well geewillickers it's a nobrainer if'n ya ask me. in addition to things rb mentioned:
1. downsizing waves; death of social contract in the press which promoted the notion of a millenial like shift in biz attitudes toward labor (not); big hullaballoo a lot of social unrest and front pages of maj press with "corporate killers" branded for their misdeeds. if that didn't do a lot to discipline labor and make them meek, i don't know what else could have. the endless over and over again in the popular biz press about how no one owes you a job and you can go just like that, of TQM and its variants which is all about breaking down job descriptions such that workers are continually told that they must produce more and more or they're out. (no conspiracy here: just the typical reaction of a class of people who've never lived in a world in which the social contract didn't exist. they got where they got because they believed in it coz it worked for them {see katherine newman, _Falling from Grace_}
2. the valorization of the "new economy" ethos -- work work work and work some more. til the project is finished that is. {see the effects of the new mgmt ideology and its impact on, particularly, women in even the most "progressive" firms in arlie hochschild's _time bind_. i gave a paper where imet vicki smith who was also doing something akin to hochschild, tho diff. spin. she might have published something by now}
3. sillycon valley syndrome. somewhere, time or newsweek, there was a discussion of the lack of philanthropy among the wealthy. i clipped it and a follow up piece here on Tampa Bay biz leaders/newly rich because i was thinking about doing the diss on the topic. the articles both talked about how a class who makes its money off the volatility of a market, and has nothing invested in *things* tends to be tight wads. they watch their fortunes rise and fall by the minute--eacaerbated by the blathering of the biz press. scares the bejeeezus out of em and they aren't keen on philanthropy nor are they going to be keen on investing in labor and will likely want to supress wages in any way possibly and may be far more stingy than otherwise b/c their wealth isn't tied to production in a direct way.
yoshie's the one with the "people are entirely opaque to their own self- understanding" line not me. i don't think it had much to do with what you have to say below.
i hit send instead of close screen and save, that's why the lack of quoted text in my post. kelley
At 10:36 AM 3/18/00 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>kelley wrote:
>
>> wow. nothing like removing human beings entirely from the picture.
>
>It depends. I've not been following this thread so I don't know what
>specifically you are responding to, but some social understanding
>is achievable *only* by removing human beings from the picture.
>Suppose the question is, What distinguishes life in in 12th century
>France from life in 20th c. France? Unless your *first* response
>ignores human beings you will never arrive at human beings. Your
>first response must focus on abstract social relations ignoring
>all the features which make a person a person, even those features
>which make a person a woman rather than a man, an adult rather
>than a child. If you don't do that, you will end up with Adam
>Smith's instinct for trading and bartering, and therefore will
>have forever missed your chance to understand even your
>next door neighbor (or yourself).
>
>Carrol
>
>
>