What Do Bosses Do?

Marglin, Stephen A.

doi:10.1177/048661347400600206

Cited by 1,074 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An example is the European industrial revolution of the 18th and early 19th century, which saw the introduction of steam power and mechanized production and the reorganization of production around a new economic institution: the factory and employment for wages rather than family-based production by independent producers (53). A further application may be to the challenges to intellectual property rights posed today by the new information-processing technologies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene

Bowles

Choi

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

171

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advent of farming around 12 millennia ago was a cultural as well as technological revolution, requiring a new system of property rights. Among mobile hunter-gatherers during the late Pleistocene, food was almost certainly widely shared as it was acquired. If a harvested crop or the meat of a domesticated animal were to have been distributed to other group members, a late Pleistocene would-be farmer would have had little incentive to engage in the required investments in clearing, cultivation, animal tending, and storage. However, the new property rights that farming required-secure individual claims to the products of one's labor-were infeasible because most of the mobile and dispersed resources of a forager economy could not cost-effectively be delimited and defended. The resulting chicken-and-egg puzzle might be resolved if farming had been much more productive than foraging, but initially it was not. Our model and simulations explain how, despite being an unlikely event, farming and a new system of farming-friendly property rights nonetheless jointly emerged when they did. This Holocene revolution was not sparked by a superior technology. It occurred because possession of the wealth of farmers-crops, dwellings, and animals-could be unambiguously demarcated and defended. This facilitated the spread of new property rights that were advantageous to the groups adopting them. Our results thus challenge unicausal models of historical dynamics driven by advances in technology, population pressure, or other exogenous changes. Our approach may be applied to other technological and institutional revolutions such as the 18th-and 19th-century industrial revolution and the information revolution today.agent-based simulation | evolutionary game theory | technical change | institutional change | big history A mong the outstanding puzzles in human social dynamics is the simultaneous emergence and diffusion of novel economic institutions and new technologies. An important example is the appearance of private storage (1-4) and other indicators of individual property (5, 6) along with the advent of farming (7,8), one of the greatest technological-institutional revolutions ever experienced by our species.Economists, archaeologists, and historians often consider advances in technology to be an exogenous driver of innovations in property rights, wealth inheritance practices, or other institutions. Well-studied examples include the social and cultural impacts of the introduction of the horse on the US Great Plains in the 17th century or the sweet potato in the New Guinea Highlands a century later (9, 10). However, the technological and institutional innovations of the early Holocene are difficult to reconcile with this view because, as a number of archaeologists have pointed out (11-13), farming was probably not economically advantageous in many places where it was first introduced. Indeed, recent estimates suggest that the productivity of the first farmers (calories per hour of labor including processing and storage) was proba...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene

Bowles

Choi

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

171

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What largely eliminated many of the constraints on economic activity that characterized the preindustrial farmer was the industrial revolution that began in the 17th century (see Hobsbawm, 1964;Polanyi, 1944;Schwartz, Schuldenfrei, & Lacey, 1978). The industrial revolution took people away from the home and sent them into the factory (Marglin, 1976), making it difficult to engage in subsistence farming and production for exchange (wages) at the same time. Therefore, the notion that economic activity is exchange and the development of markets in which practically anything can be exchanged are very much products of the industrial revolution.…”

Section: Rational Choice and Cultural Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom.

