Untitled - socium.ge
Untitled - socium.ge Untitled - socium.ge
Informationalism and the network society 27of labor to a constantly changing environment is a precondition for their useas labor.This specific division of labor is gendered to some extent. The rise of flexiblelabor is directly related to the feminization of the paid labor force, afundamental trend in the social structure of the past three decades (Carnoy,2000). The patriarchal organization of the family forces women to value theflexible organization of their professional work as the only way to cope withfamily and job duties. This is why more than 70 percent of temporary workersand part-time workers in most countries are women. Furthermore, while mostwomen are employed as generic labor, their educational level has risen considerablycompared with men, while their wages and working conditions have notchanged at the same pace. Thus, women became the ideal workers of thenetworked, global economy: able to work efficiently, and adapt to the changingrequirements of business, while receiving less compensation for the samework, and having fewer chances of promotion because of the ideology andpractice of the gender division of labor under patriarchalism.However, reality is, to use an old word, dialectical. While the mass incorporationof women into the paid labor force, partly because of their conditionof patriarchal subordination, has been a decisive factor in the expansion ofglobal, informational capitalism, the very transformation of women’s conditionas salaried women has ultimately undermined patriarchalism. The feministideas that emerged from the cultural social movements of the 1970s founda fertile ground in the experience of working women exposed to discrimination.But, even more importantly, the economic power won by women in thefamily strengthened their position vis-à-vis the male head of the family, whileundermining the ideological justification of their subordination on the groundsof the respect due to the authority of the male bread-winner. Thus, the divisionof labor in the new organization of work is gendered, but this is a dynamicprocess, in which women are reversing dominant structural trends and inducingbusiness to bring men into the same patterns of flexibility, job insecurity,downsizing, and offshoring of their jobs that used to be the lot of women.Thus, rather than women workers rising to the level of male workers, mostmale workers are being downgraded to the level of most women workers. Thislong-term trend has profound implications for both the class structure of societyand the relationship between men and women at work and at home.Autonomy and self-programmable capacity in labor would not yield itsproductivity pay-off if it were not able to be combined with the networking oflabor. Indeed, the fundamental reason for the structural need for flexibility andautonomy is the transformation of the organization of the production process.This transformation is represented by the rise of the network enterprise. Thisnew organizational business form is the historical equivalent under informationalismof the so-called Fordist organization of industrialism (both capitalist
28 Manuel Castellsand statist); that is, the organization characterized by high-volume, standardizedmass production, and vertical control of the labor process according to atop-down rationalized scheme (“scientific management” and Taylorism, themethods that prompted Lenin’s admiration, leading to its imitation in theSoviet Union). Under Fordism, consumers were supposed to like all carsaccording to the Ford model T – and in black. And workers just had to followthe instructions of engineers to improve the efficiency of their physical movementson the assembly line, as immortalized by Charles Chaplin in ModernTimes. Although there are still hundreds of thousands of workers in similarlyrun factories, the value-producing activities in the commanding heights of theproduction process (research and development, innovation, design, marketing,management, and high volume, customized flexible production) depend on anentirely different type of firm, and, therefore, of a different type of workprocess, and of labor: the network enterprise.This is not a network of enterprises. It is a network made from either firmsor segments of firms, and/or from the internal segmentation of firms. Thus,large corporations are internally decentralized as networks. Small and mediumbusinesses are connected in networks, thus ensuring the critical mass of theircontribution, while keeping their main asset: their flexibility. Small andmedium business networks are often ancillary to large corporations, in mostcases to several of them, except in the Japanese keiretsu and Korean chaebol.Large corporations, and their subsidiary networks, usually form networks ofcooperation, called, in business parlance, strategic alliances or partnerships.But these alliances are rarely permanent cooperative structures. This is not aprocess of oligopolistic cartelization. These complex networks link up onspecific business projects, and reconfigure their cooperation in differentnetworks with each new project.The usual business practice in this networked economy is one of alliances,partnerships, and collaborations that are specific to a given product, process,time, and space. These collaborations are based on sharing capital and labor,but most fundamentally information and knowledge, in order to win marketshare. So these are primarily information networks, which link suppliers andcustomers through the networked firm. The unit of the production process isnot the firm but the business project, enacted by a network, the network enterprise.The firm continues to be the legal unit of capital accumulation. Butsince the value of the firm ultimately depends on its financial valuation in thestock market, the unit of capital accumulation, the firm, becomes itself a nodein a global network of financial flows. Thus, in the network economy, thedominant layer is the global financial market, the mother of all valuations.This global financial market works only partly according to market rules. Itis also shaped and moved by information turbulences of various origins,processed and communicated by the computer networks that constitute the
