Subjectivity, Power and the Labour Process
Subjectivity, Power and the Labour Process
复制标题
主体性、权力和劳动过程
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1990
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Knights
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Knights
本章的主要目的是对劳动过程进行批判性分析，以抵制通过自愿主体和客观结构之间的二元对立来感知社会现实的二元论倾向。因此，它关注的是挑战将社会生活的复杂性降低为两极分化的理论构建，在这种两极分化中，自愿主体的“自由”、表达和创造性行为被视为与客观结构和现实的压迫力量作斗争或由其决定。毫无疑问，布雷弗曼和他的批评者所拥护的劳动过程理论的部分吸引力在于对社会和构成社会的人类主体的这种相对简单的观点。尽管如此，在近乎疯狂的批评浪潮中，人们几乎疯狂地给布雷弗曼贴上了具有讽刺意味的标签(利特勒和萨拉曼，1984)，也难怪有人谴责布雷弗曼对这一主题的忽视(Aronowitz，1978；Elger，1979；Cressey and MacInnes，1980；Littler and Salaman，1982)。然而，大多数批评要么没有提供任何替代方案，要么赞同主体是积极的个人或与权力作斗争的阶级代理人的概念，倾向于重现本章试图超越的代理结构二元论。
The primary aim of this chapter is to develop a critical analysis of the labour process which resists the dualistic tendencies to perceive social reality in terms of a binary opposition between voluntary subjects, on the one hand, and objective structures, on the other. It is therefore concerned to challenge theoretical constructions that reduce the complexity of social life into a polarisation where the ‘free’, expressive and creative actions of voluntary subjects are seen to be struggling against, or determined by, the oppressive forces of objective structures and reality. No doubt part of the attraction of labour-process theory, as espoused both by Braverman and his critics, has been this comparatively simple view of society and the human subjects that constitute it. Still, in the almost frenzied critical outpourings that have acquired the ironic label ‘Bravermania’ (Littler and Salaman, 1984), it is not surprising to find some that condemn Braverman’s neglect of the subject (Aronowitz, 1978; Elger, 1979; Cressey and MacInnes, 1980; Littler and Salaman, 1982). Most of these criticisms, however, have either failed to offer any alternative or, in subscribing to a conception of the subject as active individual or class agent struggling against power, tend to reproduce the agency-structure dualism that this chapter seeks to transcend.