DOI: 10.1111/josl.12587
ARTICLE
Language in the process of labour market
rationalisation: A sociohistorical approach across
twentieth-century Spain
Amado Alarcón Alarcón1
Maria Jesús Muiños Villaverde
Maria de los Ángeles Serrano Alonso2
1 Departments
of Business Administration &
Economics, Universitat Rovira i Virgili,
Reus, Spain
2 Department
of Business Administration
and Sociology, Universidad de
Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain
3 Department
of Sociology & Anthropology,
University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso,
United States
Correspondence
Amado Alarcón Alarcón, Universitat Rovira
i Virgili.
Email: amado.alarcon@urv.cat
Funding information
Ministry of Science and Innovation of the
Government of Spain, Grant/Award
Number: PID2021-122575NB-I00; Ministry
of Education and Vocational Training of the
Government of Spain, Grant/Award
Number: PRX2021-000429
Josiah Heyman3
Abstract
This article analyses the role of linguistic skills in the process of defining professional classifications in Spain during
1919–1980. The aim is to determine the social evaluation
of the skills involved. To retrace the classifications, a total
of 114 official documents were examined, establishing a
chronological division into three major stages: 1920–1940,
1940–1960 and 1960–1980. The first period (1920–1940)
shows efforts toward the initial objectification of working
conditions and salary scales, revealing social prejudices and
tacit conventions shaping the employment hierarchy, while
the second one (1940–1960) indicates the extent to which
office work stood out over manual work. Finally, the third
stage (1960–1980) shows processes of language rationalisation, which entailed attempts to standardise positions based
on required skill sets.
KEYWORDS
language skills, professional classification, sociohistorical study
Resumen
Este artículo analiza el papel de las competencias lingüísticas en el proceso de definición de las clasificaciones
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and
distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Sociolinguistics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Journal of Sociolinguistics. 2022;1–21.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/josl
1
2
ALARCÓN ET AL.
profesionales en España en el periodo 1919–1980. El
objetivo es determinar la consideración social de las
competencias implicadas. Para reseguir las clasificaciones
se examinaron un total de 114 documentos oficiales, que
han permitido establecer una división cronológica en tres
grandes etapas: 1920–1940, 1940–1960 y 1960–1980. La
primera etapa (1920–1940) muestra los esfuerzos hacia una
objetivación inicial de las condiciones de trabajo y escalas
salariales, revelando prejuicios sociales y convenciones
tácitas que configuraron la jerarquía laboral, mientras que
la segunda etapa (1940–1960) refleja hasta qué punto
se priorizó el trabajo de oficina sobre el manual. Finalmente, la tercera etapa (1960–1980) evidencia procesos
de racionalización del lenguaje que implicaron intentos
de homologar puestos en función de unas determinadas
habilidades exigibles.
P A L A B R A S C L AV E
competencias lingüísticas, clasificación profesional, estudio sociohistórico
1
INTRODUCTION
(. . . ) always use polite words and manners with the customers (. . . ) they will always ask for
the ticket orally, not with signs or by hitting the backs of the seats (. . . ) (Sarrià-Barcelona
Railway Ordinances: Art. 125, 1933)
. . . loud and long distance conversations are forbidden. (Train Drivers and Ticket
Collectors Ordinances Art. 20, 1934)
These excerpts come from numerous working ordinances across twentieth-century Spain that aimed
to ‘civilize’, in Norbert Elias’ terms, or ‘rationalize’ working performance through language practice. They exemplify the long-term process that creates, reworks and enforces a natural language
regime within industrial relations. We analyse how and to what extent language was rationalised,
objectivised and controlled at the occupational level by analysing twentieth-century Spain. Although
part of a longer-term process, the period 1920–1980 illustrates the systematic development of a language regime. During this period, in just three generations, the main population evolved from agrarian
to industrial and service/information work, each demanding different literacy levels for work performance, through modernisation across sectors and industries. These processes happened within a
convulsive sociopolitical sequence of Republican, Autarchic/Dictatorial and Democratic systems. We
tackle this complex sequence through systematic analysis of documentary sources on labour regulations, starting in 1919 – the country’s entry into the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which
ALARCÓN ET AL.
3
promotes standardisation of professional classifications – to 1980, when the Estatuto de los Trabajadores [Statute of Workers’ Rights] passed, legislation which changes the basic labour framework
inherited from the Franco regime. This relatively short historical period of industrialisation and modernisation is not unique to Spain and contributes to understanding language rationalisation in many
regions of the world.
Current studies of language at work in the information society emphasise its role in managing
information and intercultural relations during globalisation. Recently, sociolinguists have argued that
language is increasingly objectified as a market commodity by which jobs are classified, workers evaluated and occupants of positions compensated (Heller, 2010; Urcioli, 2008; Urcioli & LaDousa, 2013).
Monica Heller and Alexandre Duchêne (2012), for example, suggest that language has shifted from
being a sign of national or ethnic ‘pride’ to being a market commodity. Heller (2010) sees these changes
as resulting from economic reconfiguration from the national toward the global.
Coming before these recent sociolinguistic developments is another history, the transition from
speech and (il)literacy communities in older social orders to mid-twentieth-century national regulation of speech and literacy within government and corporate organisations. This is the story we tell
here. Usually researchers lack an explanation about how these phenomena evolved over time. References to language at work often are generic, as Fordist ‘silent’ workers (represented in the film ‘Modern
Times’ from Charles Chaplin) shift to neoliberal regimes. Although a few publications explore specific
moments of workplace language in the twentieth century (e.g., Boutet, 2001a, 2001b, 2008 in reference
to standardisation of call centre work during its beginning in France or Cohen, 2009: 26, in reference
to welcoming immigrant languages in US factories), a systematic analysis of change in language at
work is yet to be done.
To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to analyse on a systematic documentary basis the production of a world of language in industrial relations. We use twentieth-century history to examine
primarily deductive assumptions, such as the increasing role of language in the productive process,
and provide them with empirical content. On this little explored territory, we aim to verify (a) the
extent to which occupational classification is a linguistic operation of translation of reality in order
to (b) approach the contexts surrounding the classifications over time – as well as the position of the
worker within them – on the one hand, and to establish (c) the explicit or implicit linguistic skill requirements when defining and ranking jobs, on the other. In an interesting recursive manner, we examine
the language (points a and b, the formal textualisation of work practices) used to describe occupational
language skills and requirements (point c). The final aim is to (d) determine the social standing that
such skills had at each stage, and the implications of that.
2
OBJECTIFICATION AND LONG-TERM STRUCTURES
Few studies, like Boutet’s research on call centres (2001a, 2001b, 2008) show how language has
become a main working tool, a ‘natural asset’ that is exploited and sold. She argues that, when analysing
systems of organisation of salaried work – from factories during the Industrial Revolution to present
call centres – the same desire to rationalise language exists; that is, to politically manage language to
control the linguistic faculty of the workers, though in different directions and with different techniques,
according to the interests of production. As the reader will see, our research follows this intricate process across twentieth-century Spain, in which rationalisation of language becomes partially codified at
a general institutional and intersectoral level starting in the middle part of the century.
Drawing on the perspective of Elias (1939 [2000]), we examine long-term historical processes that
shape ‘the subjective and intersubjective forms of relationships’ (Van Krieken, 2007: 29). Elias proposes a civilisational process by which disciplined manners and forms of speech replace more direct
4
ALARCÓN ET AL.
force and expression, giving rise to the early modern, hierarchical framework of literacy and illiteracy,
crude speech and sophisticated speech. In keeping with Elias’ perspective, if not his precise period, we
advance these historical processes into the twentieth century, examining how previous language skills
and behaviours associated with societal estates (e.g., literacy) were reworked into named workplace
skills. A parallel work in the Elias tradition is Van Vree’s (2011) tracing of meetings as a social form
that replaced potentially violent encounters with rule-governed verbal and written interaction inside
formal organisations. While meetings appear in some of the regulations we examine, the more important point is that the Elias-ian historical process seen in meeting behaviour can be seen more generally
in the rationalisation of linguistic behaviours and skills within modern organisational systems.