- Page 2: The Network Society
- Page 5 and 6: © Manuel Castells 2004All rights r
- Page 7 and 8: viContentsPART IV SOCIABILITY AND S
- Page 9 and 10: Figures2.1 Technological developmen
- Page 11 and 12: xTables13.4 Physician reports of th
- Page 13 and 14: xiiNotes on contributorsNathaniel B
- Page 15 and 16: xivNotes on contributorsand Browsin
- Page 17 and 18: AcknowledgmentsThis book is the res
- Page 19 and 20: xviiiEditor’s prefaceinteraction
- Page 21 and 22: xxEditor’s prefaceof socio-techni
- Page 24 and 25: 1. Informationalism, networks, and
- Page 26 and 27: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 28 and 29: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 30 and 31: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 32 and 33: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 34 and 35: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 36 and 37: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 38 and 39: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 40 and 41: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 42 and 43: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 44 and 45: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 46 and 47: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 50 and 51: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 52 and 53: the network society, in a binary mo
- Page 54 and 55: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 56 and 57: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 58 and 59: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 60 and 61: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 62 and 63: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 64 and 65: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 66: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 70 and 71: 2. Institutional models of the netw
- Page 72 and 73: Silicon Valley and Finland 51PATHS
- Page 74 and 75: Silicon Valley and Finland 53Table
- Page 76 and 77: Silicon Valley and Finland 55the fi
- Page 78 and 79: Silicon Valley and Finland 57There
- Page 80 and 81: Silicon Valley and Finland 59inform
- Page 82 and 83: Silicon Valley and Finland 61that I
- Page 84 and 85: Silicon Valley and Finland 63EBay,
- Page 86 and 87: Silicon Valley and Finland 65produc
- Page 88 and 89: wholly devoted to, or dependent on,
- Page 90 and 91: Silicon Valley and Finland 69The st
- Page 92 and 93: Silicon Valley and Finland 71JOT Au
- Page 94 and 95: Silicon Valley and Finland 73risk i
- Page 96 and 97: Silicon Valley and Finland 75respec
Informationalism and the network society 27of labor to a constantly changing environment is a precondition for their useas labor.This specific division of labor is <strong>ge</strong>ndered to some extent. The rise of flexiblelabor is directly related to the feminization of the paid labor force, afundamental trend in the social structure of the past three decades (Carnoy,2000). The patriarchal organization of the family forces women to value theflexible organization of their professional work as the only way to cope withfamily and job duties. This is why more than 70 percent of temporary workersand part-time workers in most countries are women. Furthermore, while mostwomen are employed as <strong>ge</strong>neric labor, their educational level has risen considerablycompared with men, while their wa<strong>ge</strong>s and working conditions have notchan<strong>ge</strong>d at the same pace. Thus, women became the ideal workers of thenetworked, global economy: able to work efficiently, and adapt to the changingrequirements of business, while receiving less compensation for the samework, and having fewer chances of promotion because of the ideology andpractice of the <strong>ge</strong>nder division of labor under patriarchalism.However, reality is, to use an old word, dialectical. While the mass incorporationof women into the paid labor force, partly because of their conditionof patriarchal subordination, has been a decisive factor in the expansion ofglobal, informational capitalism, the very transformation of women’s conditionas salaried women has ultimately undermined patriarchalism. The feministideas that emer<strong>ge</strong>d from the cultural social movements of the 1970s founda fertile ground in the experience of working women exposed to discrimination.But, even more importantly, the economic power won by women in thefamily strengthened their position vis-à-vis the male head of the family, whileundermining the ideological justification of their subordination on the groundsof the respect due to the authority of the male bread-winner. Thus, the divisionof labor in the new organization of work is <strong>ge</strong>ndered, but this is a dynamicprocess, in which women are reversing dominant structural trends and inducingbusiness to bring men into the same patterns of flexibility, job insecurity,downsizing, and offshoring of their jobs that used to be the lot of women.Thus, rather than women workers rising to the level of male workers, mostmale workers are being downgraded to the level of most women workers. Thislong-term trend has profound implications for both the class structure of societyand the relationship between men and women at work and at home.Autonomy and self-programmable capacity in labor would not yield itsproductivity pay-off if it were not able to be combined with the networking oflabor. Indeed, the fundamental reason for the structural need for flexibility andautonomy is the transformation of the organization of the production process.This transformation is represented by the rise of the network enterprise. Thisnew organizational business form is the historical equivalent under informationalismof the so-called Fordist organization of industrialism (both capitalist