Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 133 posts

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#31

Post by retrac »

petesergeant wrote: post #13

This is a confused article. > Most Romans ... thought cruelty to slaves was shocking but also > did not hesitate to punish their slaves, and to punish brutally. Floggings, crucifixions, torture by means of the rack and breaking the legs with iron bars would all be carried out in public to maximise the impact on the observers. Or a slave’s children might be sold off, never to be seen again. ... so, not that shocking?

Cruelty that's pointless (as they saw it). The Romans had little issue with crucifying dissidents, torturing slaves, executing the innocent fellow comrades of deserting soldiers, and beating their children into compliance. But they saw such cruelty as useful, serving a higher purpose (social order and discipline, mostly).

If you want an analogy, today, most people have no problem farming animals to raise them for meat. There's a lot of cruelty inherent in the process, but we do try to take steps to reduce it. And if you outright enjoy the wails of pain from the cow as you beat it needlessly on the way to the slaughterhouse, there's something wrong with you. Just as to the Romans, beating your slaves and sometimes making an example might be necessary, but a slaveowner who took a little too much pleasure in it was morally suspect. It's telling that Roman histories are full of allegations of the capricious torture and rape of slaves by prominent figures. While some of these accusations are probably true, they are generally of a slanderous nature intended to tarnish the reputation of the accused.

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#32

Post by MisterTea »

wins32767 wrote: post #27

"And just as a household needed slaves, so companies need staff. Permanent employees, like slaves, are far more desirable than outsourcing to outsiders. The Romans thought external contractors could never be relied on like members of the primary social group. They failed to turn up when instructed to, took liberties with their fees and, taking little pride in their work, carried out their tasks shoddily. With slaves,…

> "With slaves, however, who were stakeholders in the system,"

"With slaves, however, who's stakes were forcibly held by others in the system," FTFY

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#33

Post by enduser »

aluminussoma wrote: post #8

I was taught that management theory sprung from army management. These were the first organizations that required coordinating very large groups of people - in the life or death situations of war, and in the brutal monotony of peace. I doubt that there were enough slaveowners or slaves in charge to contribute anything substantial to the management profession. It is an interesting tale in today's sentiment of antiwork…

It depends whether you consider drafted soldiers to be free.

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#34

Post by cogman10 »

xeromal wrote: post #14
petesergeant wrote: post #13

This is a confused article. > Most Romans ... thought cruelty to slaves was shocking but also > did not hesitate to punish their slaves, and to punish brutally. Floggings, crucifixions, torture by means of the rack and breaking the legs with iron bars would all be carried out in public to maximise the impact on the observers. Or a slave’s children might be sold off, never to be seen again. ... so, not that shocking?

For anything historical, you really need to objectively put yourself in the context of the people you're looking at. Rome had cruelty laws for how to treat slaves. I'm not an expert but perhaps if the slave did their job then floggings, torture, and crucifixion were illegal, but were allowed if they broke the law. People will look back and probably think US execution is terrible and cruel while currently, a large por…

This works to an extent. You have to be careful to make sure you aren't just softening history with a "product of their time" argument.

A good example is US slavery. You might mistakenly fall under the understanding that slavery was just a common and well accepted practice. Yet, from the founding of the US and earlier it was HIGHLY controversial.

You can't just take the perspective of the slave owner, you must also consider that abolitionists have been around at the same time periods.

It's complicated and messy, but, IMO, entirely right to condemn slavery and slave owners as a modern reader. Just as you'd condemn someone running a con or a ponzi scheme in the same era.

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#35

Post by netcan »

I wonder about early bronze age (eg Egyptian old kingdom) "management theories."

IDK if I'm right, but I feel like the Roman era is not so different from the current era, or at least near-modern eras. They had accounting, greek philosophy, a legal system, insurance companies and a class hierarchy that was a lot like later periods...

In the early bronze age, money doesn't even exist. Many other social constructs that we take for granted were probably also missing. I feel the same way about pre-colonial mexico. Large, hyper-urban societies that were institutionally completely different from us. I suspect the "god king" thing might play roles that we have a hard time imagining.

