Response to Part 2 of the Reader Book

In his article, Daniel Bell thinks that the "post-industrial society is a 'communal' society in which the social unit is the community rather than individual." (p88) First of all, what does he mean by "community?" I wish he had given a more concrete definition and example. By his definition of post-industrial society, we are living in one right now. But I don't think we are a communal society or going that way.

As a former computer programmer, I agree with Krishan Kuman that "the application of the new technology has continued the 'dynamic of de-skilling' intrinsic to Taylorian principles."(p110) In the world of computer professionals, the position of "webmaster," for example, has disappeared and been replaced by user interface designer, web programmer, database administrator and network administrator. Few people know all aspects of computer, but their special area. As Kumar said, "computer work has followed the familiar pattern of the separation and splitting of tasks."(p111)

John Urry argues in his article that "the problem about the distinction between industrial and PI (post-industrial) societies is that too much emphasis is placed upon one aspect of economic change minimising other aspects of the social structure of Western countries."(p127) What's really happening is not a transition from industrial to PI society but one from organized to disorganized capitalism. I agree with him. The new technology has allowed more variety in many aspects of society. But we haven't leapt to a different economic or social structure yet.