This article was downloaded by:[Forman, Paul] [Forman, Paul] On: 23 April 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 777307305] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

History and Technology An International Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713643058 The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology

To cite this Article: , 'The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology', History and Technology, 23:1, 1 - 152 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/07341510601092191 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07341510601092191

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

© Taylor and Francis 2007 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Romanticism; Lebensphilosophie; TechnologicalDeterminism Lorenzen; DanielBell;Lyotard; ErlangerSchule;StarnbergerFinalization; Modern; Postmodern;Heidegger;Marx;Sombart;Bukharin; Veblen;Dewey;Mumford; Ke its strategyofignorationscience. science. ThisIattributetotheideologicalcharacterofthat discipline,and,specifically,to subject oftheirstudies,and,specifically,haveignoredtechnology’s elevationrelativeto unacknowledging ofpostmodernity’sepochalelevation theculturalstandingof the onsetofpostmodernity.Oddly,historianstechnology haveremainedalmostwholly resulted fromtheweightofevidenceorforcelogic.Rather, itwasaconcomitantof Vol. 23,No.1/2,March/June2007,pp.1–152 History andTechnology DOI: 10.1080/07341510601092191 ISSN 0734–1512(print)/ISSN 1477–2620(online)©2007 Taylor&Francis Paul FormanisacuratorattheSmithsonian Institution,WashingtonDC20013-7012.E-mail:[email protected] ca century technologyandsociety.Thereversalinprimacybetweenscience reverse; andupontheprincipaltheorizersin1970sofrolesciencelate20th neers andindustrialists,socialactorswhosepracticalinterestslikewiserequiredthe cally requiredthereverse,viz.primacyofpractice;upon19thand20thcenturyengi- preposterous holduponsocialtheorists—Marx,Veblen,Dewey—whoseprincipleslogi- modernity’s presuppositionoftheprimacysciencetoandfortechnologybyshowingits nology. Insupportofthatdemarcationcriterion,Ievidencethebreadthandstrength often did,denotetechnologytoo;postmodernityiswhensciencesubsumedundertech- demarcator ofpostmodernityfrommodernity:modernityiswhen‘science’could,and the primacyoftechnologyrelativetosciencesinceaboutthatdate—isproposedasa ship—namely, fromtheprimacyofsciencerelativetotechnologypriorcirca1980, The abruptreversalofculturallyascribedprimacyinthescience–technologyrelation- Taylor andFrancisLtd GHAT_A_209163.sgm10.1080/07341510601092191History andTechnology0734-1512(print)/1477-2620(online)OriginalArticle2007Taylor&Francis231/2000000March/[email protected] Paul Forman of Technology and ofIdeologyintheHistory of TechnologyinPostmodernity, The PrimacyofScienceinModernity,

wrs TechnologyasAppliedScience;ScienceTechnology;RevoltsAgainst ywords: 1980 cametoounexpectedly,quickly,and,aboveall, toounreflectivelytohave Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 technology. unquestioned, couldnotthenhaveimaginedendingitorientedastheyaretoward quently, havingbeguntheirscholarlycareersatatimewhenscience’sprimacywas even alsoofthosewhoarenowoldenoughtocollecttheirpensions,andwho,conse- odds aretheywilldescribeaninquiryatthecenterofwhichistechnology.Thistrue one asksahistorianorsociologistphilosopherofsciencewhattheyareworkingon, studies’ fromsciencetotechnology.Thatshiftbeganabout25yearsago,andtoday,if more appositeevidencethantheshiftofcenterinterestinallvarieties‘science centuries world-wide,andintheWestfortwomillennia. beginning about1980,theculturalprimacythatsciencehadbeenenjoyingfortwo modernity thathasbeentakingplaceinrecentdecades,technologyacquired, open fortwodecades.Intheepochalglobaltransformationfrommodernitytopost- today againstthelinearmodelistothrowoneselfadoorthathasbeenwide sarily orevengenerally,but and epistemologistshavebecomesolargelypostmodern—notpostmodernistsneces- in modernculture. nological progress,theyweresettingthemselvesagainstprejudicesdeeplyentrenched linear model’anditsviewofscienceasoriginativesource,unmovedmover,tech- to thepresentday.Whenhistoriansoftechnologyfirstbeganrevoltagainst‘the the disciplineofhistorytechnology,andsoithasremainedthroughfourdecades cultural inferiorityimpliedby‘appliedscience’wasaprincipalconstitutiveprogramof Liberation ofourconceptiontechnologyfromthefunctionaldependenceand 2 there thatonlyasuddenanddrasticshift recent decadesispresentedinSectionIofthispaper. Moreparticularly,Iargue terestedness andcondescensiontowardconceptualstructures. concomitants ofthatpredominantculturalpresupposition, notably,disbeliefindisin- maleficiary, ofourpragmatic-utilitariansubordination ofmeanstoends,andthe outcome. Today,onthecontrary,technologyisbeneficiary,andscience sanctify theends,thatadherencetopropermeansisbestguaranteeofa‘trulygood’ disinterested overtheinterested,and,moreimportantlystill,beliefthatmeans to practice,butmoreimportantlytheelevationofpublicoverprivateand cultural presuppositions—notmerelythepresuppositionofsuperioritytheory at least,priorto entation inculturalcommitments, itisnecessarytoshowthatinthetwocenturies, to postmodernity?Inorderestablishthefundamentality ofthepostmodernreori- previously allhadascribedtoscience. sociologists toscientists—toascribetechnologythat primacy inroleandrankthat explain theevidentinclinationacrossscholarlyspectrum—from philosophersto that case. or socialinterests.ThusSection II,thebulkofthispaper,isdevotedtomakingout fixture innearlyeveryone’s thought,regardlessoftheirphilosophicalcommitments Of thispostmodernreversalofprimacybetweenscienceandtechnologythereisno Some evidenceofthisunprecedentedlyhighcultural standingoftechnologyin In modernity,theculturalrankofsciencewaselevatedbythatepoch’smostbasic P. Forman 2

This turnabouthascomeaboutbecausewehistoriansandsociologists ca 1

Meanwhile, however,thetimeshavebeenachanging.Tocampaign 1980 theprimacyofscience toandfortechnologywasafirm anima adaptedtopostmodernity. Did ca

all ascribesuchprimacytoscienceprior

1980 inculturalpresuppositionscould 3 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 of endsisaprincipalreason forthestrikingreversalsinceabout1980ofrelativerank terous, evenmalicious,mythology. today apresupposedprimacyofsciencetotechnologyisconceivableonlyasprepos- point ofviewhasmeanwhiletakenplacesofundamentallyandcomplacentlythat regarded aproofofscience’sprimacyaspointlesslypedantic.Thetranspositionour sociologists ofsciencebeganourcareersbytakingassubject,wewouldhave good parttothefactthatagenerationago,whenwenowpensionablehistoriansand technology priortopostmodernity.Theabsenceofsuchanexpositionissurelyduein exposition ofthefactnearuniversalbeliefinprimacysciencetoandfor ment, hadbeenascribedto them alwaysandeverywhere. and out-datedbecauseends haveregainedtheprimacythat,priortoEnlighten- post-methodist postmodernity, thenotionofascientificmethodisregardedasnaïve dure, butonlyrarelyandbriefly didanti-methodismholdsway.Today,however, in modernity knewmanymanifestationsofromanticantipathy tomethodicalproce- sonality ofitsadministrativeprocesses,i.e.bytheprimacy ofprocedure.Tobesure, political constitution,ischaracterizedandlegitimated bytheregularityandimper- Rather, Weberemphasized,themodernbureaucratic state,whateveritsostensive tional formodernliberaldemocraticsocieties,butwas by nomeanslimitedtothem. scientific method.Thecommitmentto‘methodism’ was mostobviouslyfounda- modernity’s primeexemplarofprogressthroughreliance uponapropermeans,the Rather, theprimacyofmeansimpliedahighvaluation ofscience,forsciencewas logically doesnot,andinmodernitydidimplya high valuationoftechnology. means, ofprocess,procedure.Contrarytoacommon view,theprimacyofmeans points, asitseemstome,thefoundationalimportanceformodernmindof and fortechnology.Thatsubordinationoftechnologytoscienceinmodernity extraordinary unanimity,inmodernity,thatscienceunquestionablyheldprimacyto epochal transitionfrommodernitytopostmodernity. selves tothereversalofprimacybetweenscienceandtechnology,therewith also—and thisismymainreasonforexaminingtheirideologyhere—blindedthem- distorted theviewsandmotivesofsubjectstheirhistoricalstudies.Theyhave consequence ofadoptingthatstrategy,historianstechnologyhaveseriously from theirpurviewandhistories(exceptforpurposesofdisparagement).In rians oftechnology,asagroup,choseignorationscience,i.e.theexclusionscience science. IshowinSectionIIIthatastheirprincipalmeansofeffectingend,histo- matic objectiveliberationoftechnology,andthemselves,fromsubordinationto who inthecourseof1970srejectedprimacyscienceandtookasprogram- malcontents weretheadherentsofemergingdisciplinehistorytechnology, such primacy.OfthatItakenoterepeatedlyinthecourseofmyexposition.Among and scholaralike,noteveryoneinmodernityapprovedofthefactthatscienceenjoyed preposterous onlythroughtheperspectiveenjoinedbypostmodernityuponlayman with respecttotechnology,butinculturalstandingquitegenerally—cameappear That effortisneedfulastheredoesnotexist,tomyknowledge,anyscholarly In asubsequentpublicationIwillturntothequestionofhowaccountfor Although theprimacythatscienceenjoyedinmodernity—anotmerely 4 5 6

