The instinct of workmanship, and the state of industrial artsVeblen, Thorstein
Philosophy
The instinct of workmanship, and the state of industrial arts
Veblen, Thorstein
Industrial arts -- History; Industries -- History; Technology -- History; Workmanship -- History
That some of the working systems of civil rights in customary force
among the peaceable communities of the lower culture have more in
common with modern Natural Rights than this mediæval scheme, should
logically be due to a similarity in the conditions of life out of
which they have arisen. In these savage or lower barbarian communities,
too, the principle of organization is work for a livelihood, and the
conventional ground of economic relations is that of workmanship, as
it is under the early handicraft system; but with the difference that
whereas the technology of handicraft throws the skilled workman into
perspective as a self-sufficient individual, and so throws self-help
into the foreground as the principle of economic equity, among these
savages and lower barbarians living by means of a technology of a less
highly specialised character, with a material situation not admitting
of the same degree of severalty in work or livelihood, the prime
requisite in the relations governing the rights and duties of the
members of the group is not the individual livelihood of the skilled
workman but that of the group at large. The individual’s personal
claims come in only as secondary and subservient to the needs of the
group at large; rights of ownership are loose and vague, and they
lack that tenacity of life that characterises the like rights under
the handicraft system. It is true, the product of industry belongs
primarily to the producer of it, it is his in some sense that might
pass into ownership if the technological situation admitted of work for
a livelihood in strict and consistent severalty; but in the actual case
as found on these lower levels the product commonly escapes somewhat
easily from his individual possession and comes to inure to the use of
the group. Except for such articles as continue to pertain to him by
virtue of intimate and daily use, the producer’s possessive control of
his product is likely at the best to be transient and dubious, readily
giving way before any urgent call for its use by other members of the
group.[137]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account