CONTENTS - ouroboros ponderosa

11,1,
1'..\ '1 1,( Jln'>rYI ,\NI) l iN!! )NI.';l\1
Naturally, it made sense to publicly proillutc scientific lIlanagclIll' lIl as
geared directly to problems of profit and productivity, alth()lJh its ailll
was control of production. In fact, at that time capital's prohkm was
indced not so much one of productivity. Giedion's comparison 01
American and G erman industry shows that Germany's greatcr reliance
on workcr skill was cheaper than the American tendency to mechanize."
Thus the introduction of Taylorism was primarily a social and even
political response, rathcr than a matter of economics or " neutral"
technology. The proponents of the new rcgimentation sought to invcst it
with an aura of impartiality, to cvoke a theoretical legitimacy useful to
capitalism as a wholc .'
Despite these pseudo-scientific apologies for the Taylorist approach,
the public rapidly developed a vcry negative view of it. As the Taylor
Society admitted with surprising candor, scientific managcmcnt was
widely seen as "the degradation of workmen into obedient oxen under
the direction of a small body of cxperts-into men debarred from
creative participation in their work."6 The public'S accurate evaluation of
scientific management practice finds its source in the contempt in which
Taylor and his followers held workers. Referring to his expcrience at
Bdhlehem Steel, Taylor dcscribed the iron handler he encountered as
stupid, phlegmatic, and ox-like 7 Yet, despite attempts to downgradc their
subjects, scientific management tracts are full of admonitions to proceed
slowly, due to workers' resistance. It was regularly repeated that several
years are needed to reorganize a plant on the scientific management
basis ' The Taylor Society warned employcrs to expect strikes and
sabotage, to proceed with cunning so as to infiltrate under false
appearances, and to expect opposition at every step .' The struggle
concerned progressive attempts to debase work.JO
Although a survey of management and personnel journals" makes it
clear that scientific managemcnt is the foundation of work organization
evcryday experiences bring the point home with painful clarity.
Braverman notes that control assumed "unprecedented dimensions" with
Taylor and it has engendered serious opposition. The works of
Braverman, Marglin, and others since the mid-70s discuss the
social/political control cssence of Taylorism. What is less understood,
however, is the nature of the struggle between workers and controllers,
and the role of unionism in it .
The two standard works on the subject, McKelvcy's AFI. Attitudes
Toward Prodllction (1952) and Nadworny's Scientific Management and the
Unions (1955) argue that organized labor switched from a hostile attitude
toward Taylorism before WWI, to a warmly receptive one thereafter.
I'his .iudgt·IH·II.1 IS IHS\.Il:.I
. . . . .. Till' rrnr stems fro ill lhe perennial
l.
.
ronfllsion 01 lInt{)1l attitude. With rmk . . ,.
ll1