This postmodernprimacy History andTechnology 3 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Science andTechnology’. Women inTechnology:AnEncyclopedia A recentlypublishedsemi-popular,hemi-historicalworkofreference, I. ThePostmodernPrimacyofTechnology great disadvantageofscience. and rolebetweensciencetechnology,totheadvantageoftechnology 4 broader, moreinclusiveentity. modernity inthisregard—butfrom did notresultfromhaving technological miraclesareworkedbythekinglytouchof science.Yetthatlossofbelief term ‘bigscience’sincetheearly1990sisthusanindication ofthelossbeliefthat of sciencesufficedtoturnthoseenterprisesinto of asort.Thedesuetudethe much theessenceofeveryenterpriseinwhichithadany roleatallthatamere‘touch’ later thanthefirstperformances oftheconflationsciencewithtechnology.So,for practice. Thuseventheearliest instancesoftheword‘technology’coveringscienceare sarily lagstheemergenceof new culturalpresuppositionsandtheirfirstexpressions in cator oftheonsetthatshift. Thisisnotsurprising.Theadjustmentofdiscourseneces- of sciencetoprimacytechnology, ithasnotbeenanespeciallyearlyorsensitiveindi- science mayeventuallybecometheclearestmarkerof culturalshiftfromprimacy Americans tothemoonandback). of aprimarilytechnical,evenpolitico-technicalcharacter(pre-eminently,gettingfew eminently, accelerator-basedresearchonelementaryparticles),butalsotoenterprises enterprises whosenominalgoalsweremainly,ifnotwholly,withinscience(pre- around 1960,thetermwasapplied,almostwithoutdistinction,notonlytolarge-scale senting technologyappearsclearlyinthelate-modernterm‘bigscience’.Introduced ‘technology’ graduallybecomescapableofincludingscienceinitsdenotativecompass. denote scienceaswell.Inpostmodernity,withtechnologyacquiringprimacy,theword and primacy ofsciencetoandfortechnologypermittedtheword‘science’mean denotative capacitiesoftheterms‘science’and‘technology’.Thatis,inmodernity uations thatconstitutepostmodernityentailareversal,ingeneraldiscourse,ofthe modernity, when‘technology’denotessciencetoo.Moreexactly,theculturaltransval- the thesisofthispaperisthatmodernitywhen‘science’denotestechnologytoo;post- are typicalforpostmodernity—indeed,specifictopostmodernity.Simplisticallystated, particularly thecapabilityoftitleword‘technology’tocomprehendscienceaswell, primarily. Theconflationofsciencewithtechnologythatpervadesthiswork,andmore and noneoftheindividualstherelistedwouldhaveregardedherselfastechnologist Yet eventhoughtheextensionofmeaningword ‘technology’toinclude The capability‘science’possessedinmodernityofstandingalsoforandfullyrepre- P. Forman

technology, butnever—oralmostnever—permittedtheword‘technology’to simply toequatePostmodernismwithtechnology Of course,itwouldbenaïve 8

There is,ofcourse,noNobelprizefortechnologyassuch, learned 11 10

better—Section IIwillshowtheunteachabilityof

That is,inmodernitysciencewasconceivedasso seeing , includesalistof‘WomenNobelLaureatesin

differently, i.e.seeingtechnologyasthe . 7 American 9 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 engineers, scienceandtechnology. Asindicationofaculturalshift,moresignificant and EngineersthroughSociety for Latour. in thefollowingfouryears relationbetweenscienceandtechnologyreverseditself arisen recognitionofscience’smanifoldentanglementswithtechnology. with science,andastillmoreold-fashioneddisapprobationaccompanyingthenewly especially highvaluationoftechnology,butratherfromastillmodernpreoccupation the factthatconflationoftechnologyandscienceinitiallyproceedednotfromany izations. Theword‘technoscience’,coinedinFrenchataboutthattime,wellexpresses primacy ofsciencetotechnologybegintakeholdaspresuppositionforintellectual- ‘technology’ tostandforbothtechnologyandscience. in subject,analysis,orconclusions,exploitsthenewlyrealizeddenotativepotentialof Golem atLarge:WhatYouShouldKnowAboutTechnology conclusions areabouttechnology.However,theirsequel,publishedfiveyearslater, (1993), inwhichalltheirexamplesaretakenfrombasicscientificresearchand spirit ofenlightenment,titled example, intheearly1990s,CollinsandPinchwroteapopularbookLatourian reflected ingovernmentalsciencepolicy. tions, butinsentimentsregardingsociallifeandthepurposesofgovernmentas indications ofthereversaltoprimacytechnology—not,initially,inintellectualiza- their rhetoricalexpressionintothelate1970s.Thelastyearsofthatdecadesawfirst primacy ofsciencetoandfortechnologycontinuedgovernideationalconstructs Section II,thefundamentallymodernistepistemologicalpresuppositionof vance’ thatcameforwardsobroadlyandinsistentlyinthe1960s,still,asIinstantiate the culturalstandingoffor-its-own-sakesciencewasbegunbydemandfor‘rele- reversal ofprimacyintheculturalrevolt1960s.Yetalthoughundermining so fromscienceoutward,treating technologyassuper-stabilizedscience. Latour wasthereobliteratingtheboundarybetweenscience andtechnology,buthedid laboratory beyondthewallsoftoencompass theworldatlarge.Thus non requiringexplanationtheextensionofscientificresults stabilizedinthescientific it socompletelythathedidnotevenspeakof‘technology’, buttookasthephenome- technology whilestillpresupposingthepreposterousprimacy ofscience,presupposing trism. ‘GiveMeaLaboratory…’(1983)showsLatourreorienting hisattentiontoward ‘science studies’.Thus ible inthewritingsofBrunoLatour,thatbrought himtocenterstagein began totakeplaceintheearly1980s.Stagesthatreconception areclearlydiscern- and thuswithoutanyprimacyimputedtoscienceor subordination oftechnology, nology/science, withoutanydifferenceordistinctionbetweentechnologyandscience, ogy lieintheSecondWorldWar. antagonists alike,thattheoriginsofareversalprimacybetweenscienceandtechnol- strengthened fromtheSecondWorldWar. position oftheprimacysciencewithrespecttotechnologyemergedgreatly The reconceptionof‘sciencestudies’asbeingthescholarlystudyanentitytech- So whendidwe‘changeourthinkingcaps’?Itisoftensuggested,byadvocatesand Science inAction Laboratory Life

(1987) telegraphsinitssubtitle, , thatLatourisequatingand conflatingscientistsand The Golem:WhatEveryoneShouldKnowAboutScience 13