Such changes are performed by the application of language classifications and standards in occupational codes. As Bowker and Star (1999: 10) propose, ‘a classification is a spatial, temporal or
spatio-temporal segmentation of the world’ that imposes structure and makes other structures silent or
invisible. From this approach, any professional classification, which is already itself a quasi-linguistic
‘operation’ (Prieto, 1993), is a rendition of reality that tends to frame and control that reality (Nelson
& Sampat, 2001; Tanguy, 2001). In this constitutive role, it claims an objective nature, that of salary
clarification and criteria assurance (Burriel, 2011). The origin of those criteria and the implications of
their placement are unquestioned: the prevalence of the organisation over the subject; the submission
to the company needs (Prieto, 1993); and the crisis of the trade and the worker, who must continually
rebuild their identity (Tapia, 2019; Martín-Barbero, 2002).
A crucial move, seen clearly in our material, is ‘standardization’. A standard applies not just to
one domain, but ‘spans more than one community of practice’ (Bowker & Star, 1999: 13) and for this
reason ‘control is [a] central, often underanalyzed feature of economic life’ (Bowker & Star, 1999: 15).
Language skills are indispensable for the controlling function of professional classification eventually
to succeed. All individuals must acquire them to know (and potentially accept) their position in the
discourse. Otherwise, part of the knowledge and of the individual identity would be left out of the
discourse, implying the existence of gaps escaping control (De Certeau, 2000; Tanguy, 2001).
We conceptualise this as ‘semiocracy’. In a semiocracy, the subject’s position in reality is indicated
through their position in signs, in our case, spoken and written language. In semiocracy, the symbolic
constitutes the real. If so, whoever controls the symbolic (in our study, job classifications), controls the
order (Montesinos, 2002, drawing on Baudrillard, 1978, 2010). This is a constitutive process that takes
place over time; hence, we examine a history of change from occupational language approximating
inherited social structure to language actively reformulating occupational structure.
Attewell (1990) reveals the complexity that classifications actually entail: since the skills and competencies do not establish themselves, but rather someone else establishes them, class prejudice,
ignorance of the observer regarding the tasks that they classify, and previous social prestige can bias
them up or down. Similar conclusions are reached by Handel (2016) whose updated analysis of standard
classifications also suggests educational level as a biasing factor, pointing out the overrepresentation
of higher educational professions. Competencies might not correspond to greater or lesser real skills.
But, how does this complexity and bias manifest across time?
What is presented in classifications synchronously (knowing, knowing how to do, knowing how
to be) arises from very different mental processes, which require diachrony to be explained. From a
sociohistorical approach, linguistic skills are particularly prone to this processuality. Literacy has not
always been a universal characteristic of society. Its initial shortage gives written language a measure of prestige compared with manual labour that may not correspond to a greater mastery of actual
productive skills (Coulmas, 2003, 2013). As consequence, traditional know-how – procedure learnt
through practice – is subordinated to writing, making explicit in words – that registers and organises
reality into a hierarchy. Within the historical development of a capitalist system, the regime governing
signs cannot allow know-how to be transmitted through experience, because then knowledge cannot be
ALARCÓN ET AL.
5
appropriated. It escapes control and threatens to respond through failed acts or parapraxis (as observed
in the first period of our analysis, from 1919 to 1940). On the contrary, semiocratic practices need to
make visible what exists implicitly, to observe and monitor it.
Hence, we delineate in the Spanish case an unfolding process that characterises the organisation and
evaluation of work in words and about words, closely linked to capitalist economic development and
occurring despite national political changes.
3
THE CASE OF SPAIN
The social and structural data of professional classification during this period indicate three major
stages from 1920 and 1980 (i.e., 1920–1940; 1940–1960; 1960–1980) (Montoya-Melgar, 2016). It
must be borne in mind that Spain across this time had a lower standard of living than neighbouring
countries. The Spanish GDP per capita, although it improved internally over time (51–66% from 1920
to 1980), always lagged behind industrialised countries such as the USA, France or the UK (Carreras
& Tafunell, 2005). In addition to GDP per capita indicators, the Human Development Index (one of its
parameters being literacy) illuminates the social reality of the country in this span, since it was 0.542
in 1920 and 0.839 in 1980 (Escudero & Simón, 2012; Prados de la Escosura & Sánchez Alonso, 2020).
Table 1 summarises the basic chronology.
Spanish society starts 1920 characterised by very low income levels, dysfunctional industrialisation
(despite the improvement brought about by Spain’s neutrality during the First World War), great social
inequality and clearly extractive elites. In such a context the strong social conflict that characterises
Spanish history is unsurprising: the working class (industrial and farm labourer) become organised into
labour union movements whose claims went beyond improving the working conditions to changing the
social order. Trade unions belonging to the Second International (Unión General de Trabajadores, UGT
[General Union of Workers]) but mainly the anarchists (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, CNT
[National Labour Confederation]) pressured via general strikes a system reluctant to recognise their
rights, with few negotiation channels. They lost the struggle. The legislation that objectified working
conditions and classified professions, including language, was not exactly the result of their claims
(Canal, 2017; Julià, 2007).
This first stage is complex. The more-than-questionable liberal system of the restoration disintegrates, unable to face the deterioration in living standards and resulting territorial tensions, aggravated
by the war in Morocco. This ends with a dictatorship (Primo de Rivera, 1923–30) (Castillejo, 2008).
The crisis of 1929 impacts this totalitarian regime, accentuating its contradictions and giving a chance
to democratising and modernising currents, which finally emerge in the Second Republic (1931–
1936). With the support of the trade unions (including the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, CNT
[National Labour Confederation]), the first biennium of the Second Republic faces accumulated structural problems, including the so-called ‘social issue’: that is, recognition of workers’ rights. Such efforts
yield results during the subsequent five years, breaking with the prior tendency (Canal, 2017; Julià,
2007).
However, the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) truncated such expectations, with the triumph of
General Francisco Franco and his subsequent crushing of all currents outside his National-Catholicist
(fascist) ideology. An exception was the educationally ambitious project of the Second Republic and its
effects on literacy rates (Figure 1). The war could not stop 16-year-old minors who learned to read and
write in the Republican schools. A few years of schooling was reflected as ‘literacy’ in the statistics,
although in fact, it should be considered more a ‘semiliteracy’, with no chance of subsequent scholastic
reinforcement.
6
TA B L E 1
Historical overview and main labour relations legislation in Spain (1920–1980)
1920–1940
Political significance
Legislation on labour relations
Ideology of labour law
Disintegration of the liberal system
Entry into the ILO (1919)
1923–1930: Primo de Rivera’s Dictatorship
Krausism
Military ‘regenerationism’
(authoritarianism,
corporatism, populism)
Left Reformism (Socialists
(II International) and left
republicans)
- Código de Trabajo [Labour Code] (1926)
- Organización Corporativa Nacional [National
Corporate Organization] (1926)
1931–1936: Second Republic
- Ley Contrato de Trabajo [Labour Contract Act]
and Ordenanzas Laborales [Labor
Ordinances](1931)
- Jurados Mixtos [Mixed Boards] (1931)
1936–1939: Spanish Civil War
1940–1960
Francisco Franco’s Dictatorship: autarchy
- Ley de Reglamentaciones de Trabajo [Labour
Regulations Act] (1942)
National Catholicism
1960–1980
Francisco Franco’s Dictatorship:
Developmentalism
↓
Democratic transition
- Ley de Convenios Colectivos [Collective
Bargaining Agreements Act] (1958)
- Estatuto de los Trabajadores [Statute of Workers’
Rights] (1980)
Technocracy
Towards the liberal system
(Unión de Centro
Democrático, UCD
[Union of the Democratic
Centre])
Source: Own elaboration.
