SELF-MANAGEMENT AND HIERARCHY
, Cornelius Castoriadis
We live in a society whose organization is hierarchical, it is working, production, or firm, administration, policy, or State or even education and scientific research. The hierarchy is not an invention of modern society. Its origins are remote, although not always existed, and there were no hierarchical societies that have worked very well. But in modern society, the hierarchical system (or, which is the same, bureaucracy) has become nearly universal. As soon as there is any collective activity, it is organized on the principle of hierarchy, and hierarchy of command and the power increasingly coincides with the hierarchy of wages and incomes. So that people do not come to imagine that could hardly be otherwise, and that they themselves could be something different definito che dal loro posto nella piramide gerarchica.
I difensori del sistema attuale cercano di giustificarlo come il solo "logico", "razionale", "economico". Abbiamo già cercato di mostrare che questi "argomenti" non valgono nulla e non giustificano nulla, che essi sono falsi presi ognuno separatamente econtraddittori quando li si considera nel loro insieme. Avremo l'occasione di ritornare sul questo tema. Ma si presenta anche il sistema attuale come il solo possibile, lo si pretende imposto dalle necessità della moderna produzione, dalla complessità della vita sociale, la grande scala di tutte le attività, ecc. Cercheremo di mostrare che non è vero, e che l'esistenza di una gerachia è radicalmente incompatibile with self-management.
HIERARCHY OF CONTROL AND SELF-MANAGEMENT
collective decision-making and problem of representation
What does it mean, socially, the hierarchical system? A layer of the population runs the company and the other merely implementing its decisions, so that this layer, receiving the largest income, take advantage of the company's production and work much better than others. In short, that society is divided between a layer that has the power and privilege, and the rest, which is free. The hierarchy or bureaucracy- - Of all the social activities that the form is not today, more and more important, the division of society. As such, it is both result and cause of the conflict which has torn society.
If this is so, it becomes ridiculous to ask themselves: self-management, operation and the existence of a social system is self-compatible with the maintenance of the hierarchy? Might as well ask whether the abolition of the current prison system is compatible with the maintenance of prison guards, prison officers and directors, what is obvious is good to be told explicitly. Especially since, for millennia, has ushered in the spirits of people since from their earliest childhood the idea that it is "natural" one Comandini and others obey, that each have a redundant and the other just enough.
We want a self-managed society. What does this mean? One company which manages, that goes by itself. But this must still be clarified. A self-governing society is a society in which all decisions are taken by the community that is, every time, considered as an object of its decisions. Ie a system where those who are performing a collectively decide what to do and how, in the only limits that give them their coexistence with other collective units. Thus, decisions that affect workers in a laboratory must be taken by workers in quest'officina; those involving several laboratories at a time, by all the affected workers or their elected and revocable delegates, those relating to the whole enterprise , from all personnel; those relating to a neighborhood by neighborhood residents, and those that affect the whole society, from all the women and men who live there.
But what does it mean to decide?
decide, you decide for themselves. It is not to leave the decision of "competent persons" subject to a vague "control". It is not even describe the people who will, themselves, to decide. It is not because the population means, once after a certain number of years, those who make the laws, it makes the laws. It is not because after a designated number of years, who will decide the policy of the country, which itself decides the policy. It does not decide, it alienates its decision-making power to the representatives' or delegates that, by that very fact, are not and can not be its representatives or delegates, attarverso the different communities, as well as the existence of bodies, committees or councils, made up of those delegates will be in a certain number of cases, essential. But non sarà compatibile con l'autogestione soltanto se questi delegati rappresentano veramente la collettività di cui essi stessi sono emanazione, e questo implica che rimangono sottoposti al suo potere. Il che significa, a sua volta, che quest'ultima non soltanto li elegge, ma può anche revocarli ogni volta che essa lo giudica necessario.
Dunque, dire che vi è gerarchia del comando formato da "persone competenti" ed in principio inamovibili; o dire che vi sono dei rappresentanti" inamovibili per un dato periodo di tempo (e che, come l'esperienza dimostra, diventano praticamente inamovibili per sempre), è dire che non vi è autogestione, nemmeno "gestione democratica". Ciò equivale infatti a dire che la collettività is directed by persons whose direction the business has now become the common business specialized and exclusive, and that, in law or fact, beyond the power of community.