Against thatviewstandsthefactpresup-

(1979) wasstillmoderninitstotalscientocen- 15 14

Only about1980didtherejectionof More justifiableistoseetheoriginsofthis 12

(1998), whilenotdifferent History andTechnology How toFollowScientists 17 16

Somewhere The 5 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 in Action was alreadywidelyusedtheretosignifythatcontention. contention inFrance,andtheterm‘technoscience’,whichLatourpretendedtoinvent, vulgar misconceptionbyall whopretendedtoaninformedviewofscience,isnow an The confusionoftechnology withscience,whichforacenturypastwasdeploredas a following pagesproviderepeated occasionstoaffirmthatview. ogy havetheirbasis,rather, in thatwiderculturedefinitiveofthehistoricalepoch.The technology. Ourpresuppositionsregardingtherelation betweenscienceandtechnol- tive—in formingthepresumptive,putative,presupposed, relationbetweenscienceand ship betweenscienceandtechnologyisrelativelyunimportant—certainly notdisposi- reversal ofprimacybetweenscienceandtechnology. ideological advocacyofthatconflation,withitsalwaysimplicitandoftenexplicit France hasbeenthelocusofbestorganizedandmostoutspokenphilosophical– tion ofsciencewithtechnology,inpartbecauseoverthepastthreetofourdecades organized andmostoutspokenphilosophical–ideologicalcontestationoftheconfla- and hencesouniversally,asintheAnglophoneworld.Francesustainstodaybest received aviewastheprimacyofsciencehadbeenthroughprecedingtwocenturies. of theprimacytechnologywaswellonitswaytobecomingjustasuniversally unchallenged bythereviewersofhisbook.Evidently,late1980spresumption tal toLatour’sprojectandimpliedinhistitle,goeslargelyunnoticedentirely However, thisone,theequationandconflationofsciencewithtechnology,fundamen- technology, nowregardedasthegreatermiracle. consider scienceandtechnologyasdistinguishableentities,primacyisaccordedto epistemic shiftaccompanyingthisculturalshift:whereLatourdoes,soverybriefly, though needingnoargumentorjustification.Asindicationoftheequallyimplicit than thisconflationitselfisthatitalmosttotallyimplicit,takenforgranted,as 6 account wasdoubtedbyoneoranotherofthose16,generallyenthusiastic,reviewers. and engineering’. symbiosis previouslyunknowninbasicscience,afusion of“pure”science,technology, in theUSA‘between1930sand1960s…was the emergenceofaprofound importance to“pure”scienceandkept“applied” separate’,while,bycontrast, scientists ‘appearaboveallastheheirstoatraditionthat continuedtoattachgreat tists andengineers,nonetookissuewithit. reviews of unreflected-upon, modern-to-postmodernculturalreorientation:among16scholarly Latour’s conflationofscienceandtechnologybeingrightinlinewiththebroad,largely syncratic. Quitethecontrary:hugesuccessofthatbookmustbeascribedto representation oftherelationbetweenscienceandtechnologywasanythingbutidio- 1987 Latour.Yethoweverstylisticallyidiosyncratic earlier hadstillbeentheverynearlyuniversallyreceivedviewgoesunnoticedby Not everywhere,however,wastheprimacyoftechnologyreceivedsothoughtlessly, Is thisnotsurprising?itnot,afterall,inFrancethat,as PestreandKrigeobserved, The staggeringcontradictiontothatprimacyofscienceevenjusttenyears P. Forman

was thefirstinfluentiallytoperforminEnglish,thenalreadyafamiliar Science inAction 23

This ironiccircumstancesuggeststhattheactual,factual relation- , onlythreedrewattentiontoLatour’sconflationofscien- 19 18

Nearly everyotheraxiomofLatour’s Science inAction 21

Thus whatLatourwith 22

may be,Latour’s Science 20 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 becomes the rather thanbeingtheorigin oftechnologyorastheapplicationscience, is andoughttobebroader thanphilosophyofscience’,that,Ihdewrites,‘science, values ofAuerbach’sstillmoderntimeandourpostmodern time. view shouldthusbeunderstoodasameasureofthedifference betweenthecultural that timeandplace.ThegrossnessofSibum’smisrepresentation ofAuerbach’s cognition’—placed itsomuchhigherthantechnicson thescaleofculturalvalues with closeconnectionstotechnology,halfconcededtheoften-hearddenigration. and towardtechnology,Auerbach,aswastypicalinthatcontext,evenforaphysicist following theFirstWorldWarofromanticantagonismbothtowardphysicalscience cal firm.Writingintheearly1920s,i.e.contextofresurgenceGermany cist, professorattheUniversityofJena,whowascloselyassociatedwithZeissopti- from behindastalkinghorse:FelixAuerbach,anearly20thcenturytheoreticalphysi- advances hisclaimforthe‘artificialtechnologicalcharacterofexperimentalphysics’ imental physicsisaconstituentof,subsumedwithin—is—technology.Sibum German literatureonthescience–technologyrelationknows,isanassertionthatexper- answer isthatexperimentalphysicsa‘technicalscience’.Thephrase,asanyreaderof of physicsattheMaxPlanckInstituteforHistoryScienceinBerlin.OttoSibum’s an invitedessay,‘WhatKindofScienceisExperimentalPhysics?’writtenbyahistorian also amongscientists.Sowefindinthe1October2004issueofprestigious accepted notionnotonlyinallthedisciplinesthattakescienceastheirsubjectbuteven importance, andthatpreciselybecausewhatdistinguished physics Clearly, forAuerbachthedistinctionbetweenphysicsand technicsremainedofhigh ued toelaboratethatparentheticalbutcrucialqualification: its goal)isnotanaturalscience’.WhereSibumendedhisquotation,Auerbachcontin- to itsmethod’.WhatAuerbachhadwrittenis:‘physicswithregardmethod(not omitted aqualificationthatAuerbachhadinsertedafterthephrase‘physicswithregard Sibum’s translationofAuerbachisaccurate,butonlythewordsheincludes.Sibum by Sibum,furtherconcededthat: ries withtheaidofinstrumentsis‘nota“naturalphenomenon”’,Auerbach,asquoted Allowing thataphenomenon,suchasX-rays,producedbyphysicistsintheirlaborato- history ofthought’, Heidegger, who‘apparently accordstechnologyadignitywithoutprecedentinthe of theprimacytechnologyoverscience.Thosehave comefromphilosophers.To Sibum’s isbynomeansthemostforwardandcategoric among therecentassertions serves purecognition. science, insofarasitdoesnotaim(oratleastprimarily)technicalapplications,but with regardtoitsmethod;forgoalphysicsisandremainsapurenatural … inthissensewecanspeakofphysicsasatechnicalscience.Understandmecorrectly: technical science. produced byintentionalactsoftheresearcher;inthissensewecanspeakphysicsasa geology, biology,etc.;itdoesnotdealwithnaturalphenomenabutartificial Strictly speaking,physicswithregardtoitsmethodisnotanaturalsciencelikeastronomy, tool of technology’. 28 25