ALARCÓN ET AL.
7
ALARCÓN ET AL.
Spanish literacy rates
120.00
100.00
87.82
90.89
1950
1960
94.91
96.37
98.16
1970
1980
1991
82.72
80.00
71.70
59.10
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
1920
FIGURE 1
(2005)
1930
1940
Spanish literacy rates (1920–1980). Source: Own elaboration with data from Carreras and Tafunell
From 1939 to 1975, Spain enters a dictatorship, divided in two major stages. The first one, from
1939 to 1959, is fascist autarchy. During this period the Ley de Reglamentaciones de Trabajo [Labour
Regulations Act] (1942) is approved, which must be read within what the paternalism of the regime considers protection of the worker (‘tutelage’), of course without his/her participation, and at the service
of a project of national cohesion (Bernecker, 2003).
The second stage (1960–1975) is that of developmentalism. In a Cold War context, the regime
is accepted by the Western bloc, despite not being at all democratic. The starting signal is given
by the Stabilization Plan (1959) imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and carried
out by a new force: the technocrats. It is the moment of relative opening of Spain to the outside.
Against the wilful waste of the autarchy, contact with the outside involved rationalisation, efficiency
and objectification. Within this orientation, the Ley de Convenios Colectivos [Collective Bargaining Agreements Act] (1958) was approved (Cayuela Sánchez, 2014; De la Torre y García Zúñiga,
2013).
In this framework, professional classifications and the regulation of labour relations sought not to
harm any established interest group. Such groups are viewed as inherent to the development of the
capitalist system, and essential for its operation. They sought a social transformation without political
ruptures: ideologically, there is very little difference between a joint committee and an agreement: the
worker participates in the negotiation of working conditions in a position that is always dependent (i.e.,
s/he is not equally situated in the market as the employer), no matter how joint the commissions appear
when sitting together to discuss categories and salaries (Canal, 2017).
4
METHODS
A total of 114 official documents1 have been analysed in chronological order. They include Bases
[labour standards], Ordenanzas [ordinances], Reglamentaciones de Trabajo [work regulations] and
Convenios colectivos [collective bargaining agreements],2 published in the Spanish official bulletin
‘Gaceta de Madrid’ [Official Gazette of Madrid], Boletín Oficial de la República [Official Gazette
8
ALARCÓN ET AL.
of the Republic] and Boletín Ofical del Estado (BOE) [Official State Gazette],3 respectively. This
documentation collects the regulations that attempted to establish arbitration mechanisms between
employers and workers: Ley de Consejos Paritarios [Joint Councils Act] (1919); Ley Contrato de Trabajo [Labour Contract Act] (1931); Fuero de Trabajo [Work Charter] (1938); Ley de Reglamentaciones
de Trabajo [Labour Regulations Act] (1942); Ley de Convenios Colectivos [Collective Bargaining
Agreements Act] (1958) and Estatuto de los Trabajadores [Statute of Workers’ Rights] (1980). In succession, these official documents characterise the working conditions, the reasons for dismissal, the
forms of promotion and many of them defined the tasks that each worker had to address.4 In the case
of Spain, it is broadly appropriate to analyse together private sector and government jobs. During the
researched period, most notably during Franco’s dictatorship, there were shared governance structures
for private and public labour for creating Collective Agreements.
Prior to 1995, none of these documents were registered on a centralised database, so that we built a
specialised corpus through the historical BOE search engine.5 Also, some control searches were carried
out in relevant Spanish companies (Navantia –formerly Empresa Nacional Bazán de Construcciones
Navales Militares, S. A. [National Company of Military Naval Construction, PLC]; the chemical company Erkimia S.A.–formerly Cros, S.A. and the automotive company SEAT S.A., in particular) or sectors
(chemical industries, banking and office workers). Definitions, promotion, salary scales, classification,
awards and offenses and sanctions have been codified in this corpus.6
Language skills have been approached by tabulating documents under three parameters:
a. The working conditions of a specific group within the classification ‘Administrativo’ [‘Clerk’] have
been set as a comparative reference. Given the absence of explicit requirements for admission, it is
inferred that its main competency ‘is knowing how to read and write’. In order to complement this
inference, a sample of calls to the body of state junior clerks, as well as the entry requirements for
places of ‘maestro de taller’ [‘workshop master’] of the Arts and Crafts Schools between 1918 and
1950 have been analysed for each stage.
b. A second indicator that implies language skills is the requirement of a degree. Generic literature on
professions, vocational training and their homologues abound. Based on the position or the person,
and across nationalities, a degree is a control mechanism that can close labour market access, while
the educational system also follows business needs (Psifidou, 2014; Ayuso & Arata, 2009).
c. Finally, documentation is analysed to isolate definitions, task descriptions, norms or behaviours
that imply, explicitly or implicitly knowing how to read and /or write, knowing how to count,
linguistic know-how (specific reading and writing techniques), language knowledge and social
know-how.
The first period (1920–1940) is the formative stage when it comes to objectifying working conditions
and salary scales. It is probably the most illustrative period when it comes to detecting social prejudices
and tacit conventions presiding over the employment hierarchy. During 1940 and 1960, the post-war,
autarchy stage, with very high illiteracy rates, the Ley de Reglamentaciones de Trabajo [Labour Regulations Act] (1942) reflected the extent to which office work stood out over manual work, even with
similar qualifications according to current perspectives. Finally, during the third stage (1960–1980)
openness to nations abroad increased and illiteracy rates plummeted. There were processes of rationalisation at work, which entailed attempts to standardise positions based on certain required skillsets. It
was a moment of transition, where the placement of ‘know-how’ (manual or linguistic) in the regulatory
language is evident.
ALARCÓN ET AL.
5
5.1
9
RESULTS
1920–1940: Translating pre-existing reality
As stated before, classifying involves a linguistic operation of translating reality into words. It inserts
work relations that have operated tacitly into workable and manageable codes. Every classification has
a purpose and a method. Initially, it was about avoiding untrammelled discretion in labour relations
by objectifying mandatory requirements and functions of the worker and employer, and protecting
the former from unregulated labour relations. Labour standards and work regulations in this period
include criteria for hiring, promotion, disciplinary regime and functions, but also establish professional
divisions that justify, above all, work remuneration.