On the other hand, decide, and decide for informed consent. It is no longer the community decides, even if it formally "vote", if someone or some have their own knowledge and relevant information. But also, they can define themselves as the criteria by which they agree. And to do this, they are trained more wide. Now, a hierarchy of command means that those who have decided - or rather, pretend to possess the monopoly of information and training, and in any case, they will have privileged access. The hierarchy is based on this fact, and it tends to play it constantly. Because in a hierarchical organization, any information from the base to go up top and not descend more or move (in fact, they are moving, but controle rules of the organization hierarchy). Similarly, all the decisions come down from the summit to the base, which has only to execute them. This corresponds roughly to say that there is a hierarchy of command and say that these two circulations are made each way Single: The summit gathers and absorbs all the information that lead up to it and do not ridifonde to the performers that is strictly necessary for the enforcement of orders made to them and that only emanate from it. In such a situation, it is absurd to think that there may be self or "democratic management".
How can we decide if we do not have information necessary to decide right? And how can we learn to decide if it is always reduced to carry out what others have decided? As soon as a hierarchy of command is established, the community itself becomes opaque, and there is a huge waste. Becomes opaque, because the information is retained at the top. A waste occurs because employees are not informed or misinformed do not know what they should know to conduct their job well, especially because the collective capacity to proceed, as well as the inventiveness and initiative, formally reserved for the command, are hindered and inhibited at all levels.
So, will the self-or the "democratic management", where the word democracy is used for simply decorative purposes, and willingness to maintain a hierarchy of command is a contradiction in terms. It would be much more consistent, formally, say, as the defenders of the current system: the hierarchy of command is essential, therefore, there can be self-managed society.
Soltanto, ciò è falso. Quando esaminiamo le funzioni della gerarchia, cioè a cosa essa serve, constatiamo che, per una gran parte, esse non hanno senso e non esistono che in funzione del sistema sociale attuale, e che le altre, quelle che conserverebbero un senso ed una utilità nel sistema sociale autogestito, potrebbero facilmente essere collettivizzate. Non possiamo discutere, nei limiti di questo testo, la questione in tutta la sua ampiezza. Tenteremo di chiarirne alcuni aspetti importanti, riferendoci soprattutto all'organizzazione dell'impresa e della produzione.
Una delle funzioni più importanti della gerarchia attuale è di organizzare la costrizione. Nel lavoro, ad esempio, che si tratti di officine o di uffici, an essential part of the 'activities' hierarchical apparatus, until the direction of team leaders, is to monitor, investigate, punish, impose directly or indirectly to the "discipline" and the proper implementation of the orders received by those who must execute them. And why should organize the constraint, because there must be a constraint? Why workers do not spontaneously overflowing enthusiasm to do what management wants them to do. And why? Because neither their work nor his product belonging to them, because they feel alienated and exploited, because they themselves have not decided what to do and how to do, or what what will happen to what they have done, in short, because there is a perpetual social conflict between those who work and those who direct the work of others and take advantage. In sum, therefore: there must be hierarchy, to organize the constraint-and there must be no constraint because there is division and conflict, namely that there is also the hierarchy. In general, the hierarchy appears as if there were to settle conflicts, masking the fact that the existence of the hierarchy is itself the source of perpetual conflict. Because as long as there is a hierarchical system, there will, for this very fact, continues revival of a conflict between a radical leader and privileged stratum, and other categorie, ridotte a dei ruoli di esecuzione.
Si dice che se non ci fosse costrizione, non vi sarebbe nessuna disciplina, che ognuno farebbe ciò che vorrebbe e sarebbe il caos. Ma ciò non è nient'altro che un sofisma. La questione non è di sapere se occorre della disciplina, o anche a volte la costrizione, ma quale disciplina, decisa da chi, controllata da chi, sotto quali forme e per quali scopi. Più gli scopi che servono una disciplina sono estranei ai bisogni ed ai desideri di coloro che devono realizzarli, più le decisioni concernenti questi scopi e le forme della disciplina sono esteriori e più vi è bisogno di costrizione per farli rispettare. Una collettività autogestita non è una collettività senza disciplina, but a community that itself decide its rules and, in the case of the failure of sanctions against those who violate it deliberately. Concerning in particular the work, you can not seriously discuss the issue by presenting the company as a self-managed enterprise contemporary strictly identical except that he would take the shell hierarchy.