they commonlycredittheir ‘sense thatphilosophyoftechnology 26 29

William Lovitt,oneofthefirst tobeablegraspthe History andTechnology qua 27 science—‘pure Science 24 7 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Heidegger, albeitmoreoftenindirectlythandirectly. of Sibum’sthesiswhichhaveappearedinthepastthirtyyearsbasethemselvesupon philosopher, worldwide,handsdown,thenitseemsprobablethatmostoftheversions If onebearsinmindthatHeideggerhasbeenrecentdecadesthemostinfluential tive toscience: importance Heideggerattributedtotechnology,hasstatedforcefullyitselevationrela- 8 and wascomingtoberecognizedinHeideggerscholarship onlyinthe1980s. Borgman foundthatthisfacthadbeenlargelyignoredthroughthe1960sand1970s, Borgman observedin1987.Yet,surveyingthescholarlyliteratureonHeidegger, and propagatedpurposethatthoseideasarefittoserve. ideas ofthemosthighlyregardedphilosopherinabsenceaculturallycreated provides astrikingexampleoftheimpotenceevenmostemphaticallyexpressed Heidegger’s influenceinjustthisregard—theimportanceattachedtotechnology— would webewarrantedingrantingsucharoletophilosopher’sideas?Thecareerof and science informingourcurrentculturalvaluationsoftechnology andofscience, eight-volume Macmillan the acuteandlearnedGrene writing,inthemid1960s,articleonHeideggerfor what Heideggerwassayingabout therelationbetweenscienceandtechnology,consider that aspectofHeidegger’sthought. Francophone andAnglophonecultureshadsoalteredas topotentiatearecognitionof Heidegger, thendead,said,butbecausethepresuppositions andpredilectionsoftheir technology. Theybecameabletodosoabout1980, not becauseofanythingthat to theWestweresimplyunablerecognizeprimacy thatHeideggerattributedto this loudandclearfor40years,fromthattimeforwardto theendofhislife,epigone and theessentialityofthatessencetophilosophy.Notwithstanding thatHeideggersaid come onlythroughrecognizingwhathehadrecognized—‘the essenceoftechnology’ great dangerforhumanityand question, bythelate1930sHeideggerhadcometoregard ‘moderntechnology’as ‘In allofHeidegger’sworksubsequentto1930technologyisaprimaryissue’, Yet havingdeniedadispositiveroletothefactualrelationsbetweentechnology As oneamongthemanyinstances ofthispre-postmodernincapability‘hearing’ P. Forman to surveyandcopewithtechnology. accordingly, wecannotlegitimatelyfindinscienceanysuperiorvantagepointfromwhich priority belongingtomoderntechnologyisbefoundmoststrikinglyinplayandthat, itatingly replythatitisinfactpreciselytechnology’srelationtomodernsciencethe technological enterprises,toassessandcontrolthem?Tothis,Heideggerwouldunhes- priority overit,offeringusaviableandprovenstandinggroundfromwhichtolaunchour more far-reachingsphereofscientificactivityandknowledgeactuallyhold derivative ofscience?And,farfromitsbeingsupreme,doesnotthemorefundamental, After all,isnottechnologyalatecomeronthestageofhistory?Isitinfactkind derogation itisoftheotherphenomenaourage,mostimportantlymodernscience! This accordingofdecisivesupremacytotechnologymustsurpriseus.Whatasweeping supremely determinativephenomenonofourday. Seen asHeideggerwouldhaveusseeit,thetechnologysofamiliartoemerges Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy the 30

great problemforphilosophy.Salvationwould . Grene,whoin1951hadherself 31 32

No the Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 science, possessingprimacy over science,thatis,inpartbecauseaspostmodernsweare postmodern worldview—was indispensableto‘getting’whatHeideggerwassaying. relation betweenscienceand technology,assimilablethere.Adifferentworldview—the ter ofthe20thcenturywashis viewoftechnology,andmoreespeciallyhisthe ence inFrancehasbeenenormousfromtheearly1950sonward, notuntilthelastquar- Heidegger hadsaid,inherowntranslation,that: very outset ofthat1938essay:theconstrualtechnologyasappliedscience.There forgotten—had presumablynevergotten—whatHeideggerwarnedagainstatthe Heidegger—‘draws nolinebetweenpureandappliedscience’.Insowritingshehad that encyclopediaarticlethe‘later’Heidegger—i.e.post- published atranslationofHeidegger’s1938essay,‘DieZeitdesWeltbildes’,wrotein way, devotehisattentiontothisquestionandacceptitas stimulusforhisownfield’. Having posedthisrhetoricalquestion,Heideggerurgedthat‘eachparticipant,inhisown what sheherselfhadwrittenintranslatingHeidegger. were evidentlystilltoostrongforGrenetobeableassimilatesufficientlyrestate every otheraspectofthecultureage.Inmid1960smodernpreconceptions ogy, oftechnology’sprimacyasevokerscienceintoitsownservice,andshaper science, shehadalsotooverlooktheradicalityofHeidegger’sconceptiontechnol- not onlytooverlookHeidegger’swarningagainstconceivingtechnologyasapplied To writethatHeidegger‘drawsnolinebetweenpureandappliedscience’Grenehad philosopher whocameofageafter1940. same couldbesaidforDerridaandLyotard, foralmostanyotherFrench entire philosophicaldevelopmentwasdeterminedbymy readingofHeidegger’.The has alwaysbeentheessentialphilosopher’,saidFoucault attheendofhislife.‘My receiving Heidegger,andsomuchmorecompletelyunder hisspell.‘FormeHeidegger of hisacolytesinFrance.They,afterall,weresomuch advanceoftheAmericansin was shoutingoutandaboutisnolesstrue—andthusall themoreremarkablytrue— North AmericanHeideggerConferenceinChicago: act, hesentabriefgreetingandadmonitiontotheparticipantsintenthannual message thatinthespringof1976,justweeksbeforehisdeath,asperhapslastpublic If wepostmodernsarenow abletothinkwithHeideggeroftechnologyasprior The remarkableinabilitypriortothelate1970sgrasp whatitwasthatHeidegger Heidegger himselfwassodisturbedbythisalmostuniversalneglectofhismain organized machinationsofmoderntechnology? conception andincessantincursionoftechnologicalrepresentationintotherealized it, foritspart,alreadythebasicformoftechnologicalthinking,determiningfore- Is modernnaturalsciencethefoundationoftechnology—asissupposed—or technology, whichisidenticalwiththeessenceofmodernmetaphysics. Mechanical techniqueremainsthemostvisibleproducttodateofessencemodern practice. … terpreted, however,asamereapplicationofmodernmathematicalnaturalscienceto with thesamedegreeofimportanceismechanicaltechnique.Thisshouldnotbemisin- Among theessentialphenomenaofmoderntimeswemustcountscience.Aphenomenon 37

Yet, notwithstandingthatHeidegger’sinflu- 35 34 History andTechnology Sein-und-Zeit 33

(1927) 36 9 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 postmodern societyandculture—albeitin ing more,orother,betterthantechnology. especially physicalandmathematicalscience,wasaviewofsuchscienceasbeingnoth- tradition, amongtheseveralgroundsfornegativevaluationofnaturalscience, statistical physics’. I wouldfeelmoreproudto achievethisthantosolveanelegantformalproblem in De Gennes,NobelLaureate, professorattheCollegedeFrance,avowedthat‘Personally defining scienceintechnologicaltermsandthrough goals. Increasingly, theseinfluentialsarediscardingscience’s claimstodistinctivenessand existence ofanyclearboundaryordistinctionbetween scienceandtechnology. scientific advance—andminimizetheimportanceofnewconcepts—butalsodeny most influentialinsciencenotonlyemphasizetheimportanceofnewtechnologyfor rians ofscience,buthasbecomecommonamongspokespersonsforsciencetoo.Those between scienceandtechnologyisnotlimitedtophilosophers,sociologistshisto- emphasize thetechnologicalaspectsofsciencesogreatlyastoobliteratedistinction informs theexpectationsofactors,individualandcorporate.Thetendencytodayto tend toconformitssupposedrelationtechnologyasthat not primarilyamatteroffactbutculturalconsensus.Consequently,sciencewill between scienceandnon-science,aswellthebulkofactivitiesthatarescience,is the casewithscience,whichis,largely,onlywhatwethinkitis.Thatboundary technology iswhatitindependently,largely,ofourconceptionsit.Theopposite simply thecollectivenounforallmanywaysthingsareinfactdoneandmade— ter, eventheexistence,ofscience.Technology—whichisnot,primarily,an‘-ology’,but these postmodernculturalvalues,thenconsequenceswilllikelyfollowforthecharac- science andtechnology,itisdifficulttodoubtthatifthosewhospeakforshare While thispaperisnot, that Heideggerplacedbeforetechnology. giving primacytotechnology,postmodernityhasby-and-largereversedtheminussign cultural determinationofthefreightandfeelHeidegger’s‘influence’isstriking:in not bearingthatloadofanimuswhichHeidegger’swordsexpress.Heretoo,the 10 valued inpostmodernitythatithasnowsupersededscienceculturalprimacy. nothing, carenothing.Onthecontrary,itisinpartbecausetechnologysopositively its purest,theoreticalphysicist.Observingthat, created byCambridgeUniversitytohonoroneofitsthree greatest,andmostdefinitely goals istheconclusionofdeGennes’s1994DiracMemorial Lecture—alectureship and strong,chieflyGerman,romantictraditioninwhichHeideggerstood. tion ofmoderntechnologythatfortwocenturieshadbeencharacteristicthebroad A strikingexampleofthedisparagementscientificgoals relativetotechnologic P. Forman exhausted fromtheirwork, we areprovidinganon-negligible improvementformanyindividualswhocomeback gain, say,sixminutesonthishour,a10%effect,wearesaving10 ten millionpeopleironingforonehouraweek.If,bysomeintelligent reflection,wecan These daysalotoftimeisspenton 43 per se , concernedwiththeactual,factualrelationbetween ironing : inacountrythesizeofEngland,somethinglike 38