It is worth asking what criteria were established for making these first classifications. The official documentation clearly reflects their initial absence. In a merely inductive process, each instance
(jury, company or sector) wrote about the existing reality, assuming there was already a balance
between services provided and remuneration, without rethinking the issue based on different criteria. The documentation generated until the mid-1940 s is interesting because of the lack of expertise
behind it and the information it inadvertently exposes. See, for example, the labour standards during the
1930s:
a. The wages received by the employees establish the job category, and not the other way around. A
civil servant is a person whose: ‘wage (. . . ) exceeds the highest salary indicated as mandatory for
employees’ (Document Bank staff, 1930: Standard 17 ). ‘Senior clerks are employees who receive
salaries of six, seven, eight and nine thousand pesetas per year. Junior clerks are those who enjoy
three, four and five thousand pesetas per year. There is a temporarily preserved category of seven
thousand five hundred pesetas, which will eventually disappear’ (Document CAMPSA-I, 1934:
Standard 7). ‘Those who, by June 1, 1933 earned a salary exceeding 330 pesetas without being
Chief of Section’ (Document Retail in Madrid, 1933: Standard 3).
b. The concepts are confused when it comes to category, group and level. These terms are used interchangeably or substituted by the usual ones of the times: position, ladder, command. In parallel, the
term ‘punishment’ is used for penalty. People’s traits are classified but not their skills or their positions. Thus, there are plenty of age categories: ‘Apprentices aged 14 to 15 – First-rank apprentices
aged 16 and 17 (. . . ) Clerks aged 23, 24 and 25 (. . . )’, while they establish a single gender group:
‘Female staff’ (Document Retail in Madrid, 1933).
c. The language reflects the social prejudices of the time, the structures existing in a specific company
and at a given moment. Some positions are listed using singular and other ones the plural, denoting
that the criterion is not being generalised. Certain positions show to be female only: ‘the phone
operator, the typists, the first 56 ladies of the box office track will be the box-office clerks’ (Document
Metropolitan Railway of Madrid 1933: Standard 15).
d. The documents lack a formal structure: written levels and salaries appear in paragraphs, without a
visual hierarchy (Document Cinema Cabin Operators 1929; Document Sarrià-Barcelona Railway
1933, among others).
As can be inferred, prejudices and non-explicit social routines are collected and included in objectified norms as unquestioned principles. Higher positions were not subject to regulation (and they would
not be in subsequent agreements), while those that imply trust (section chiefs, workshop managers) or
money management (collectors, accountants) are removed from the general promotion rules and will
10
ALARCÓN ET AL.
be promoted ‘by free designation of the company’. The possession – or lack thereof – of linguistic skills
is one of the issues objectified without further reflection.
5.2
1940–1960: Manual workers vs. white-collar workers
For centuries, European society has made the distinction between knowing how to read and write
and knowing how to do something, as two opposite skills. Human knowledge was divided up by the
enlightenment (eighteenth century), a movement that exalts reason (the light, the explicit) as opposed
to superstition (the hidden, the unspoken).
The rules of know-how were not written, but were the result of learning in a guild system. Everything
material and necessary for life (work) created non-articulated micro-languages. At the time, practical
knowledge, crafts and agriculture were not considered knowledge. Not even artisans enjoyed prestige
on the social scale. Lawyers belonged to the upper layers because they met their needs by privilege –
not by their work or their intellect. That was the root of their prestige: They did not work with their
hands or fulfil basic needs.
Professional classifications in Spain reflect this dichotomy, especially at this stage. During the postwar years, literacy was remarkably precarious with a clear gender and social class bias. At that moment,
the net illiteracy rate was 42.88% (Fernández, 1997). Complete literacy was only possible for strata
that could attend school without endangering their livelihoods, and we previously noted the presence
of semi-literacy.
Until the 1960 s, occupational classifications had some common factors in all instances:
∙ A group made up of the company’s hierarchical cadres, generally university graduates (although not
necessarily, since all classifications contemplate the ‘Chief without a degree’ [‘Jefe no tiulado’] –
a person promoted on the basis of experience and services provided, which will eventually become
extinct).
∙ A group of literate employees,8 which includes the technical office staff and office staff doing
administrative work. It is subdivided into first-rank senior clerk [‘Técnico administrativo de
primera’], second-rank senior clerk [‘Técnico administrativo de segunda’] and junior clerk [‘Auxiliar
Administrativo’].
∙ A group of subalterns [‘Subalternos’] (doormen, timekeepers) with possibilities of promotion to the
previous group.
∙ A group of practical workers [‘Obreros’], subdivided among ‘skilled workers’ [‘Profesionales de
Oficio’] (who are supposed to be qualified, and are subdivided into a ‘Workshop master’ [‘Maestro de taller’], first-rank senior worker [‘Oficial de Primera’], second-rank senior worker [‘Oficial
de Segunda’] and third-rank senior worker [‘Oficial de Tercera’] and apprentice [‘Aprendiz’]) and
specialists [‘Especialistas’] (factory workers, who are linked to specific machinery, with a lower
salary).
Over time, the categories come to have equivalent internal ladders, so that a junior clerk/specialist,
a senior clerk/specialist and a boss or master have equal placement within their specific categories,
since similar rank-titles share comparable training and skills for the jobs involving no, medium or high
responsibility and autonomy. This is not at all the case in the earlier stage. In general, there are noticeable differences between the workers’ group and the employees’ group, as well as the mismatching of
each group’ internal categories with the other, according to the definitions provided in the regulations
of this period (Table 2).
11
ALARCÓN ET AL.
TA B L E 2
Group definitions
Employees
There are many people in offices, factories or warehouses who perform tasks not
related to a product (. . . ) In general, all those are recognized by custom as office
employees (Document Iron and Steel Industry 1946: Art. 20)
Workers
Those who perform manual work, as well as (. . . ) those who receive weekly or daily
wages (Document CAMPSA-I 1934: Standard 1)
After training, they work in manual, material or mechanical fields (Document
Chemical Industries-I 1946: Art. 23)
Subalterns
(. . . ) Those who do not pertain to another category and are assigned monthly wages
(Document CAMPSA-I 1934). People who are not classified as workers or
employees and perform functions that require up to the level of general knowledge
acquired in Primary School (Document Iron and Steel Industry 1946: Art. 14 et seq.)
Source: Authors based on the data provided in the consulted records.
From the preceding definitions, two dichotomies are inferred: manual work versus office work;
literacy versus learning by practice. These imply a hierarchy of prestige linked to certain positions,
which stem from pre-existing social status (conveyed by command of written language) rather than
from an objective assessment of competencies.
5.2.1
The prestige of ‘knowing how to read and write’
In this section, two groups are contrasted: skilled workers (labour group) and office workers (employee
group). Both are considered qualified after a career in the company. In structure, they are ruled by
equivalent parameters.
Both are subdivided similarly: subordinates [‘ayudantes’], apprentices [‘aprendices’], first and
second-rank seniors [‘Oficiales de primera y segunda’] and workshop masters [‘maestros de taller’]
(in the case of trades); candidates [‘aspirantes’], junior clerks [‘auxiliares administrativos’], first and
second-rank senior clerks [‘técnicos administrativos de primera y segunda’] and bosses [‘jefes’] (in the
case of office staff). In both cases, promotions are given by seniority (after accumulating practice in the
position). This well-known pattern among manual workers is included in chapter IV of the document
National Work Regulation for Offices of 1948: ‘bosses are promoted by free designation; the rest are
promoted in two alternate shifts – one by seniority and another one by free choice’. In addition, ‘candidates with more than two years at the service of the company will automatically occupy the position
of junior clerk when they turn 18′ (Art. 23). However, the preference for admission and promotion of
staff members with certificate of studies is established (Art. 22).
Skilled workers are promoted by experience (seniority). Sometimes, promotion to ‘master’ requires
examination (Document Silks sector 1946). In any case the instructions for the tests indicate: ‘They
should not demand memory strain but be eminently practical and oriented to the functions to be performed’ (Document Paper industry 1946: Art. 23). The demand from skilled workers for linguistic
skills linked to writing is avoided, even in the competitions called between 1931 and 1944 to fill places
for workshop masters in the Arts and Crafts Schools. Unlike professors, who are required to have a
degree and must submit a pedagogical report that they will defend orally, teachers ‘will present their
applications (. . . ) except for the ‘Memoria y Programa’ [Report of activities and Teaching Program],
with certificates of having done work related to the specialty, while it will not be necessary to prove the
possession of any degree. They must perform a practical task that will be the same for all (. . . )’ (Found
in the instructions of several Arts and Crafts Schools: Document Escuela de Enseñanza Técnica de
12
ALARCÓN ET AL.
