This message is related to the original contribution of At de Lange
Essentialities - "connect-beget" (fruitfulness) LO18870, with further
discussion in LO18901 and LO19919
Guilds
In LO18919 the suggestion was made by At de Lange to say some more words
about the learning organisations which originated already in the 4th or
5th century: Guilds. Furthermore it was suggested that they might also be
compared with families where patrons (fathers/elders) raise and educate
their children. It is indeed interesting to make this comparison. There
are lessons to learn how the worked very well, and why the guilds finally
lost their potential as a healthy LO.
It is a complex story with lots of interplaying factors. A wealth of
literature is available. I only used some references and I cannot and will
not sketch a complete picture. Maybe some historians could add
supplementary information.
If I try to concentrate myself to the aspects of the guilds as a LO, we
must concider economical, political and social structures as well. So I
start with the environment. During the flowering period of guilds - in the
14th and 15th century guilds formed an integral part of the whole society
and people's attitude to life: a religious and devotional conviction,
earnest ethics and moral, a sense of community (to live in balance with
everyone), care of the poors and elders, equal distribution of work,
justice and a rich feeling of love.
Guilds were organised in cities. The European medieval cities were nearly
a closed community with only sparse contact with the world outside the
city. They were regularly growing and for long (if there were no wars or
epidemies) had a equilibrium with the surrounding agricultural areas.
During these times most of the crafts and other professions were organised
by specific guilds. In each city these guilds existed, but could differ
between cities. It was not allowed to execute a profession outside the
guild-organisation. The size of the guild, that means the number of their
members was in relation with the total population size of the city. Thus
production was in balance with the market. With a growing population, the
guilds grew equaly. Only in special circumstances the production of the
guild-members could excede the demand of the city (e.g. if there was an
important 'export', as was the case with the woolweavers in Flemish
cities).
The guild has its own behavioural rules and regulations. Most of these
rules were to regulate the internal organisational structure within the
guild, and the position of the guild in the community of the city. Also
the working conditions were settled. It was for instance forbidden to work
during the night, because of the noisy disturbances, but also to protect
the workers against overtiredness, and because of safety reasons (danger
of fire by candlelight).
The learning and educational aspects
The structure within the guild was from low to high: apprentice, mate,
master. The number of aprentices to one master was 2 or 3. The learning
period was fixed, but depends on the craft. Learning money may be paid by
the apprentice, the master, or both. It was paid to the guild, not to the
master. The apprentice earned sometimes a wage, sometimes he received only
food and housing (if he was from outside the city). If the apprentice
received not enough education after his learning period, the master had to
pay a penalty to the guild. The master must raise and educate his
apprentices, as if they were his own sons (in some guilds there were also
girls and women). So social and religious aspects were included in the
learning period. The apprentice could be fired, if theft, or immoral
behaviour had happened; only in very rare case firing was possible after
serious incompetence of the apprentice. The board of the guild was the
guardian and patron of the apprentice and they came in action after rude
treating of the master. If the apprentice walked away, he had to pay a
financial penalty; the master was not allowed to take a new apprentice in
this case, unless the learning period was finished. Other masters of the
guild were not allowed to take an apprentice who walked away. After the
learning period, the apprentice did an examination; the examination was
judged by a commission. After the successfull examination the apprentice
became mate.
The mate followed more or less under the same ruling conditions the next
stage of his educational path. The mate earned a 'salary' and was also
living with the apprentices in the house of his master. The shared the
same table, the same fireplace, slept under the same roof and lived
completely according the rules of the house (so a good behaviour, also
religious). After work, they have to be back home before dark. Gambling
with dice was forbidden, and they were allowed to visit a pub only once a
week. So it was really a family. The salary could be related to working
hours, or to the production. The mate was allowed to take some time off,
at the expence of his own wage. The wage was fixed, according the rules of
the guild. In the beginning to protect the mates against thrifty masters,
later to avoid competition between the masters within one guild, and still
later to protect the guild and the masters against demands and claims of
the mates (later in the history of guilds, the mates organised themselves
in a sort of union). In the flowering period of guilds, the mates were
sure that after their examination and 'masterrpiece' they became master.
This situation changed later in the guild history.
The master was the hounerable member of the guild. He proofed his
competence by craftmanship and by good behaviour. He was the respected man
of the city, but not 'better' than priest, mayor or anyone else. After his
mastership, he had to pay to the guild and - ofcourse - he needed money to
start his own business. In the early times of guilds he had sometimes to
wait for a vacancy, since the number of masters in the city should be kept
in balance with the population. The guild was for its members also a
social security: after the death of the master, the widow received a
pension and there were insurences for illness, accidents and retirement.
Well, one can see that the guild was a very good organised LO. Also the
strong family structure is clear. And although money plays an important
role, it is mainly used as a means of control to the rules and
regulations; not for gain and profit.
But this situation changed. A complex of factors plaid a role. The strong
foundation of a uniform religion with one vision for the whole population
became unstable after the reformation. At de Lange suggested in a private
mail that Gutenberg and the bookprinting might also be of influence: no
oral communication and transfer of information anymore; the role of the
master was replaced by books. But also the masters became selfish and
narrowhearted: gain and profit became new goals. Protectionism of the
profession, sons and relatives became their successors, instead of the
mates. Craftmanship and skills were not anymore the prime criteria. Within
the guild new technological inventions were blocked, improvement was seen
as an unwanted rivalry. The evolution of the society and the very
professions gave rise to new professions, which were claimed by various
guilds, so between guilds friction started and detailed regulations were
introduced to define its professional boundaries. But also the political
structure within the city changed. The autonomy, monopoly and privilages
of the guilds were not anymore accepted by the city councal. And also
friction started between masters and mates, since mates had not the
security anymore to become master (the son of the master became his
compatitor, and family life was destroyed).
I will end this sketch now. It shows us a mirror. A mirror for lessons of
success and lessons of failure.
dr. Leo D. Minnigh
minnigh@library.tudelft.nl
Library Technical University Delft
PO BOX 98, 2600 MG Delft, The Netherlands
Tel.: 31 15 2782226
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let your thoughts meander towards a sea of ideas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Leo Minnigh <L.D.Minnigh@library.tudelft.nl>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>