You can drop in "staff" in place of "slaves" and this reads totally legibly to the modern mind. That's because the Romans were a lot like us. I don't think that means everyone was.

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#36

Post by hirako2000 »

api wrote: post #11

In the mid to far future we will look back upon the concept of "human resources" the way we look back on slavery today. I'm not a Marxist BTW. I just think we are slowly evolving toward a society in which equals interact economically on equal terms.

I'm already looking at it that way. the concept of a company recruiting various agents under its name, the concept of managing cohorts of humans to extract most value from them, elaborating organisational structures with promotion/termination schemes, the whole thing is a form of modern slavery.

- We are born with a certain social position - Many can't make ends meet - We are talked into thinking each can escape his fate and rise, if he work hard at it - Only a few get entirely liberated - The liberated are examplified as role models - Those are the top don't need to perform any work - They spend a good chunk of their time making sure their position isn't threatened - The owners are free to trade their ownership, and they often do

No need to be Marxist to view the system as inherently rigged and work out a way to escape it in favor of independent trading relationships with one another,with no agency as intermediary.

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#37

Post by evan_ »

quocanh wrote: post #18
britch wrote: post #10

What a strange piece. Putting the reader in the master's perspective certainly is a choice. It fails to investigate that almost anyone in its ostensible audience of corporate managers is both a "master" and "slave" (mangers have managers). An incredibly grim takeaway as well. It acknowledges the exploitation in both systems, but doesn't ask you to do anything about it or interrogate it deeper. There's no way that you…

You definitely have to be opened minded in order to read this. I can see how this could be offensive or distasteful but from a purely academic point of view it's interesting to see that a master-slave relationship was more than a contractual relationship. Leadership was just as important in that relationship as it is in a manager-employee relationship. And although we have since abolished slavery, we will always need…

you actually have to be close-minded to read this favorably, an open-minded reading would be to consider the "slaves" as people whose rights are being violated

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#38

Post by quocanh »

jacquesm wrote: post #28
quocanh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You definitely have to be opened minded in order to read this. I can see how this could be offensive or distasteful but from a purely academic point of view it's interesting to see that a master-slave relationship was more than a contractual relationship. Leadership was just as important in that relationship as it is in a manager-employee relationship. And although we have since abolished slavery, we will always need…

Think about the risks! Anything your slave does that damages other people's properties or causes them to lose life or limb is your responsibility. Those poor masters. Seriously, anything that attempts to be 'open minded' about slavery starts off on the wrong premise: that there are useful lessons to be learned there about human interaction. It's a well that is so thoroughly poisoned that it is probably better to stay…

You're twisting my words. No one is arguing "for" slavery here.

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#39

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

jacquesm wrote: post #28
quocanh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You definitely have to be opened minded in order to read this. I can see how this could be offensive or distasteful but from a purely academic point of view it's interesting to see that a master-slave relationship was more than a contractual relationship. Leadership was just as important in that relationship as it is in a manager-employee relationship. And although we have since abolished slavery, we will always need…

Think about the risks! Anything your slave does that damages other people's properties or causes them to lose life or limb is your responsibility. Those poor masters. Seriously, anything that attempts to be 'open minded' about slavery starts off on the wrong premise: that there are useful lessons to be learned there about human interaction. It's a well that is so thoroughly poisoned that it is probably better to stay…

There is merely a step away from arguing for 'wrongthink' as a policy. Ideas should be examined, thoroughly and openly. Staying away does the opposite to the goal you may want to achieve.

Suggesting that ideas can corrupt is especially troubling on HN, which is supposed to be more focused on rational/logical discourse.

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#40

Post by 627467 »

wins32767 wrote: post #27

"And just as a household needed slaves, so companies need staff. Permanent employees, like slaves, are far more desirable than outsourcing to outsiders. The Romans thought external contractors could never be relied on like members of the primary social group. They failed to turn up when instructed to, took liberties with their fees and, taking little pride in their work, carried out their tasks shoddily. With slaves,…

This. And/or not helpful in convincing people to work for a salary.
Post reply on HN