65.12
69.88
75.58
1945
1955
1965
85.82
90.34
1975
1985
F I G U R E 2 Salary of the first-rank senior worker compared with the first-rank senior clerk (%). Source: Authors
based on the data provided in the consulted records
Reus 1931; Document Escuela de Enseñanza Técnica de Lleida 1931; Document Escuela Elemental
de Trabajo de Santiago 1942; Document Escuela Elemental de Trabajo de Linares 1942; Document
Escuela Elemental de Trabajo de Tarragona 1944, among others).
In the 1940s, the only merit is holding a degree (as an expert or industrial technician). Degrees are
not required either for office or skilled workers. In the office workers group, they start as candidates
and ascend, as the minimum conditions are limited to age: ‘between 14 and 18 years (. . . ), working in
typical office duties, and willing to train in more specific tasks’ (Document National Work Regulation
for Offices 1948: Art. 13). As for skilled workers, this definition can be found already in the 1960s:
‘Those workers who perform skilled jobs in a specialty, according to the definition given for their
qualification, which require a particular skill and professional knowledge that can only be acquired
by continuous practice, or by a sanctioned methodical learning, or if it existed, by a certificate of
professional aptitude’ (Document Graphic Arts industries 1966).
In short, there are two groups (office and skilled workers) who do not require a degree. They are
qualified due to their skills. Later, they are promoted by seniority and subdivided into identical sections
(senior and junior [Oficiales y Auxiliares]). However, their positions will be very different because
knowing how to read and write prevents ‘working with their hands’, and provides more prestige:
a. Office workers or clerks (workers holding a degree, chiefs, and subalterns) receive monthly salary,
opposed to the daily wages [‘jornal’] received by the workers’ group, whether they are skilled
workers or specialists. The former are hired due to their skills, which conveys some confidence in
their effort. In the latter, tangible service is assessed daily.
b. The salaries of office workers are higher than those of skilled workers (Figure 2). First, their minimum working hour requirement is lower (by five hours) for a given salary; but also, in absolute
terms. In the 1940s, a first-rank senior worker received an average of 65.12% of the salary received
by a first-rank senior clerk. Even more noteworthy is how a junior clerk – that is with a minimum
entry requirement – would receive a salary 11.8% higher than the salary of a second-rank senior
worker, who must have at least four years of experience.
c. Clerks are considered to deserve better social treatment. The regulations included in Document
RENFE (1945) and Document Telefónica (1945) are very significant in this regard. They both
anticipate possible commuting for their workers and specify in-kind allowances: chiefs and senior
clerks will travel in first class; junior clerks and phone operators, in second class; while workers –
no matter their rank – will travel in third class.
13
ALARCÓN ET AL.
TA B L E 3
Competencies required for junior clerks
Public competitive
examination year
Degree
Linguistic ‘Know How’
1918
Not required
Taking dictation. – Copywriting. – Arithmetic
operations. – Write about a topic. – Write a
document
(Document: call 1918)
1943, 1945, 1949
Not required:
Knowledge at High School
level, which is credited
from evidence in the same
examination
Taking dictation. – Grammar analysis: ‘The
cleanliness and correctness of the letter and the
spelling must be valued’
‘Calligraphy exercise, in which the use of round
letters will be essential’
A problem of arithmetic. – Oral presentation. –
Typewriting. – Stenography (optional)
(Documents: call 1943, call 1945 and call 1949)
1953
Not required:
Knowledge at High School
level, which is given
credit from evidence in
the same examination.
Draft a theme ‘(. . . ) in order to appraise not only the
aptitude of the applicants in relation to the
grammatical composition, but also their writing
practice’.
Calculations: ‘the accuracy of the calculation (. . . )
and the clarity of the figure will be judged’.
Typewriting
(Document call 1953)
Source: Authors, compiled from civil servants’ public competitive examinations convened by the state for junior clerks (1918, 1943,
1945, 1949, 1953).
d. Clerks are given a vote of confidence that manual workers do not receive. Clerks’ functions are
rarely specified, while the rest of the workers are given precise instructions. For them, capacity to
do the job is not enough. Thus, in the first specific National Work Regulation for Offices (1948),
one of the objectives established for this group is: ‘the improvement of their training, both in the
specifically professional aspect, and in general education (. . . ) and acquire solid principles in the
intellectual, social and moral orders’ (Document National Work Regulation for Offices 1948: Art.
22).
5.2.2
‘Knowing how to write’ is ‘knowing how to do’
Beyond the social prestige of literates, as they do not work with their hands, ‘knowing how to write’
is, in a context of considerable illiteracy, a required technique for companies, rather than a generic
competency that allows the acquisition of specific bodies of knowledge. The calls for civil service
public competitive examinations convened by the state for junior clerks (1918, 1943, 1945, 1949, 1953),
and the National Work Regulation for Offices (1948) (Table 3), illustrate this point: the description of
physical traits of literacy is emphasised over the (presence/absence of) degrees. Thus, the calls evaluate
questions such as writing numbers and letters ‘properly’ (calligraphy, spelling), and composing and
mastering related mechanical techniques (typewriting, stenography, calculating machines).
We might envision that literacy ‘know-how’ is knowing how to write (manually or typing) and
knowing foreign languages is comparable to mastering a manual skill. If we compare how the knowhow among skilled workers is defined (Table 4), however, we notice a lack of equivalent parameters
and effective control over their tasks, even in large sectors (Document Chemical Industries-I 1946).
14
ALARCÓN ET AL.
TA B L E 4
Expected know-how by rank in the chemical industries (1946)
First-rank Senior worker [Oficial de primera]
‘They use their skills and apply them with such a degree of
perfection that allows them to carry out both general
tasks of the same field and other tasks that involve
special effort and finesse’.
Second-rank Senior worker [Oficial de segunda]
‘(. . . ) They work with accuracy and efficiency without
reaching the required specialisation for perfect jobs’.
Third-rank Senior worker [Oficial de tercera]
‘They have been trained (. . . ) but they have not reached the
expected degree of perfection’.
Source: Authors based on the data provided according to the consulted records (Document Chemical Industries-I 1946).
Until the 1960s, both regulations classified individuals and not the job positions: by focusing on
the qualities of the worker and their right to progress, the worker is the one who gives unity to the
professional career, thus being above the organisation. ‘Rationalisation and mechanisation systems
cannot affect the professional training since personnel have the right to complete it with daily practice’
(Document Iron and Steel 1942: Art. 5; also present in the Document National Work Regulation for
Offices 1948 for office workers).
5.3
1960–1980: The insertion of the ‘know-how’ in language
There was a gradual change in philosophy during the 1960s, which nevertheless integrated previous
implicit aspects. Developmentalism began with a significant entrance of multinational companies in
the Spanish economy. At the same time, net illiteracy rates fell to 13.74%, so reading and writing were
no longer a scarce skill (Fernández, 1997). The Ley de Convenios Colectivos [Collective Bargaining
Agreements Act] passed on April 24, 1958 led to implementing a Reglamento para la aplicación de
la Ley de Convenios Colectivos Sindicales [Regulation to enact the Collective Bargaining Agreements
Act], whose Article 2 states: ‘trade union collective agreements are intended to promote the spirit of
social justice and sense of unity in production, as well as the improvement of living standards of the
workers and the increase in productivity (. . . )’ (Document Regulations Collective Bargaining 1958).
Those principles – ‘unity in production’ and ‘the increase in productivity’ – force companies to
undergo what were called ‘rationalisation processes’, implying new standards to classify jobs: ‘The
new organisational techniques have taken an important step with the development of job qualification
systems, which entail the emergence of more fair and effective salary systems (. . . )’ (Document SEAT-I
1959: Preamble).