Within undertakings simultaneously, it requires people to work that is foreign to them and which they have nothing to say. The remarkable thing is not that they oppose it, but there are no objections at all in most cases. You can not believe for a moment that their attitude toward work would remain the same when the relationship their work will be transformed and that they will begin to become the masters. On the other hand, even in the enterprise simultaneously, there is a discipline, but two. There is the discipline that strikes constraints and financial penalties or other apparatus hierarchy is constantly trying to impose. And there is the discipline, much less apparent but no less strong, which lies within the groups of workers of a team or workshop and does so such that neither those who make too much or those who are not enough to be tolerated. The human groups have never been and never chaotic agglomerations of individuals motivated solely by selfishness and struggle against each other, how they want to do the ideologues believe of capitalism and bureaucracy that do not express it that their own attitudes. In groups, particularly those who are called to a common task always arise permanent rules of conduct and a pressure group that enforces them.
Self-management, competence and decision
We come now to another key function of the hierarchy, which appears to be independent of the social structure of contemporary decision-making and executive functions. The question that arises is: why communities consider themselves could not accomplish this function, go by themselves and decide for themselves, perché occorrerebbe uno strato particolare di persone, organizzate a parte, che decidono e che dirigono? A questa domanda, i difensori dell'attuale sistema forniscono due genere di risposte: una si appoggia sull'invocazione del "sapere" e della "competenza": bisogna che coloro che sanno, o coloro che sono competenti, decidano. L'altra afferma, con parole più o meno velate, che bisogna in ogni modo che qualcuno decida, perché altrimenti sarebbe il caos, detto altrimenti perché la collettività sarebbe incapace di dirigersi da sé.
Nessuno contesta l'importanza del sapere e della competenza, né, soprattutto che oggi un certo sapere ed una certa competenza sono riservati ad una minoranza. Ma, anche in questo caso, questi fatti non sono invocati che per coprire dei sofismi. Non sono coloro che possiedono più sapere e competenza in generale che dirigono il sistema attuale. Chi dirige, sono coloro che si sono mostrati capaci di ascendere nell'apparato gerarchico o coloro che, in funzione della loro ordine familiare e sociale, sono stati sin dall'inizio posti sulla buona strada dopo aver ottenuto qualche diploma. In entrambi i casi, la "competenza" che si esige per mantenersi o arrampicarsi nell'apparato gerarchico riguarda molto più la capacità di difendersi e di vincere nella concorrenza che si sferrano gli individui, cosche e clan in seno all'apparato gerarchico-burocratico, che l'attitudine a dirigere un lavoro collettivo.
In secondo luogo, it is not because someone or have some knowledge or a scientific or technical expertise, that the best way to use them is to entrust them with the direction of a set of tasks. It can be an excellent engineer in his own specialty without being able to "steer" the set of a department of a factory. There is, moreover, noted that the present situation in this regard. Technicians and specialists are generally confined to their particular fields. "leaders" surround themselves with some technical advisers gather their views on decisions to be made (opinions often diverge from each other) and finally "decide". One can clearly see the absurdity of the argument. If the "manager" decide on the basis of his "knowledge" and his "expertise" should be learned and knowledgeable about everything, either directly or to decide which of the conflicting opinions of experts, is the best. This is clearly impossible and managers actually choose arbitrarily, depending on their "feedback". Now this "opinion" of one has no reason to be more valid opinion that would be formed in a self-governing community, from a real experience infinitely larger than that of a single individual.