other We postmodernshaverejectedthatrejec- 40

important respectsromantic—know

Of thesemotivesandpassionsour 5

man-hours perday— 42 39

In that 41 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ‘spirituality’-oriented, romantic-illusionary,postmodernculture. science continue,butlessasexceptionsthan‘useful’toanincreasinglycredulous, mental’, ‘curiositydriven’,or ‘pure’science—allequallydepreciatedepithets. ‘big science’laboratoriestoshoulder theburdenofsustaining‘foritsownsake’,‘funda- toward technologicallydefined ends,whileitremainstotheearliermuch-maligned just those‘littlescience’laboratories thathavereorientedthemselvesmostcompletely true science.Withanirony that nonecouldhaveanticipated40yearsago,itistoday ‘little science’academiclaboratoriesthatinhighmodernity werelaudedasthesitesof upon thescientificroleandknowledgeproduction,we shouldlook,rather,intothe discoveries towhatarecalledusefulpurposes’. applause that‘Weleavetootherswithloweraimsanddifferentobjectsapplyour purposes ofthatmid-19thcenturyinstitution.ThenJosephHenrycouldsaytoits The modestyoftheself-presentationiswinning,evenasitabdicatingfounding really is…thetechnology’. what aredrivingscienceforward,butwekeeprealizingthat…thelimitingfactor technologies. ‘We’scientists,Cechobserved,‘liketothinkthatoursmartideasare new, largebasicresearchcampus,JaneliaFarm,willplaceonthedevelopmentofnew dent oftheHowardHughesMedicalInstitute,in2004describingemphasisthathis edge. science’ institutionsspecificallyconstitutedfortheproduction ofend-in-itselfknowl- scientific enterprises,thehigh-energy,particle-physicsacceleratorlaboratories—‘big this epochal shiftinculturalvaluesisthemostcharacteristically modernistofour Advancement ofScience: hears aredeclarationssuchasthatoftheCEOAmericanAssociationfor favor ofadistinctioninprinciplebetweenscienceandtechnology.Rather,whatone tion. Thatdefeatisthemorecertainasnowheretodayareargumentsadvancedin employs, howevermuchhisprogramfor‘basic’researchtendstodefeatthatdistinc- cleaves toaconceptionofscienceassomethingdistinctfromthetechnologiesit two decadesnow. experimental sciences,biologyespecially,thisprocesshasbeenfaradvancedforalmost other ambitionthantoplacethemselvesintheserviceof‘usefulpurposes’.In Consequently, thosewhoidentifythemselvesasscientistshave,overwhelmingly,no cynosure offor-its-own-sakescienceiswithoutculturalunderstandingorsupport. such terms. dational terms,evenwhileprivatelyacknowledgingthat they havegivenupthinkingin in culturalvalues.Thehigh-energyphysicists modern era.Theirveryexistencedependsuponlimiting theimpactofthisrevolution these institutionshavelittleleewaytocompromisewith thedemandsofthisourpost- their verydedicationtonon-utilitarian,disciplinarilydefined, means-justifiedends, Similarly disparagingofconceptsrelativetotechniqueswasThomasCech,presi- It shouldbeclear,then,thatthelastplacetolookfortransformativeeffectsof technology andengineeringinnovationallthatstuff.Tomeitisonething. I’m asimpleman.I’veneverbeenabletounderstandthedelineationbetweenscienceand 49

Not thatsucheffectscanlongbeabsentfromthoseinstitutions too. 51

If wewanttoseepostmodernizationworkingradically andadmittedly 47

To besure,cosmic-discoveryscienceandhistory-of-life-on-earth 44

In sosayingCech,conceivinghimselfstillasscientist, must 46

Today, inpostmodernity,Henry’s continue talkingpubliclyinfoun- History andTechnology 48 50

45 Yet by 11 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 have nologist. Ifsuchidealscomeintoeffect—andthere ismuchevidencethatthey the technologist—indeedleastabstractandmost entrepreneurialsortoftech- of thosedifficultanddistinctivevirtues,physicistswere beingurgedtotakeasavatar tinker-toy imageryandinitssalvificrhetoricaswellstrictlytechnologicgoals. program ‘nanotechnology’issothoroughlyanalogoustomolecularbiologyinits uted to‘molecularbiologyenvy’.Norisitaccidentalthattheconcoctedresearch explain biologists’behaviors,todaytherushintonanotechnologyiscommonlyattrib- physics andbiologythatwherepreviously‘physicsenvy’wascommonlyinvokedto Meanwhile, inthissameperiod,roleandrankhavereversedsocompletelybetween easier toturntheirbackuponprior,disciplinarilydefinedresearchenterprise. a widerangeofdisciplines,witheachsuccessiveconvertfindingitcorrespondingly reflects achain-reactionof‘free’choicesbythousandsindividual‘little’scientistsin 12 postmodern positions—those polemicallystrivingtosustainaconceptionofscience as evident evenintheargumentation ofthoseconceivingthemselvesasmostopposed to as physicists. icists werethenupto,willfail forwantofanydistinctivegroupidentifyingthemselves decades agoseemedtobeawittyandeffectiveput-down ofthosecriticalwhatphys- Mestral’. Society’s monthlynewspapercommemorated‘February9,1990:DeathofGeorgede February 2004the‘ThisMonthinPhysicsHistory’columnAmericanPhysical will depend, have turnedto‘physicshistory’asasortofcement.Theeffectivenessthatcement the rubricof‘nano’inperiod1986–2002,tolevelseveralthousandperyear, is theburgeoningofnanotechnology.Thenearlyexponentialrisepublicationunder the conceptuallycreativeabstracttheoristdisengagedfrom practicalinterests. had solidifieditselfasscientificdiscipline—pre-eminently, thevirtuesmanifestedby editors wereimplicitlydisparagingthosemoreesoteric virtuesaroundwhichphysics to themembersofAmericanPhysicalSocietyasamodel toemulate,thesociety’s inclined toconsiderthosevirtuesrelativelyinsignificant. YetinholdingdeMestralup physicists, thenstillbeingpermittedtheirmodernistconceits,wouldhavebeen world. this, theprincipaldisciplinaryassociationofphysicistsinUSA—indeed, of the21stcenturyitwasmeantwhollyseriouslyandasexemplaryformembers intended onlyhilarityandcouldhavebeenreadasalampoon.Inthefourthyear and perseveredtoperfectmarket,Velcro®.Thirtyyearsagothiscolumncouldhave the localcockleburadheringtenaciouslytohishuntingclothes,deMestralconceived, the honoreewasaSwissmechanicalengineer,fondofpheasanthunting.Inspiredby that amongphysicistsdeMestral’swasnotyetahouseholdnameandsotheyexplained: work, thatthefourteenthanniversaryofhisdeathwassocelebrated?Theeditorsknew Ironically, theunavoidability inpostmodernityofthisprimacytechnologyis Physicists, awarethatpostmodernconditionsaredisintegratingtheirdiscipline, One strikingmanifestationofthisreorientationlittlesciencetowardtechnology Certainly deMestralmanifestedsignificantvirtues,justascertainly30yearsago, P. Forman 56 —then thattautologousevasion,‘physicsiswhatphysicists do’,whichthree 54

Who wasdeMestralandofwhatdiscipline-definingimportancehis inter alia , onjustwhatcountsas‘physicshistory’.Whatdoescount?In 55

