Currently, industries are rapidly transforming due to the increasing role of technology and automation. Goldman Sachs estimates that around two-thirds of all jobs will be affected by some form of automation. The results of this shift towards automated production are not necessarily positive or negative, it will simply bring about a clear change. (Tse, 2023) This essay explores how automation affects labour and industries in contemporary society. Firstly, utilizing Weber’s concepts to explore the correlation between automation and rationalization in industries. Secondly, it uses Durkheim’s ideas to understand the change in division of labour. Finally, it applies Marxist theories to analyse the resulting inequalities.
Max Weber’s theories on the rationalization of industries help to understand why new technologies are implemented in product processes. In his work ‘The Protestant Work Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism’ Weber said:
‘Capitalism is identical with the pursuit of profit, and forever renewed profit, by means of continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise.’ (Weber, 1930, p. 17)
Individuals strive to maximize profit by making processes as efficient as possible by systematically organizing them; this is the process of formal rationalization. With the rapid development of technology, automation can be used for more and more different applications and it is increasingly used in processes to gain profit. (Aneesh, 2001, pp. 367-369) An example of this rationalization is the process of making shoes. Shoes used to be handcrafted, where the craftsman hand-cut the fabrics and stitched them together. However, now machines have been introduced to this process and the fabrics are cut into the right size by machines and stitched together with the help of a sewing machine. Even though this rationalization with the help of automation does produce a higher quantity, it also takes away the uniqueness and human aspect. This is what Weber referred to as ‘the Iron Cage’ of rationalization, which is the dehumanizing aspect. (Weber, 1930) For example, the shoes are now all the same, without the care for detail and attention of a craftsman. Overall, automation helps the process of rationalization to evolve to the next level, resulting in different job demands, which can be further analysed by Durkheim’s theories.
As automation is interweaved into industries, a new division of labour emerges, which Emile Durkheim’s theories can give a perspective on. According to Durkheim, we have been moving from a traditional to a modern society. One aspect of this transformation is the change from a low to a high degree of differentiation in the division of labour. The high degree of differentiation is a result of the involvement of machines and technology, as the work changes from complete handcrafts to mechanized production. Instead of a single creator per product, production is now a collaborative process where multiple machines, each operated by a different individual, contribute to a final product. This causes all individuals to become interdependent. (Durkheim, 1933, pp. 111-132) Taking another look at the example of crafting shoes: in modern society, someone single-handedly made a shoe. However, with mechanized production, multiple people help to operate the different machines for one type of shoe, making these individuals interdependent. William A. Faunce however states that there is another stage after mechanized production, which is the stage of total automated production. In this stage, the degree of differentiation lowers again. As machines become automated, there are no longer individuals needed to operate each machine, and simply one individual to oversee a collection of machines is enough. If you look at the process of making shoes, there will be an automated continuous process that cuts the fabric and stitches it robotically, without human help. Therefore the division of labour is affected by the intensity of automation. Firstly, when automation started to influence industries the division of labour became more differentiated. However, when production becomes fully automated, the degree of differentiation lowers again. (Faunce, 1965) These continues adjustments in the division of labour have an impact on the workers.
According to Marxist theories the more that automation gets interwoven into the industries, the greater the inequality and class struggle becomes. According to Karl Marx, there are two groups in society: the bourgeoisie: ‘capitalists, owners of the means of production, employers of labour.’, and the proletariat: ‘those having no means of production, sell their labour for wages.’ In a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie keeps inventing new means of production, which increases their profit, this refers to the process of rationalization. (Marx & Engels, 1888) As new technology is implemented in industries a displacement of jobs happens, because a new division of labour is created. The displacement of jobs causes inequality as the proletariat are no longer able to sell their labour and will have to re-educate themselves instead. In the US in the last four decades between 50% and 70% of wage declines of workers can be accounted for by automation according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. (Acemoglu & Restrep, 2021) This is while the bourgeoisie is getting richer, as productivity grew by 80.4% from 1973 till 2011, but the proletariats only received 10.7% extra. (Mishel, 2012) Taking a final look at the production of shoes this becomes obvious. If it gets to the final stage of a fully automated production, there are no employees needed anymore. As the workers are only specialised in operating machines to make shoes, they will have to learn a new skill to get employed, like programming machines to produce shoes. Therefore according to Marxist theories, automation causes a greater inequality in industries.
In conclusion, the impact of automation on labour in contemporary society is obvious. From a Weberian perspective, the ongoing implementation of automation is caused by a rationalization that strives to make production processes as structured and efficient as possible. According to Durkheim’s theories, a distinct transformation in the division of labour occurs as the level of automation changes from handcrafted, to mechanized production, to automated production. Marxist theories underline that this new division of labour caused by automation, worsens the inequalities present in capitalism, enlarging the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Thus, automation affects labour and industries dynamics in a variety of ways, enhancing productivity whilst posing a threat to equality.
References:
- Acemoglu, D. & Restrep, P. (2021) TASKS, AUTOMATION, AND THE RISE IN US WAGE INEQUALITY. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available on: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28920/w28920.pdf
- Aneesh, A. (2001) Rationalization and Post-Industrial Work. Springer. Available on: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/657966.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A6d9f00952c41539d8e85973a0537e4e9&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
- Durkheim, E. (1933) The Division of Labor In Society. Available on: http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Durkheim/Division%20Of%20Labor%20Final%20Version.pdf
- Faunce, W. A. (1965) Automation and the Division of Labor. Available on: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/798900.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A0b31127ea616e7c4f350e91c03c4519d&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
- Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1888) The Communist Manifesto. Available on: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61-images.html
- Mishel, L. (2012) The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth. Economic Policy Institute. Available on: https://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/
- Tse, C. (2023) AN AI ON THE FUTURE. Goldman Sachs. Available on: https://www.gsam.com/content/gsam/us/en/advisors/market-insights/gsam-insights/perspectives/2023/artificial-intelligence-future.html
- Weber, M. (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Available on: https://ia802809.us.archive.org/4/items/protestantethics00webe/protestantethics00webe_bw.pdf