In general, the process began quickly – although with multiple subsequent rectifications – in large
companies (Document SEAT-I 1959, Document SEAT-II 1961; Document Cros-I 1962; and especially
Document Bazán 1964), while adapting to new criteria was harder for smaller companies. All of them
created specific bureaus, the Valuation and Rationalisation Commissions, whose members’ category
and wages were defined as equal to Senior Clerks [Técnicos Administrativos].
Although each company freely established the qualifications, big sectors show some common
tendencies:
a. First and second-rank senior categories of any former group (office, technical and trades) are
merged, while junior clerks now correspond to third-rank senior workers and labour managers.
15
ALARCÓN ET AL.
101.50
101.95
100.97
1965
1975
1985
93.72
88.45
1945
1955
F I G U R E 3 Salary of the second-rank senior worker compared with office junior clerk (%). Source: Authors
compiled from consulted records
Such features indicate that ‘knowing how to read and write’ alone is no longer an advantage, a fact
that is reflected in how the wages changed (Figure 3).
b. On the other hand, ‘knowing how to read and write’ became a mandatory condition that was never
enough by itself. Only the companies Cros and Bazán explain their rationalisation criteria. Six
blocks of characteristics are established for qualifications: physiological, psychological, intellectual,
intelligence-related, professional and moral. Linguistic skills are implied: ease of speech, education
(intelligence-related), general culture, learning, professional training, and adaptation (professional)
(Document Cros-I 1962; Document Bazán 1964).
Furthermore, a series of behaviours require language skills. ‘The worker has the obligation to follow
the instructions of their superiors, sign the documents where the instructions are given and fulfil a
report on the daily tasks’ (Document Cros-I 1962: Art. 47; also, Document Bazán 1964: Art. 32).
Calls for positions and vacancies must be read on the bulletin board, and applications must be sent
in written form. Explicitly theoretical tests must be passed to access a promotion (‘theoretical and
practical professional level exams’ Document SEAT-II 1961).
The definitions shifted from ‘excellence of execution’ to possessing ‘theoretical and practical
knowledge’. Although we understand literacy as ‘knowing how to read and write’, the two operations have different implications and are not necessarily related. In practice, reading is mostly
encouraged, that is, the ability to access a (professional) discourse. According to De Certeau (2000),
reading is governed by similar mental mechanisms as consumption (acculturation and guidelines, in
addition to books with their market), while writing would be like production (criticism, new ideas
and technologies, in addition to texts).
c. The uniformatisation and control process involves encouraging the workers to obtain the degree
corresponding to their position. During 1959, several agreements were published (Documents
CAMPSA-II, Private Bank, Tabacalera & ENCASO) rectifying previous agreements to add one
clause, hereinafter mandatory for all: a bonus for holding degrees. Not only traditional university and high school graduates were rewarded, but bonuses also reach the office staff that obtains
degrees in Economics, Political Science, Law or Business Administration (‘Profesor Mercantil’ at
the time) (6000 pesetas), as well as degrees from a technical school (3000 pesetas): ‘[the company]
will understand as a desire to improve professionally those workers who, in addition to fulfilling
their work in a satisfactory way, feel the impulse to improve their theoretical training (. . . ) to be
useful in their work or be promoted a higher category’ (Document Cros-I 1962: Art. 108). SEAT
establishes scholarships for trade-related studies (Document SEAT-II 1961). Having a degree is
considered preferential merit for promotions (Document Prensa Española 1963) or new contracts
16
TA B L E 5
ALARCÓN ET AL.
Competencies required for state office junior clerks, 1977
Degree
Language skills
Technical skills
Elementary school education
Psychotechnical test ‘focused
on appraising the verbal,
numerical and
administrative skills of
applicants’
Typewriting
Primary school education
Written exposition of a
subject
Four specialties: stenography; stenotype;
foreign languages; practical accounting
Basic Professional Training
(FP1)
Mechanisation
- Operation of data logging machines for
computer entry.
- Preparation of a statistical chart and a
guide for a drilling machine.
- Management of special calculating
machines and duplicators.
Source: Compiled from the call for public competitive examination to the bodies of state office junior clerks (Document call 1977).
(Document Graphic Arts industries 1966). Bazán manifests the same development, even with local
cultural agreements (Document Bazán 1964).
In the 1960s, manual workers were encouraged to obtain a certified degree in the Schools of Arts and
Crafts. The degree belonged to workers and provided them with adequate qualification, in which
they were required to show mastery of techniques related to the degree: ‘Functions of the studies
they have carried out’ (Iron & Steel Industry 1946: Art. 24; identical in Documents Silks sector
1946; Chemical Industries-I 1946; Paper industry 1946, among others). Over time, the dissociation
became noticeable: ‘Production premiums will be related to the level requested for the job instead of
being related to the professional level of the worker who occupies the position’ (Document SEAT-III
2016).
By then, the required functions varied so the general ability to do the job was replaced by the
skills necessary to understand both instructions and plans. The person, who was previously a keeper
of knowledge, was stripped of that credential. Knowledge is outside of her/him, not in another
subject, or in a teacher, but in language – in a codification – itself. Meanwhile, high positions were
left out of the agreement; positions of trust stayed outside general promotion rules. The discretion
of the unspoken remained at the top of the ladder, while new language invaded the other layers.
From above, ‘know-how’ was framed in a new homogeneous, uniform, and essentially linguistic
hierarchy.
d. Prioritisation of technical knowledge, also in the office workers group. The type of degree that is
incentivised indicates this, as specified for the senior clerks; but also, in the junior clerk category.
Thus, ‘knowing how to read and write’ begins to become a basic competency on which new ones
are based (Table 5).
5.3.1
From ‘know-how’ to ‘knowing how to be’ (interaction)
Simultaneous with the concern about rendering consistency through titles, a campaign of domestication
of habits was initiated through the ‘Faults and Sanctions’ sections of the agreements.
17
ALARCÓN ET AL.
TA B L E 6
Sanctionable behaviours
Poor hygiene
Lack of cleanliness – Evacuating outside of the toilets
Throwing the trash outside the intended places. – Spitting in the workshops. –
Eating outside the dining rooms
Using a colleague’s hygiene equipment
Inappropriate behaviour
Drunkenness. Entering the toilets of another sex.
Smoking. Falling asleep. Engaging in gambling and reading.
Relationships and
communication
Not serving the public with due diligence
Discussions. Whistling, singing, humming. Blasphemy and using profanity.
Using rude, lewd and curse words for regular communication. Receiving
visits or answering personal calls.
Source: Document SEAT-II (1961) and Document Cros-I (1962): offenses and penalties.
In the Ley de Convenios Colectivos [Collective Bargaining Agreements Act] (1958), SEAT and Cros
companies are paradigmatic because of the detailed behaviours to be sanctioned. In general, all agreements establish the same behaviours as reprehensible – quarrels, alcoholism and blasphemy. Also,
absenteeism, lack of punctuality, intentional poor performance, contempt, mail tampering and political or union activities (which are not covered in this study as they require further research). Next, the
sanctionable behaviours are systematised, which account for the usual behaviours (Table 6).
What this documentation reflects is a ‘feral’ workforce, which was more linked to nature than to
culture and that, somehow, must begin to interact through standards of conduct. Such a workforce is
urged to ‘communicate’ in a different way. Thus, new skills were required in this regard, especially
for the upper layers (chiefs in general). Such a view is extracted from the analysis of the collective
bargaining agreements for the period ranging from 1980 through 2016.
