“To a considerable extent, this evil is inseparable from mechanization combined with large size. Owing to mechanization, no man makes a large part of a car, but only one small share of some one part; a great deal of work requires little skill, and is completely monotonous. Owing to the large size of the organization the group who collectively make a car have no unity and no sense of solidarity as between management and employees. There is solidarity among the wage- earners, and there may be solidarity in the management. But the solidarity of the wage-earners has no relation to the product; it is concerned to increase wages and diminish hours of work. The management may have a pride in the product, but when an industry is thoroughly commercialized there is a tendency to think only of profit, which may often be secured more easily by advertisement than by improved workmanship.” (42-43)
What Russell is saying here is that as industrialization grew so did a divide between workers and the products they made. Prior to the growth of “mechanization” workers were really producers, each making individual, specific products that were needed by their communities. A person’s livelihood depended on their skills and how vital what they were producing was. However, with industrialization workers were no longer responsible for a whole product but rather for a small part of a larger product. This created a rift where workers were no longer connected to the items they were making. It also created a rift between managers and employees; because employees no longer had to feel a sense of pride for their work but only cared about the amount they made. Management on the other hand cares about the product in terms of how much money it will make them which often is not controlled by the quality of the product but by advertisement. To me this relates to what Russell talks about in Lecture 3, on the role of individuality, specifically about the decrease in individuality. In Lecture 3 he talks about how in society there are some who have skills that are outside of the norm these people can become things such as artists, scientist, and politicians if they are given the time and space to use their skills. I believe this can be related to the role of artisans who had particular skills that allowed them to make products in order to make money. Yet with the growth of industry they became less individualistic as they were made cogs in a industrial machine were their skills as individuals became less important.
Elviris Rodriguez
I agree that the role of individuality talked about in Lecture 3 connects with this Lecture. This example of management and workers and what motivates creation is directly related to Lecture 3. Russell seems to have this continuing idea of individuality and freedom ass extremely important. He believes that doing what is pleasurable not just necessary as being a key to civilizations’ progress – and this can be accomplished by setting oneself apart and being free and individual. Distinctiveness and creating for leisure foster ingenuity and this is where true innovation comes from.
Elviris’ understanding of the Russell quote she used is accurate. I agree with her and think that her interpretation on what this chapter is about overall is also right. It seemed to have taken some time for Russell to zero in on his argument about the effects of the Industrial Revolution but ultimately, he made his point well known by the middle of the chapter. I find that most of her interpretation and quote she picked lines up with the content I chose for my assignment. Because of our estimation of this chapter is almost identical, I found it very easy to process what she wrote about Lecture 4.
Karia Hill