Self-Management, specialization and rationalization
Know e competenza sono per definizione specializzati e lo diventano sempre più ogni giorno. Uscito dal suo campo speciale, il tecnico o lo specialista non è più capace di chiunque altro di prendere una buona decisione. Anche all'interno del suo campo particolare, del resto, il suo punto di vista è fatalmente limitato. Da una parte, egli ignora gli altri campi, che sono necessariamente in interazione con il suo e tende naturalmente a trascurarli. Così, nelle imprese così come nelle attuali amministrazioni, la questione del coordinamento "orizzontale" dei servizi di direzione è un incubo perpetuo. Si è giunti, da tanto tempo , a creare degli specialisti del coordinamento per coordinare le attività degli specialisti della direzione- that prove so incapable of directing themselves. On the one hand, and above all, specialists in executive positions within this motif are separated from the actual production process, from what happens, the conditions under which employees must perform their work. Most of the time, decisions taken by the offices after elaborate calculations, perfect on paper, turn out to be unenforceable as they are, because they have not taken sufficient account of the actual conditions in which they should be applied. Now these real conditions, by definition, only the worker knows the community. Everyone knows that this is done in contemporary business, a source of perpetual conflict and a waste immenso.
Per contro, sapere e competenza possono essere razionalmente utilizzate se coloro che li possiedono sono reimersi nella collettività dei produttori, se diventano una delle componenti delle decisioni che questa collettività avrà da prendere. L'autogestione esige la cooperazione tra coloro che possiedono un sapere o una competenza particolare e coloro che assumono il lavoro produttivo nel senso stretto. È totalmente incompatibile con una separazione di queste due categorie. È soltanto se una tale cooperazione si instaura che questo sapere e questa competenza potranno essere pienamente utilizzate; mentre, oggi, non sono utilizzate che per una piccola parte, poiché coloro che le possiedono sono confinati a dei compiti limitati, strettamente circumscribed by the division of labor "within the Board. Above all, this cooperation can only ensure that knowledge and expertise will be made effectively to the community and not for a particular purpose.
Such cooperation can take place without conflicts arise between the specialists and other workers? If an expert says, from his specialized knowledge, that a certain metal, because it has such properties, is the most suitable for quell'utensile or that piece, you do not see why and from what it might raise objections from free the workers. Even in this case, moreover, a rational decision requires that workers are not strangers-for example, because the owners of the chosen material plays a role during the processing of parts and tools. But the really important decisions regarding the production will always be an essential component on the role and place of men in production. About this, there is-by definition-no knowledge and no expertise that can dominate the view of those who will really work to be carried out. No organization of an assembly line or assembly can be neither rational nor acceptable if it has been decided without taking into account the point of view of those who work there. Why not take this into account, these decisions are almost always present shaky, and if production does, however, it is because the workers are organized together to make it go, breaking the rules and instructions "official" organization of work. But even the supposedly "rational" from a strictly pubto production efficiency, these decisions are unacceptable precisely because they are, and can only be exclusively based on the principle of 'productive efficiency. " This means that they tend to make workers whole production process, and to treat them as parts of the productive mechanism. Now this is not due to poor management, his stupidity and not simply in search of profit. (A proof that the 'organization of work "is rogora stessanei the Eastern and Western countries). This is the direct and inevitable consequence of a system in which decisions are taken by others than those who should be making; such a system can not have another "logical".
But a self-managed company can not follow this "logic". His logic is quite another, is the logic of the liberation of men and their development. The community of workers may well decide - and in our opinion, would be right to do so-for it, of working days less tiring, less absurd, freer and happier they are infinitely preferable to a few more pieces of junk. And, for those choices, absolutely fundamental, there is no criterion "scientific" or "objective" it's worth: the only criterion is the opinion of the community itself about what it prefers, from his experience, his needs and his desires.
This is true scale of the entire society. No criteria "scientific" allows anyone to decide what is best for society to have more free time next year, rather than more consumption or the reverse, growing faster or slower, etc.. He says that those criteria are is an ignorant or a liar. The only criterion that makes sense in these fields, is that men e l edonne che formano la società vogliono, e ciò, soltanto essi possono deciderlo e nessuno al loro posto.
Testo scritto in collaborazione con Daniel Mothé e pubblicato in CFDT Aujourd’hui, n° 8, luglio-agosto 1974 .
0 comments:
Post a Comment