In lieu 53 52 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 II. ThePrimacyofScienceinModernity mind andofpointintime,betweenmodernitypostmodernity. sion ofourmodebeing,andisthereforeeffectively a demarcator,bothofstate presumed relationbetweentechnologyandscienceinvolves nothinglessthananinver- brutally, science offered nootherjustificationforscience’struthclaimsthanthat,‘Toputthematter science’ to‘refute,inabstracto,theconstructivistview’,GrossandLevittthemselves question-begging postulations.Leavingitthereforetothe‘seriousphilosophersof affirmative defenseoffoundationalismisreadilyshowntoinvolveitselfindubitable, ern prejudice.YetGrossandLevitt,sophisticatedcriticsthattheywere,knewevery because, likethenewlyassertedprimacyoftechnology,sowellgroundedinpostmod- Superstition dence ofcertifiedscientificknowledgethatGrossandLevittridiculedin unique andtranscendent.The‘perspectivist’challengestotheunicitytranscen- attained truth,truthindependentofeverypersonalandinstitutionalinterest,hence The factoftheprimacyscience inmodernity—science community withasharedinterestinpushingobjectsaround, postmodern pragmatist,RichardRorty,andsaysthatphysicsistheconstructofa the essenceofscienceistechnology,oroneremainsathomewithourleadingAmerican draw. WhetheronesayswithHeideggerthatGrossandLevittmerelyacknowledge assume isnottheconclusionthatpostmodernsofanystripeneeddraw,norshould modern butpostmodern.However,thetough-mindedstancethatGrossandLevitt ors. science studies,technologyformsbothfocusandepistemicfundamentforourendeav- nology inrankandrolerelativetoscience.Ineveryfieldofscience,as Wherever welookincontemporaryculture,findthisastonishingelevationoftech- of sciencethatGrossandLevittwishtodefend. contribute tothemaintenanceofresearchbudgets,butitunderminesconception for somecenturiespriorto constellation ofvaluesandpresuppositionscontrastingmarkedlywiththoseobtaining enon unlessweconnectitwithstillbroaderculturalphenomena,namely,that reaching eventhantheecologyofknowledge. remained farfromcommonplacetoregardthat‘something’ assomethingfarther tion ofscienceandtheuniversityinquarter-century orsosince1980’,ithas literatures toconcedethatsomethingratherdramatichas happenedtotheorganiza- emphasized, ‘ithasnowbecomecommonplaceinthesciencepolicyandstudies them constitutesanewhistoricalepoch,postmodernity.Although,asMirowskihas terested 59 practical formsofthetheoretictruths …ofscience. Technics isatranslationintoappropriate, Howtoaccountforthis?Wewillnotcomprehendsobroadaculturalphenom- theoria

(1994) wereforthemostpartpoorlyfoundedinevidenceandlogic, —is almostashardforuspostmoderns torememberasitwasforthe works ’. 57

This lineofargument,initsevasionasrationale,isnot ca

1980—contrasting somarkedlythattheconversionto 60 61

Broadly considered,areversalofthe qua scientia History andTechnology 58

‘science , scienceasdisin- works Higher ’ may 13 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 our scaleofvalues’. historians oughttobeattendingishowscienceandtechnologyrank,respectively,‘on observed thattheaspectofrelationshipbetweenscienceandtechnologytowhich the culture.This,Itakeit,iswhatOttoMayrhadinmindwhen,30yearsago,he degree ofmanifestationorpossession(or,conversely,privation)leadingvalues regards are‘rank’and‘role’.Rankispositioninahierarchyofascribedvalue,reflecting science wasascribedprimacytotechnologyinmodernity.Intwowords,those acceptable tohisauditors. meant entirelyseriously,and,moretothepoint,wassupposedbyDunnbe However preposterousDunn’simagerynowappearstous,unquestionablyitwas mater, ColumbiaUniversity: highly successfulheadofalargeengineeringfirmwasaddressingthealumnihisalma presuppositions. ConsiderthefollowingaffirmationsbyGanoDunnin1930—the phenomenon hereinquestioncanbestbesuggestedbyaconcreteexpressionofthose the roleofscienceinadvancetechnology.Themagnitudecultural the modernselevatedscienceovertechnologyandhowpreposterouslytheyoverrated moderns todoubt.Hencethispaperdevotedlargelypointingouthowunanimously 14 dent andderivative.Theone elementoforiginalitythatDunnattributestotheengineer vation creditedtoscientists, theengineer’sactivityisnecessarilysubservient,depen- also ofthatfar-seeingleadership bywhichtheyarerealized.Withallinsightandinno- practical life,isnonetheless the sourcenotonlyoftechnology’smaterialbenefits,but attributes ofthought.Second, astorole,thescientist,disconnectedthoughheisfrom neers areconfined.Onthatexaltedplanethescientist enjoysthemosthighlyrated The scientistexistsonaplanethattranscendsthe of practicallifetowhichengi- terms isanascriptionoffarhighersocial–culturalrank to scientiststhanengineers. from theactual,factualrelationinplacesandperiods inquestion. science, andgainsinhistoricalimportancepreciselyto thedegreetowhichitdiffers relation isnotlessimportantthantheactual,factual betweentechnologyand between technologyandscience.Fortheculturalintellectual historiantheputative generally presumedandcommonlyallegedtorelate,i.e. atissueisthe technology andscience‘really’relatetoeachother,but howthesetwoentitiesare ing scienceandtechnologyinrelationtoeachother.Again,atissuehereisnothow technology eachseparatelyanddirectlyto‘ourscaleofvalues’,butratherbyconsider- Dunn’s affirmationsbespeaktwodistinguishablerespectsorregardsinwhich Returning toDunn’saffirmations,whatwefindthereexpressed insuchexaggerated Role, ontheotherhand,isamattertobeascertainednotbyreferringscienceand P. Forman of it.Theyaretheengineers. But besideherpriestssciencehasworshiperswhogooutintotheworldandareapart … thescientist’secstasyofthought. The priestswhosacrificeinhertempleknowthejoysoffreedomhumanintellect, Harvest’, ‘ExploreroftheUniverse’,‘Revea1erNature’sLaws’,‘EternalGuideTruth’. science inWashington,‘PilotofIndustry’,‘ConquerorDisease’,‘Multiplierthe They arenoidleboasts,thoselegendswrittenunderthedomeofbeautifultemple 63 62 putative

relation Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 science tothepurposesofman’. is ofalower,constrainedorder:‘Engineeringthearteconomicapplication in culturalvalue. retained itshighculturalvalue, evenwhiletheoryandabstractionhavefallendrastically case withtheconceptof‘leadership’, especiallyleadershipininnovation,whichhas transform differentlyinthe transitionfrommodernitytopostmodernity.Suchisthe primacy. Thisappearsquite clearlywhentheseveralculturalvalueshereinvolved not diminishtheanalyticutilityofdistinguishingbetween thesetwodimensionsof That thereisthus,atbottom,considerableredundance between ‘role’and‘rank’does of ascribedvaluethatgavescienceandtechnologyeach separatelytheirculturalrank. value-ladened throughtheparticipationofthoserelational conceptsinthehierarchies though itbethroughfunctionaltermsratherthanposited culturalvalues,becomes leadership toscience,andofdependencetechnology. Obviously,role,specified for grantedinmodernity—namely,ascriptionofthevalue-ladened relationalroleof functional relationshipbetweenscienceandtechnology wasalmostuniversallytaken primacy ofscience. nent andsignificantisthehighdegreeoftransnationalunanimityregarding ship, throughwhichalone[!]ithasworkeditselfuptoitstoweringheight.’ physics’. ‘Ifresearchinphysicsatrophies,thentechnologylosesthescientificleader- about classifying‘metallurgical,mechanical,andelectricalengineering’as‘applied figures inGermany’siron,steel,electricalandchemicalindustries,hehadnoqualms technology, anassociationthathewasthenorganizingtogetherwithseveralleading the supportof‘physical–technicalresearch’inGermanuniversitiesandinstitutes in January1921,physicistWilhelmWienappealedforadherentstotheassociation would findreadyacceptanceintechnicalandindustrialcircles.So,forexample,when, ulations bespeakthescientist’sconfidentexpectationthatsuchclaimsforscience from scientists,ratherthantechnologists,oftenthecircumstancesofeventhoseartic- cherished. Whilemostofthestrongestaffirmationsthisprimacysciencecame Europe, andwhereverintheworldbeyondhopeofcatchingupwithWestwas the 20thcentury—andbothhalvesof19th—notonlyinAmerica,butacross tion totechnologicalinnovationwasverynearlyuniversallysharedinthefirsthalfof to thepresuppositionsoftheirculturetoo. affirmations suchasWien’s.Onthewholetheirprotestswereignoredbecausecounter research, hadexceptionallyoutspokenengineerswhotookvehementexceptionto on thisspectrum.Germany,albeitthecountrywithstrongesttraditionofpure its populisttraditionsandhighvaluationoftechnology,occupiedamiddleposition unanimity regardingtheprimacyofscience.TheUSA,perhapssurprisinglyinview USA. not stoppingshortofthepoliticalinstitutions,asitgenerallydidinGermanyand tion, forthereitwasseenasextendingthroughalltheinstitutionsofFrenchsociety, concept of‘scientificleadership’hadbothstrongerunderpinningsandwiderapplica- The mainconcernofthispaperis,then,toputintoevidence thefactthatadefinite Dunn’s conceptionofscienceasplayingtheleading,guiding,originativeroleinrela- Of coursethroughoutmodernitytherewerenationaldifferencesinthedegreeof 67