At this time, companies have bureaucratised in part, with numerous positions linked to control of new
processes (Organisation Technicians, Safety and Hygiene Technicians, Methods Improvement Technicians, Rationalisation Technicians, Timers, Calculators). The figure in charge of public relations barely
shows up, with the exception of the Labour Ordinance of the Spanish National Television and Radio
(RTVE) (1977), which only indicates that it requires a university degree and equals to the Second-rank
Office Chief. Their objective is set as ‘adapting the staff mentality to a participatory management
system’ (Document RTVE 1977: Art. 34).
These contrast with subsequent documents: the ‘service managers’ section for Department of Public
Relations specifies: ‘In this service you must also speak and write correctly two foreign languages and
show ability to relate at the highest level’ (Document CIEMAT 1993). Broadly speaking, since it is
a recurring wording in different collective agreements, Groups 5 and 6 of the Chemical Industries
correspond to ‘functions of integrating, coordinating and supervising (. . . ). It also includes tasks that,
even without involving work management, have a [high / medium] content of intellectual activity and
human relations’ (Document Chemical Industries-II 1998).
6
CONCLUSIONS
Originally, professional classifications made by Spanish companies as part of the objectification of
labour relations were limited to an obvious depiction in writing of the existing reality. Not only did
they lack explicit criteria that combined activity and remuneration, but wages determined the category,
and not vice versa.
18
ALARCÓN ET AL.
Throughout the studied period, laws gave instructions to better define jobs. Most of the companies followed them structurally (establishing groups, categories and levels, detailing positions), fitting
existing roles in the new concepts, but keeping the initial conception. Thus, the early structure is
recognisable in subsequent revisions. New formulations were subtly subsumed to previous social
stratification rather than representing radical breaks with the past. Hence, major categories (clerks,
subalterns, workers [Empleados, Subalternos, Obreros]), deserved different treatment because they
belonged to certain social groups. The levels within each rarely matched across categories, despite
sharing similar characteristics. On the other hand, the object of the classification was the subject as
a unit, as an identity: ‘Chief’, ‘Senior’ or ‘Junior’ [Jefe, Oficial o Auxiliar], with some inseparable
social characteristics, and their career in the company coincided with their personal trajectory – just
the opposite of what happens in a strictly market, neoliberal logic.
The prestige of positions that did not require craftsmanship (working with hands) became part of the
objectification without further questioning. In a context of high illiteracy, their distinctive feature was
that they knew how to read and write. Such prestige was reflected in the form of payment (monthly vs.
daily) and in salaries (higher for office workers, compared with similarly ranked technical workers).
The documents show that the higher category in the trades (workshop masters [maestros de taller])
could at least read, while nothing indicates that senior clerks [técnicos administrativos], who learned
through experience, could do it as well. However, in either case, they did not have to prove their reading
knowledge. The difference with office workers (even with the juniors [Auxiliares Administrativos])
was that they knew how to write well mechanically: spelling and calligraphy, also numerical and, over
time, typing, shorthand and handling calculating machines. Therefore, knowing how to write was not
a generic competency that allowed the incorporation of more specific skills, but a technique in itself –
knowing how to do something, compared with the know-how of the trades.
In qualified work (Office Workers and Technical Workers [Empleados y Profesionales de Oficio]),
the company did not have the ultimate control of what it meant to perform effectively (the worker was
ultimately the keeper of knowledge), unlike the Specialist worker subgroup [Especialistas], which was
linked to machines, to which they owed their existence.
From the 1960s, there was a change in philosophy, which also coincides with a considerable increase
in literacy. The effort in this decade was directed to being able to evaluate (control) the performance of
the worker according to the needs of the company, and to account for it in front of the organisational
inspectors.
On the one hand, the acquisition of the title corresponding to the position held was encouraged
in all layers; on the other hand, the organisation of work was endowed with a series of controls that
necessarily required the worker’s literacy. This is the so-called ‘immersion in language’: the degree
corresponded to confirming preparation of the workers, while they had to follow written instructions,
fill in forms, and read their future promotion on the boards. The workshop master – who had always
assessed the work quality of the senior workers whom he had trained – was already becoming extinct,
replaced by the workshop managers or service managers, who simply transmit commands.
If the linguistic skills involved in the previous operations are analysed, the stimulation received by
workers through the mental mechanisms linked to ‘reading’ and to following instructions is noticeable.
In other words, they had to know where they had been located, rather than bring forth their own placement. As for the title, which would become the mandatory in due time, it went from being a holistic
hallmark of the person (Group of Senior Graduates, for example), to a characteristic that would be
taken into account along with others: it became necessary but never sufficient.
At the end of the period, a new linguistic skill appears: knowing how to interact, how to communicate
in an appropriate way (according to certain codes). Now, it does not appear as an explicit skill and
very few companies include the public relations position. However, through the ‘Faults and Sanctions’
19
ALARCÓN ET AL.
sections, we can see the tendency to introduce a truly mannered workforce, not so much trained in the
linguistic codes of communication, as in pre-verbal gestural behaviour. This is, of course, redolent of
Elias.
Our contribution to wider sociolinguistic theory involves demonstrating a double-sided move. On
one hand, we note the historical development of a modern semiocracy, in which signs (in our study,
legal texts) constitute important parts of life, specifically work life. At the beginning, regulatory language largely imitated practices inherited within Spain, reflecting past social hierarchies rather than
constituting organisational labour roles. But over time, regulatory language set models for how work
was done work, seen in significant mandates to modernise internal roles in organisations. These characteristics of the mid-twentieth-century bureaucratic state and corporate form were inserted into Spain
via legal language (we admit that we do not examine the undoubtedly significant gap between words
and reality, worth future study). Applications for jobs, promotions, debates over job classifications,
and so forth, all depended on fine details of words. Language came to constitute the social structure of
work experience, pay, and aspects of prestige.
On the other hand, we examine language in work activities as a substantive topic. Many job classifications involve language use, most obviously literacy. Our material takes a historical process approach,
moving from a distinctly hierarchical society (where literacy marks a ranked social group), through a
bureaucratically structured (‘coordinated’) situation of state agencies and corporations. In these, language is approached in terms of job roles, as an organisational functional need. We point (once our
historical period ends) toward the neoliberal period, where language skills are an individual marketable
quality. This final change makes sense as a shift from language with implicit value (e.g., in job classification) inside hierarchical organisations competing as wholes in the economy, toward individuals
themselves competing in the economy by possessing marketable language competencies. We thus set
the stage for much-discussed neoliberal developments in sociolinguistics.
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
The authors want to acknowledge funding from Ministry of Science and Innovation from the Government of Spain, code: PID2021-122575NB-I00 and Ministry of Education of the Government of Spain,
code: PRX2021-000429
ORCID
Amado Alarcón Alarcón
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4640-2681
ENDNOTE
1 Due
to the large number of regulations referred to in the manuscript, a legislation annex is provided, placed after
the reference list, and arranged chronologically in ascending order. This legislation annex is listed following standard
practice, that is, maintaining the original language term/title and then a translation into English provided in brackets.
2 According to the Diccionario panhispánico del español jurídico [Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of Legal Spanish] (https://
dpej.rae.es/), a ‘Base’ [labor standard] is each of the fundamental rules or conditions that govern a competitive examination, an administrative procedure, and so on. ‘Orden’ [order] is the juridical provision that some administrative
decisions take, such as those dictated by a minister or a regional councillor. They are general provisions issued by the
heads of the ministerial departments in matters of their own competence. Finally, ‘Reglamentación de Trabajo’ [work
regulation] is a general provision of a category lower than the law, issued by the Government or other administrative
bodies authorised to do so, that governs the organisation and operation of any establishment or institution, public or
private. While ‘Base’ [labour standard] or ‘Orden’ [order] are more restricted (for a sector in a place, for a specific
company) and juridically practically equivalents, the ‘Reglamentación de Trabajo’ [work regulation] tend to be sectoral
and for the state as a whole.
