After commenting on student papers all weekend, I now have scrivener's palsy....
1. This is probably similar to earlier questions - In the Rosenhaft essay, it seems that attaining certain levels of literacy is necessary to attain these work positions, yet it is the production of literacy that constrains these men; in fact, it is what leads to Dies' job loss. Contrary to what many might assume, the attainment of literacy leads to oppressive work conditions, not advanced status. How might we apply this idea today?
2. Again, similar to other questions, but I am interested in the injuries and maladies that tend to arise from this sort of work (in Rosenhaft). While clearly in the Rosenhaft essay the workers are male, it seems that today many of these workers are female. And many of these maladies are seen as "phantom" illnesses. Many of the occupations/duties described by Rosenhaft are now considered feminized occupations; they entail drudge work. I'm wondering how (or if) gender figures into the credibility given to these injuries and illnesses, as well as the status accredited to these jobs.
3. This question is more a plea for help. Can someone (the author of the article in which the term is used, perhaps) explain the technological systems paradigm to me in more detail?
4. Access to information (in Rosenhaft) supposedly means that the worker will earn more, but it seems that the workers in question don't have the level of access to merit retaining them. They seem to have become machine parts that come in contact with the information and produce more information, yet aren't seen as a large threat to company security (it took Calenberg quite a bit of time to determine that Dies might be a threat, that he might spread his expertise to companies in other cities). I don't know where this is going, it is a point that keeps gnawing at me.
and I would like to discuss the "boundaries" issue, too.