Yet thesenationaldifferencesare‘secondorder’differences.Farmorepromi- 68

It isthisrelativeconstancy of theonehierarchyculturalvalue 64 66

In France,asPestrehasstressed,the History andTechnology 65 15 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 that primacybyscientists,asbeinginevitablyself-serving. of theprimacysciencetoandfortechnology,Ileaveentirelyasidearticulations tutions. Further,thoughatthecostofignoringsomemostardentaffirmations revolution, andtheformationofnationstates,especiallythosewithdemocraticinsti- priately conceivedastheeraemergingfromEnlightenment,industrial rior tothe19thcentury,asforpurposesofthisargumentmodernityismostappro- exposition arenecessary.Fromhereforward,Ileaveentirelyasidealltestimonyante- science, thentheevidencesofthisareobviouslyboundless.Hencelimitationsto gave anythoughtatalltotherelationbetweentechnologyandscienceprimacy the science–technologyrelation. together withadrasticchangeintheotherthathasproducedsostronganeffectupon 16 under thecontrolofgeneral intellect’. production, andthereforethe conditionsofthesociallifeprocessitselfhavecome ism, atwhichpoint‘general socialknowledgehasbecomeanimmediateforce of materialism wasthewayof theworldonlypriortofulldevelopmentofcapital- formed itbymeansofindustry’. out of,thenaturalsciences:‘naturalsciencehasintervened inhumanlifeandtrans- industrial processeshadtheiractualandnecessary basisin,andwereevolved from practicetothought. doubt asdidtheythatthearrowofcausationpointed from thoughttopractice,not cent hand,visibleandinvisible,in While rejectingcategoricallythesocial–politicalviewsof theadvocatesofbenefi- occur tohimsuspectthepreconceptionsofhispredecessors andcontemporaries. when Marxturnedtotherelationbetweenscienceand technologyitsimplydidnot principle, adeterminativeroleintheshapingofculture tothemodeofproduction, through ideologiestotheactualitiestheydissimulate,andforallthatMarxgave,in nor, byandlarge,werehisMarxistfollowers.ForallofMarx’sacuityinseeing and thetechnicaloverscientific.Onthispoint,however,MarxwasnoMarxian— tradition originatestheprimacyofmaterialoverintellectual,economic power ofromanticideologies—itiswithMarxthatourcanonicalhistoriographic become necessarytorefersofarbackwhentakingcognizanceofthepresenceand of ‘practice’(and‘life’)philosophytothebeginning19thcentury—anditwill Although therewouldbegoodgroundsforgoingrightbackintheGermantradition Proponents ofthePrimacyPractice role ofscienceinlate20thcenturytechnologyandsociety. in hisdailylife,butscienceonlythroughhearsay;andlast,scholarlyanticipatorsofthe modern man,theholderofpublicopinion,whoexperiencestechnologyimmediately phers upholdingtheprimacyofpractice;second,engineersandindustrialists;third, ought tohavebeeninclinedprivilegetechnology.Hereincludedare,first,philoso- the viewsofjustthosewho,giventheirintellectualposturesandsocialpositions, Now, ifthepropositiontobesubstantiatedistrue,inmodernitynearlyallwho Along withallhiseducatedcontemporaries,Marxsimply knewittobetruethat P. Forman 70

this Consequently, Marxconsidered thathistorical

connection Marxhimselfhadjustaslittle 71

The quotationisfromthe 69

I putintoevidence,rather, Grundrisse Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 industrial capitalitselfwith‘technologicalapplicationofthenaturalsciences’: (1857–8). Inthatimpetuousdraftof And again: machinery: natural scienceisthebasisofmachineproductionand thesourceofnewtypes chapter, ‘Machineryandlarge-scaleindustry’,Marxtook itasamatterofcoursethat nological levelwasdeterminedbytheattainedscience. Again,inthethirteenth of technologyitself.Manifestly,itisinlieuthatreference: inMarx’smindthetech- the listofdeterminativefactorsjustwhereonewouldexpect toseereferencethelevel Here ‘thelevelofdevelopmentscienceanditstechnological applicability’enters the Marxiantraditionrightinto1980s. And thisidentificationofcapitalitselfwithappliedsciencewasrepeatedlyaffirmedin observed that: to therelationbetweentechnologyandscience.ThusinfirstchapterMarx and fortechnologymodernindustrygenerally,isevidentwhereverMarxreferred came tobeworkedinto his purpose.Intheend,onlynotesthathetookonPoppe’shistoryoftechnology these treatisesonthehistoryofscience,inwhichhecouldnot,course,findmuchto ogy. True,Marx’snotesshowhisattentionflaggingbadlyashereaddutifullythrough of naturalscienceandmathematicsbeforeproceedingtoPoppe’shistorytechnol- foundational fortechnology.Consequently,MarxreadPoppe’streatisesonthehistory took itasbeyondquestionthattheoreticalmechanics,physicsandmathematicswere source onthesesubjectsashepreparedhimselfforhisgreatwork.JustPoppe,Marx late 18thcenturyencyclopedicwriterinthecameralisttraditionbeingMarx’sprincipal his readingprograminPoppe’streatisesonthehistoryofscienceandtechnology—this primacy ofscience. dutiful adherencetoit,themselvesbespeakhisunquestionedpresuppositionofthe In Marx’s unwaveringpresuppositionoftheprimacyscienceisreflectedalreadyin of humanneeds,appearsintheformfixedcapitaloppositiontolivinglabor. tific processwhichsubjugatestheforcesofnatureandcompelsthemtoworkinservice The transformationoftheproductionprocessfromsimplelaborintoascien- of science. most irrationalorganizationofproduction therestepsconscioustechnologicalapplication as thereitdemolishesthebulwark oftheoldsociety.…Inplacelaziesthabitsand In thesphereofagriculture,large-scale industryhasitsmostrevolutionaryeffectinasmuch ics, chemistry,etc.,inshort,thenaturalsciences,becomeseverywhere determinative. constitutive phasesandsolvingtheproblemsthusposedthrough applicationofmechan- The principleofmachineproduction,namelyanalyzingtheproduction processintoits effectiveness oftheproductionprocess,andbyobtainingnaturalconditions. logical applicability,thesocialorganizationofproductionprocess,extentand average degreeofskilltheworker,leveldevelopmentscienceanditstechno- The productivepoweroflaborisdeterminedbymultiplecircumstances,amongothersthe Das Kapital 78

this thoroughly‘unMarxian’presuppositionofscience’sprimacyto 75 Das Kapital . 74 Das Kapital

