The Deskilling Thesis Revisited: On Peter Armstrong's Defence of Braverman

Abstract

Peter Armstrong's recent defence of Braverman's deskilling theory argues that most critics misinterpret its logical nature. Consequently, the bulk of empirical research indicating short term changes in skill levels cannot be accepted as disconfirming evidence. Armstrong's argument brings out some overlooked elements in the deskilling thesis and points out important limitations of the studies critical of it. At the same time, Armstrong's clarification of the character of Braverman's theory also exposes some of the problems in the deskilling thesis itself. Armstrong correctly points out the long term, tendential character of the theory but fails to confront some central methodological problems in the study of long term shifts in work skills. This paper looks at three issues which Armstrong's argument raises: i) the nature of a ‘law of motion’ which is claimed to be the logical status of the theory; ii) Braverman's very specific notion of skill; iii) the methodological issues associated with analysis of long term changes in skills. Additionally, I explore the issue of technological change which, I argue, constitutes a ‘relatively autonomous’ source of constraints and pressures on capitalism management, not to be treated as a weapon or outcome in management's struggles to control labour.