The point here is that the division of labor--between mental and material production-- was already advanced by M&E. There was the general d.o.l. manifesting itself as workers v. owners, production v consumption. There was another level of a d.o.l that existed within the bourgeoisie, that between the intellectuals (ideologists, the capitalists who invested capital, and the rentiers who owned the land and/or machinery (see the 18th Brumaire)
But this d.o.l. has become increasingly complex, particularly with revolutions in the means of production and I would include one of those advances to be rationalization. Now, here's where Weber comes in handy. Weber argued that capitalism as a form of market exchange has existed for quite some time. What Marx was looking at, and what made it unique and different from earlier forms of capitalism was it's character as a form of *rationalized* capitalism: the focus on efficiency (optimum means for getting from one point to another), calculability (precise measurements of time, size, cost--this becomes extremely important as capitalism advances and explains why time calculations, cost-benefit calculation, rational accounting procedures are crucial to success), predictability (uniformity, sameness, methodical preciciseness about the future--what one can expect from a supplier for example), and control (the rise of technologies which control people: assembly lines control people; people control hammers).
Those control functions Gar and Curtiss were describing I think fall into two different aspects of rationalization, societal-level and organizational-level. We separate them out for analytical reasons, but there are intertwined in complex ways. On the one hand, control through computer software which determines how we do our work (say the way a spell check program tells the typist what word to substitute for a misspelled word). The people who develop this software exercise control over the labor process at the organizational level in this way. Reminds me of a time years ago when computers were just being developed for use in restaurants. The salesman was talking to my boss, who was a notorious sucker for anything salesmen were selling, but NOT with this one because the guy said to him: "Look the advantage is that you can control your waitresses and make sure they don't rip up the guest check and pocket the cash. Everything is documented and if a guest check and the money is missing you'll know who stole it." My boss at the time replied, to paraphrase: "Look my employees are honest and they don't steal from me. This computer you have here is just going to turn this into a suspicious place and my waitresses don't need to be treated as if they're theaves. What good is that going to do me?"
Control also happens to customers for, in addition to services, customers are produced in service-based organizations. When you go to a chain restaurant w/ waitress service you will *know* that you shouldn't loiter for a leisurely meal. The chairs and tables have been designed to make you uncomfortable after a certain amount of time. The din has been scientifically tested to produce the right mix to annoy you right about the time you're done w/ desert.
I think that we can see that societal rationalization is really about an increasingly advanced division of labor. Physicians now define what consitutes illness (health) and have a monopoly over the production of knowledge about what constitutes illness, who is ill and who isn't, etc. This was work once performed in the home, by community healers, etc. Educators now define what is to be learned, who is learned and who is not, whereas that was one work done by the family, community, church. I could go on. As these things become subsumed by the cash nexus of capitalism part of what happens is that they become 'rationalized' for good or ill.
anyway, enough for now.
Kelley