20
ALARCÓN ET AL.
3 The
Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE) [Official State Gazette] is the Spanish official bulletin that collects compulsorily
published legislation. From its beginnings in 1661 and throughout its history, the Official State Gazette has had various
names. Thus, during part of the period this article refers to, it was entitled ‘Gaceta de Madrid’ [Official Gazette of
Madrid] (1696–1936). From 1936 to 1939 it was renamed ‘Boletín Oficial de la República’ [Official Gazette of the
Republic]. However, from 1939 until the present, the official bulletin maintains its current name. More information
about the different terminology can be checked on: https://www.boe.es/diario_gazeta/denominaciones.php?lang = en
4 Also, each sector had – or did not – its own regulation, ordinance or agreement, which established points in common
for all companies, with different regional characteristics. Moreover, for companies with more than 50 workers, the
regulation, ordinance or agreement was published in the BOE.
5 https://www.boe.es/buscar/gazeta.php
6 Due to space restrictions, they are not listed here, but are available for verification upon request.
7 The source documents are referred to with an abbreviation (e.g., document bank staff, Document SEAT-I, etc.) which
allude to the regulations listed in the legislation annex provided. These abbreviations are included at the end of each
reference.
8 Employee here is a specific kind of white-collar worker (in Spanish, empleado), not just anyone paid by the company.
REFERENCES
Attewell, P. (1990). What is skill? Work and occupations, 17(4), 422–448.
Ayuso, M. L., & Arata, N. (2009). De artesanos a trabajadores: Dos estudios sobre la regulación de los saberes del trabajo
[From artisans to workers: Two studies on the regulation of work knowledge]. Educaçao Unisinos, 13, 211–219.
Baudrillard, J. (2010) Crítica de la Economía Política del Signo. Madrid: Siglo XXI de España Editores.
Baudrillard, J. (1978). Olvidar a Foucault. Valencia: Pre-textos.
Bernecker, W. L. (2003). Entre la historia y la memoria: Segunda República, Guerra Civil española y primer franquismo.
Iberoamericana (2001-), 3(11), 227–238.
Boutet, J. (2001a). Le travail devient-il intellectuel? Travailler, 2, 55–70.
Boutet, J. (2001b). La part langagière du travail: Bilan et évolution. Langage et Société, 4, 17–42.
Boutet, J. (2008). La vie verbale au travail. Des manufactures aux centres d’appels. Toulouse: Octarès.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge, MA and
London: MIT Press.
Burriel, P. (2011). La evolución del convenio colectivo en España. Algunas claves para entender el presente [The
evolution of the collective bargaining in Spain. Some keys to understand the present]. Madrid: Ed. Aranzadi
Thomson-Reuters.
Canal, J. (ed) (2017) Historia Contemporánea de España. Barcelona, Taurus.
Castillejo, M. J. G. (2008). La política de previsión social en España durante la dictadura de Primo de Rivera: Una
experiencia fallida de regeneración moral del proletariado. Baética: Estudios de arte, geografía e historia, 30, 415–
429.
Carreras, A., & Tafunell, X. (2005): Estadísticas históricas de España [Spanish historical Statistics]. Bilbao: Fundación
BBVA.
Cayuela Sánchez, S. (2014) Por la grandeza de la patria. La biopolítica en la España de Franco (1939-1975). Madrid:
F.C.E.
Coulmas, F. (2003). Writing systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Coulmas, F. (2013). Sociolinguistics: The study of speakers’ choices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, D. (2009). Three lectures on post-industrial society. Boston, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
De Certeau, M. (2000). La invención de lo cotidiano (I): Artes de hacer [The Practice of Everyday Life. (Vol I)]. México:
UIA-ITESO.
De la Torre, J., & García Zúñiga, M. (2013). El impacto a largo plazo de la política industrial del desarrollo industrial
español. Revista de Historia Económica, 9(1), 43–53.
Elias, N. ((2000)[1939]) The civilizing process: Sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations. Revised edn.. Oxford:
Blackwel.
Escudero, A., & Simón, H. J. (2012). Diferencias provinciales de bienestar en la España del siglo XX. [Regional
differences in the wellbeing of Spain at the XX century]. Revista de Historia Industrial, 49(2), 17–54.
ALARCÓN ET AL.
21
Fernández, N. G. (1997). Alfabetización, semialfabetización y analfabetismo en España (1860-1991) [Literacy, semiliteracy and illiteracy in Spain (1860-1991)]. Revista Complutense de Educación, 8(1), 199–231.
Handel, M. J. (2016). The O’NET content model: Strengths and limitations. Journal of Labour Market Research, 49,
157–176.
Heller, M. (2010). Language as resource in the globalized new economy. In: (N. Coupland Ed.), The handbook of
language and globalization (pp. 349–365). Malden, MA, and Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Heller, M., & Duchêne, A. (2012). Pride and profit: Changing discourses of language, capital and nation-state. In (A.
Duchêne, & M. Heller Eds.), Language in late capitalism: Pride and profit (pp. 1–21). New York and London:
Routledge.
Julià, S. (2007). La España del Siglo XX. Madrid, Marcial Pons Ed.
Martín-Barbero, J. (2002). La crisis de las profesiones en “la sociedad del conocimiento” [The crisis of occupation in
the “knowledge society.]. Nómadas, 16, 177–182.
Montesinos, D. P. (2002). El poder y los signos. Baudrillard y la incertidumbre de la crítica. Universidad de Valencia,
Tesis Doctoral.
Montoya Melgar, A. (2016). Evolución de la clasificación profesional en la negociación colectiva [Evolution of the
occupational classification in the collective bargaining]. Madrid: Ministerio de Empleo y Seguridad Social.
Nelson, R. R., & Sampat, B. N. (2001). Las instituciones como factor que regula el desempeño económico [Institutions
as a factor that regulates the economic performance]. Revista de Economía Institucional, 3, 17–51.
Prados de la Escosura, L., & Sánchez Alonso, B. (2020). Dos siglos de moderno crecimiento económico en España [Two
centuries of modern economic growth in Spain]. Papeles de Economía Española, 164, 2–14.
Prieto, C. (1993). El lugar de la clasificación profesional en las relaciones de trabajo asalariado [The place of professional
classification in salaried employment relationships]. Economía y Sociología del Trabajo, 21–22, 33–40.
Psifidou, I. (2014). Evolución histórica de la formación profesional en Europa [Historical evolution of vocational training
in Europe]. Historia de la Educación, 33, 353–359.
Tanguy, L. (2001). De la evaluación de los puestos de trabajo a la de las cualidades de los trabajadores. Definiciones y
usos de la noción de competencias [From the evaluation of workplaces to the quality of workers. Definitions and uses
of the notion of competencies]. Paper presented at CLACSO, Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales.2001
meeting. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Tapia, M. (2019). Not fissures but moments of crises that can be overcome: Building a relational organizing culture in
community organizations and trade unions. Industrial Relations, 58, 229–250.
Urcioli, B. (2008). Skills and selves in the new workplace. American Ethnologist, 35(2), 211–228.
Urcioli, B., & LaDousa, C. (2013). Language management/labor. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 175–190.
Van Krieken, R. (2007). Civilizing Processes. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Sociology, 29–33.
Van Vree, W. (2011). Meetings: The frontline of civilization. The Sociological Review, 59, 241–262.
How to cite this article: Alarcón, A. A., Muiños Villaverde, M. J., Serrano Alonso, M. Á., &
Heyman, J. (2022). Language in the process of labour market rationalisation: A sociohistorical
approach across twentieth-century Spain. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12587