What is "industrial society"?

According to Raymond Aron, industrial society can be "defined as a society in which largescale industry is the characteristic form of production." A number of other features might be inferred from that basic definition: 1. the enterprise is completely separated from the family (but the separation is not necessarily universal). 2. an industrial firm introduces a new form of the division of labor ... a technical division of labor within the firm. 3. an industrial enterprise implies an accumulation of capital. Each workman uses a substantial amount of capital, which must be constantly renewed (this is true of capitalist and socialist societies). 4. as soon as the worker requires a large amount of capital [capital intensity rises] ... the idea of rational calculation is introduced. Industrial societies need the "economic calculus" (which is different from a technical calculus). 5. the concentration of labor in the workplace (regardless of ownership). "Industrial society" as a concept might seem unproblematic until you consider some alternatives. Terms such as "capitalist," "market," "centrally-planned," and "communist" imply that ownership or control might be the defining characteristics of a society. On the other hand, "Christian," "Islamic," and "Confucian" suggest that religion or values might be more important in defining the nature of social relations while "democratic" or "authoritarian" suggest that the political decision-making process is most salient. Niklas Luhmann cautions that "We can no longer define society by giving primacy to one of its functional domains." He claims that modern society is functionally differentiated and cannot be grasped from a single dominant viewpoint. Modern society's "dynamic is clarified through the fact that functional systems for politics, the economy, science, law, education, religion, family, etc. have become relatively autonomous and now mutually furnish environments for each other." In this course, we will focus on issues surrounding large-scale industry and make no attempt to reconcile the several subsystems.
(What is industrial society? http://glori.kenanflagler.unc.edu/airspace/NUSarchive/SC2202/IndusSociety.htm retrieved on 17 mar 2011)

How Important Is Quality of Labor? And How Is It Achieved?

Author: by Jim Heskett

Original Article

Over the past thirty years, several of my colleagues and I have tried to figure out why a handful of
organizations are able to achieve true excellence. One of several things they all do is hire for attitude and train for skills. By "attitude," they typically mean the ability to identify with and "live" core values of the organization such as respect for others, being customer-driven, etc. Their managements have concluded that it is too difficult and costly to try to change the attitudes of adults. As a result, they release those unable to work and manage according to the organization's values and replace them with those who can.

All of this comes to mind in the face of the debate over immigration and outsourcing, essentially trade in labor. And it is prompted by a new book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World, by Gregory Clark that identifies what he calls "labor quality" as the major enticement for capital flows that lead to economic prosperity. He defines labor quality in terms of such things as discipline and attitudes toward work. This requires social beliefs and institutions that produce labor quality.

By implication, this largely rules out low labor cost as an important factor in such flows. Clark maintains that differences in labor efficiency justify large differences in labor costs. By extension, this argument minimizes the long-term threat of outsourcing to developed economies. If this is true, it may help explain why the U.S. is a favorite location of highly-skilled jobs "insourced" by companies headquartered in other countries. For example, one recent study suggests that outsourcing may impact up to 1.47 million U.S. jobs (out of more than 100 million). By comparison, the Organization for International Investment, which may admittedly have a biased point of view, estimates that foreign companies employ 5.4 million in the United States.

Clark is not optimistic about today's societies that have not had a long history of cultural foundations and functioning institutions that support the kind of formal and informal educational efforts that contribute to quality of labor. The kinds of changes he studies have taken place over long periods of time. And they run much deeper than such things as short-term educational reform or job retraining.

Why is it, then, that there is so much fear of outsourcing and immigration at a time when shop windows, at least in the Northeast U.S., are full of help-wanted signs? Is it simply the fear of change and uncertainty in a time of both job and labor migration? Can increased retraining of displaced workers really provide an answer to

it, especially if one of the causes of unemployment is an "attitude gap"? Is a willingness to take the initiative to risk one's safety to cross a border to support one's family a positive indicator of the kind of "attitude" sought by high-performing organizations? If so, will private industry as a matter of course undertake the training required to help immigrants acquire necessary skills? And in the meantime, what should government do, if anything, to stem job and worker flows while maintaining the quality of labor of its citizens? What do you think?

(http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5570.html)