Schwartz¹

2000

American Psychologist

663

462

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Security is more important than wealth.--Jacob von Uexkull (1938Uexkull ( /1954 L et me tell you about an experience I had almost 20 years ago. It happened at a softball game, and to understand it, you need to know a little bit about softball. Imagine a situation in which there is a runner at first base and one out. A ground ball is hit to the pitcher. The pitcher fields the ground ball and wheels around to second base. The idea is to try for a double play by throwing to second ahead of the runner arriving from first, and then having the throw relayed from second to first, in time to beat the batter. Typically, when a ball is hit up the middle of the diamond, the second baseman and the shortstop converge at second base. When the pitcher fields the ball and turns to throw, the proper play is to throw the ball to the shortstop. The shortstop is moving toward first base, while the second baseman is moving away from it. So the shortstop's momentum will carry him in the direction that the ball must be thrown, whereas the second baseman will have to stop, pivot, and then throw. The throw from second to first is much easier for the shortstop than for the second baseman.Now here is what happened. I had just begun a sabbatical, and I was playing in a relaxed coed softball game. Although winning at all costs was not the idea in this game, there was one thing about it that was notably more serious than anything else. The women in the game did not want to be patronized; they wanted to be treated by the men as full-fledged competitors. So I was pitching, and there was one out and a runner on first. A ground ball was hit to me. I fielded it cleanly and spun around to begin the try for a double play. Both the shortstop, a man, and the second baseman, a woman, were converging on second base to receive: my throw. I wound up to throw and then stopped in my tracks. Who should I throw to? I knew, as I just indicated, that the "right" play was to throw to the shortstop, but I hesitated. Would the woman understand that I was throwing to the shortstop (who happened to be a man) because it was the right play? Or would she think that I was excluding her and throwing to the man (who happened to be the shortstop) because I thought he was more likely to catch it and throw accurately on to first than she was? Would she think that I regarded her as an obstacle to be avoided rather than as a teammate? Would she think I was an enemy of one of the major social movements of our time?These questions flooded over me in what couldn't have been more than half a second, and I still haven't answered them. Why had I been so indecisive? What was the right play? Yes, I knew that the right play was to throw to the ,.~hortstop, but I came to realize that the rightness of that choice depended on what I thought the game was that we were playing. If we were merely playing softball, then the shortstop should have gotten the throw, but we were playing more than softball. We were also participating in a social movement, one that was struggling to eliminate certa...

show abstract

“…Es, primero y ante todo, una herramienta de dominación masculina, y de actualización de la misma, basada en distinciones sociales múltiples, articuladas y jerarquizadas (de sexo, clase y raza). Este enfoque nos acerca al modo de pensamiento de Marglin (1974) en lo que respecta al sentido de la división del trabajo en el campo económico.…”

Section: 3los Modos Pasivos De Participación De Los/as Dominado/asunclassified

Dominación masculina y feminismo en los movimientos sociales

Dunezat¹

2017

Política Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen. Comparando cuatro movilizaciones "sin" (parado/as y sin-papeles) de Francia, se interrogan las interacciones entre el feminismo y los procesos de profundización democrática de los años 1990-2000. Mediante los datos extraídos de varias centenas de observaciones participantes y alrededor de cien entrevistas en profundidad realizadas desde 1998 hasta 2016, este artículo pone de manifiesto que la práctica democratizante de los movimientos sociales "progresistas" no está exenta de (re)producir -mediante la división del trabajo militante-relaciones de dominación entre agentes; ni de producir oportunidades para la resistencia. Este trabajo desvela que: (1) la dominación masculina estructura cada lucha mixta estudiada; (2) mediante la organización del trabajo militante, ciertos hombres toman posición y ubican al resto de participantes en modos dominados -activos o pasivos-de participación; (3) no obstante, el hecho de que el feminismo sea relegado -o rechazadocomo movimiento político no impide que se desplieguen prácticas feministas. El artículo profundiza en la explicación de esta tercera idea aludiendo a que en estos casos se trata de un "feminismo práctico" que alterna la denuncia directa de la dominación masculina, y un enfrentamiento más indirecto mediante la organización del trabajo militante. Palabras clave: movimientos sociales; trabajo militante; parados/as; sin-papeles; género; raza; clase.[en] Male Domination and Feminism in the Social Movements Abstract. By comparing four mobilizations of "without" (unemployed persons and undocumented people) in France, we investigate the interactions between the feminism and the processes of deepening democratization in the years 1990-2000. Through an immersion based on participating observations and interviews since 1998 until 2016, this article shows that the experience of democratic deepening which establish the "progressive" social movements are not exempt to reproduce and to produce -through the militating division of labour-relations of domination between agents and dynamics of resistance of the latter. First, we identify the extent to which the male domination structures every studied mixed struggle. Second, we explain how, thanks to the organization of the militant work, some men impose themselves and lock the other participants into dominated modes -active or passive-of participation. Third, if the feminism as a political movement seems relegated, even rejected, it does not mean that feminist practices do not succeed in spreading. It is about a "practical feminism" which alternates between the direct denunciation of the male domination and the more indirect confrontation with the latter through the organization of the militant labour.

show abstract

What Do Bosses Do?

Cited by 1,074 publications

References 0 publications

Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene

Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene

Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom.

Dominación masculina y feminismo en los movimientos sociales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About