they differ very little from the more extreme groups on the ‘left’, at least in practice.

This ‘drifting’ lead me to read more and more of the ‘Classical Liberal’ materials and traditionally conservative books and articles. And I agreed with them, mostly. This was a major shift in my views from 40 years ago.

Well, as they say, if you are not a socialist when you are young you have no heart, but if you still are a socialist when you are older you have no brain.

The only problem I have with these more conservative positions is their general social intolerance, their religiousness and their anti-science positions.

I am and have been for many years, a hard atheist, and that is unlikely to change. I have never found any evidence to cause me to change my views on transcendental or supernatural beings or forces. I dislike religion as a socio-political phenomenon in all its forms. The all tend to an intolerant and even totalitarian position. The only ‘religious’ philosophy that has, and does, attract me is some form of Buddhism. However, recently I have re-discovered Stoicism which is a philosophy very, very similar in practice to Buddhism.

I toyed with the Quakers once, but I could not accept a belief in any ‘god’ and nor could I be a pacifist.

I am very socially liberal. All forms of behaviour should be allowed unless they interfere with another's freedoms. A classical J. S. Mill position.

I would legalise all forms of drug use, all forms of sexual behaviour and all forms of transactions between people for money, including sexual transactions. I would hope that the old, and important, distinction between the public arena and the private sphere would become accepted once more.

I don’t care a jot about a politicians, or a businessman's or a celebrities private behaviour as long as they can do their job and do not transgress the freedoms of others.

My positions on issues like abortion are ambivalent. I do think that abortion is a form of murder, BUT the alternative to legalised abortion is far, far worse. I am, just, old enough to remember the time before abortion was legalised, in the UK. Therefore, it should be legal.

I am very, very pro-science as a method for discovering truths about the physical world. I fear that the process has become somewhat corrupted in recent times by politics and money, but I still believe in the scientific method as the only way to discover truths.

I believe in equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, race and all the other labels we use, but the outcomes will be what they will be. One cannot equalise outcomes without massive state intervention verging on totalitarianism.

I believe that the worst murderers, corruptors and abusers of power are States and organised religions. So I now call myself a Libertarian with conservative tendencies. A minarchist I suppose.

Heavens, that was a long spiel. The left itself has pushed me, and I suspect many like me, away from them and into a variety of other political and social positions.

Taylorism and Social Care

I have written this short article to outline, purely hypothetically, an issue that has occupied my brain space for some time now. It is a very rough draft of a hypothetical process and the impact that it may have. I am working on deepening this much, much more and on writing a much more substantial analysis, if I get the time.

What is Taylorism?

(Sometimes referred to as ‘Scientific Management.’)

“A factory management system developed in the late 19^th century to increase efficiency by evaluating every step in a manufacturing process and breaking down production into specialized repetitive tasks.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Taylorism

Named after the US industrial engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915)

This is a very brief definition—Read more at:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Taylorism.html

Taylorism is not dissimilar to ‘Fordism’, although they developed their ideas separately.

This method of systematising production was applied to industry, the archetypical ‘ideal type’ being, of course, the production of automobiles. Over time other industries involved in the production of ‘things’ adopted all or part of this methodology. This lead to a massive increase in efficiency, production and, of course, a fall in the final price of the item to the consumer.

There were well documented negative effects on the workforce, however. That would also make an interesting topic. For the record, I am not opposed to the introduction of Taylorist principles where it is relevant. These principles have been a factor in making modern life so very comfortable for the average consumer.

In more recent times this way of thinking has been applied, at least in part, to working environments that are not concerned with producing things, but dealing with people.

The diagram I use here is derived from the article to be found at—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1466626/

I will use this diagram to talk a little about the hypothetical impact the application of Taylorist methods to people-centred industries may have.

I will talk about the points listed in the box one at a time.

Specialisation/Fragmentation of Tasks:

This category almost speaks for itself. It is the breaking down of tasks and routines into the smallest possible elements, defining precisely what these elements consist of, possibly setting timings to these elements, defining the goal of each element and setting them in the appropriate order.

This, fairly obviously, works well with the production of things, like motor-vehicles for example. It would not be so straightforward for social care situations but, hypothetically, it could be done. It would be possible to break down the daily routine into stages and define what these stages consist of and the goal to which they are contributing. This would have an effect of deskilling, to some extent, the professional workforce. A degree of their professional judgement would be removed. It also shifts a degree of control up to management, in the setting and monitoring of these routines.

To a degree, maybe a marked degree, it would create a situation where some of the professional input was no longer required. The stages could be executed, hypothetically, by competent, but unqualified, personnel.

Evaluating and Standardising Tasks:

The various elements, by becoming more standardised, would also be open to a higher degree of evaluation. How well does a particular member of staff fulfil these routines? This, to an extent, again raises control to a more managerial level. But it could, hypothetically, create a situation where the personnel become their own agents of social control – a ‘panopticonisation’ (excuse the gruesome word) of the workspace, where all watch and monitor each other. The effect on the psychological ‘culture’ of the workspace could, hypothetically, be very negative.

This would also place higher demands on the time and energy of the staff. More time would have to be devoted to paperwork.

The evaluation process could also lead to a situation where performance could become more closely linked to reward.

Loss of control over conditions of work:

As, perhaps, can be seen, a real side effect of the first two points would be an increasing loss of control over their own workflow, a loss, as said above, of the use of their professional judgement by the personnel. This could lead to increasing dissatisfaction with the job and an increasing sense of alienation from the job, but also from their colleagues.

Deskilling:

I believe that I have mentioned the loss of professional judgement and the considered use of their own skills above.

To refer to Taylor's own words, the system matters more than the individual.

Depersonalisation:

The growing ‘mechanisation’ of the process leading to alienation, loss of control and deskilling could, hypothetically, lead to a situation where the recipients of the care process are treated more and more as ‘parts of a system’ leading to a loss of personal contact and to a ‘depersonalisation’ of the care recipients themselves. They become ‘units’ to work on.

Depersonalisation could, hypothetically, affect the staff too, as they become more and more like interchangeable ‘factory workers’, thus affecting the quality of their working space and a declining of their commitment it.

The official goal of this system is an improvement in the lives of the receivers of the care. The actual product is paper – evaluations, reports, plans and so on. It is this that becomes the most important output, and may hypothetically be prioritised over the recipients of the care themselves.

The map becomes mistaken for the terrain and becomes the most vital part of the system.

Negative side effects could well be, hypothetically speaking, increased alienation amongst the staff, loss of control by the staff, loss of interest in the overall process by the staff, increasing suspicion of each other by the staff, increasing absence due to sickness, increasing psychological problems amongst the staff and a higher staff turnover.

Conclusion, of sorts:

Does this work? Does such a mechanisation and systematisation of social care actually achieve the goal of improving the lives of the recipients of the care? Without much more empirical study, I cannot answer that and I will not try to.

I will say that in such a workplace an informal structure will always exist, much more elastic and much more relationship based. I would want to argue that it would be better to work with such an informal, more human, structure than to impose a dehumanising structure upon it.

The human being, in all his/her complexity, would be lost in the demands of the system. And with such an oversimplified approach, where we don’t know what we don’t know, the individual human being has been lost within the machinery and placed under a much more centralised system of observation, control and interference.

Again – I repeat very loudly, this is the first draft of a HYPOTHETICAL issue. A great deal of much wider empirical work needs to be done. I am aware of the utilisation of a ‘Taylorist’ approach to health care in certain Western institutions, with results similar to those I discussed above. I am talking, purely hypothetically, about the industrialisation of social care.