Nonetheless, Marx’sreadingprogram,andhis 73

Marx evenwentsofarastoequate History andTechnology 76 72 77 17 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 that governthequestforknowledge’(1918). enforced bythecurrenttechnologicalscheme’‘imposethemselvesasrulingprinciples in whichthetechnologicalprocessesact’(1906),thatis,‘thehabitsofthought scheme oflife’(1899),andmorespecifically,‘menhavelearnedtothinkintheterms alizations: ‘Theschemeofthoughtorknowledgeisingoodpartareverberationthe primacy oftechnologyasaformativefactorinallmoderncivilization’sintellectu- tions oftheprimacypractice,and,morepertinentlystill,articulations last yearsofthe19thcenturytoendFirstWorldWararevariousarticula- order asatriviality, nology andscienceassufficient causeofitsbecoming,andsobrushasidetemporal While Heidegger,asidealist, couldregardthefinallyachievedrelationbetweentech- rist attheturnof20thcentury? How thendoesitstandwithThorsteinVeblen,America’smostoriginalsocialtheo- foundation. then thatpresumptionmusthaverestedonanexceptionallybroadanddeepcultural science, notevenwhenhishistoricalinvestigationsproducedlittleevidenceofit, demanding theoppositecausation—couldnotunthinkpresumedprimacyof great criticalacumen,athinkerwhowaspre-eminentlysystematist—andhissystem the 18thcentury,wasforMarxafixedandfirmmatteroffact.Ifthinkersuch Clearly, then,theprimacyofscience’sroleinrelationtotechnology,especiallysince 18 easily accommodatethehistorical factthattheworld-viewofmodernsciencearoseand sionate insightintothematerialfactswithwhichmankindhastodeal.’ modern civilizedpeoplesareinapeculiardegreecapableofanimpersonal,dispas- from theobservationthat‘moderncivilizationispeculiarlymatter-of-fact.…The the methodsandanimusofscientificinquiry’. in thefieldofindustry’‘whichseemtohavehadmost seriousconsequencesfor ‘quest ofmatter-of-factknowledge’.Foritis,namely,‘thosechangesthattookplace ‘this characteristicofwesterncivilizationcomestoaheadinmodernscience’,withits machine technologyanditscreationsinthelifeofmoderncommunities’.Moreover, circumstance hasamaterialcause:itis‘duechieflytotheubiquitouspresenceof essays publishedin1906–8, plentiful inVeblen’swritings,elaborationsofthemaretobefoundonlyapair the primacyofpracticeinrespectrelationsbetweenscienceandtechnologyare is nominallynaturalisticratherthanexplicitlyidealistic: is muchlikethatwhichHeideggerwouldlaterofferfor this circumstance,onlythatit scientific theoriescanbeturnedto…technologicalpurpose’. Theexplanation—andit ship andtheStateofIndustrialArts So, throughthisseriesof(causative)connections,Veblen arrivesat‘thereasonwhy P. Forman requirements; andthereforehisresultsareavailableforthetechnological purpose. ance heworksarethoseimposedbythemoderntechnology,through habituationtoits is as‘idle’thatofthePueblomyth-maker.Butcanonsvalidity underwhoseguid- is notthathe[thescientist]aims,orcanaim,attechnologicalimprovements. Hisinquiry 79 87

Veblen, asscientistconstrained toefficientcauses,couldnotso 82

and inacoupleofchapters 80

(1914). Running throughVeblen’swritingsfromthe 85 81 83

Though apothegmaticstatementsof In theearlieressaysVeblenproceeds The InstinctofWorkman- 86 84

This Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 more pervasivein life’. TheinconsistenciesinVeblen’sexpositionengenderedbythisawkwardfactare established itselflongbeforemachinetechnologybegantodominatethe‘schemeof chemistry collectively—‘andinstructedinthespecialized applicationofthem’. the handsof‘mengroundedinmaterialsciences’—Veblen’s termforphysicsand sively shiftedtoafootingofappliedscience’anditsday-to-day operationsarenowin baking, andbrewinginto‘reconditemattersofappliedscience’.‘Industryhasprogres- computation inthechemicallaboratories’transformedmetallurgy,dyeing,tanning, Similarly ‘exactandcalculableprocessesworkedoutbydetailedexperiment pure, for-its-own-sakescience farabovetechnologyinculturalrankandvalue.Ofthis affirmation oftheprimacy technology,Veblen,likeMarx,quiteconsistentlyplaced exercises ratherthanstatements ofadeepconviction.Waveringandinconsistentinhis if fornoother,hisassertions oftheprimacytechnologywereforhimintellectual the intellectual,Veblenwasof theconventionalviewfrom‘get–go’.Forthisreason, to’, culturalrank,wasforVeblenadifferentmatter.On thisissueofthevaluation nology: theprimacythusdubiouslyestablishedwouldbe only‘primacyfor’; inconsistencies, onewouldnothavereachedmorethanhalf waytotheprimacyoftech- primacy totechnologyandattributingeconomics. EvenignoringVeblen’s must alsochoosetoignoreVeblen’spersistentinconsistency betweenattributing most obviously,overlookVeblen’slatereversalofhisposition onthatquestion.One Absentee OwnershipandBusinessEnterpriseinRecentTimes expression inthetechnologyoftime’. taken asthefreestmanifestationofthathabitmindcomestoitsmoreconcrete of thatwhich then themind-setofmodernscienceisproductnottechnologicalpractice,but thus makingeveryfeatureofthemodernworldaconsequence‘thepricesystem’, to technologyoreconomics.Forifeconomics,nottechnics,istakenasfundamental, medieval world,and,stillmorefundamentally,vacillatedbetweenattributingprimacy Industrial Revolution,reflectthatoftheearlymodernperiod,orlate having themechanisticapproachofmodernsciencereflecttechnology century engineer…feeds’upon‘thosematerialsciencesofphysicsandchemistry’. the mechanicalindustry,isatechnologyofphysicsandchemistry’.‘Thetwentieth- which scienceprovidesthem:‘thestateoftheindustrialarts,asitrunsonlines Now thetechnologistsareappliedscientistswhohavelearnedtothinkinterms the termsinwhichtechnologicalprocessesact’,nowitisotherwayaround. and Chemistry’.Whereearlierhehadoftenallegedthat‘menhavelearnedtothinkin of technologytoandforscience,Veblen’sthemethereis‘TheTechnologyPhysics Veblen wasnolongerabletowithstandthetruismsofhistime.Inplaceprimacy In order,then,tomakeVeblenoutasattributingprimacy totechnology,onemust, Veblen returnedtothisquestionoftherelationbetweenscienceandtechnologyin nineteenth century. electrical industrycameintothetechnologist’sworldincourseoflatterhalf As anafter-effectofFaraday’sexperimentsandspeculations…thedynamo also

determines technologicalpractice:‘modernsciencemay,indeed,be The InstinctofWorkmanship 90 88

(1914), wherehevacillatedbetween History andTechnology

(1923). Infailinghealth, 91 89 19

Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 faithful pursuitofscientifictruth’. dist aimshaveinanysubstantialwaydeflectedhisinquiry orhisspeculationsfromthe the mostestimableofidentities.Consequently,Veblendenied thatMarx’s‘propagan- Veblen regarded‘scientist’withitsimplicationofdisinterestedness as,onthewhole, scientific knowledge’.AsVeblen,likeMarx,sawhimselfasascientist,so, … heisprimarilyatheoreticianbusiedwithconsistentandfaithfulsystemof insisted that‘Astothemotiveswhichdrivehimandaspirationsguidehim, Veblen. Totakebutoneexample:writingatthissametime(1906)ofKarlMarx,Veblen connotations oftheterms‘science’,‘scientist’and‘scientific’,sofrequentlyusedby the characterrequisiteforitspursuit.Thisisevidentfromun-ironicallypositive science asthehighestculturalvalueandthatnecessarilymeantplacingahighon of scientificmethodinvestedthescientist. sionate, matter-of-factmindandcharacterwithwhichthethenprevalentconception that date. expressing somuchmoreprominentlyandemphaticallyforadecadeasof the currentidealofmanhood’—muchsamedoubtsthatWilliamJameshadbeen man whichthisquestofknowledgeproducesorrequirescomesneartoanswering True, Veblenconcludedthisessayexpressingdoubtsaboutwhether‘themannerof Civilization’ (1906): categorically anddramaticallyrightattheoutsetof‘ThePlaceScienceinModern technologist isencumberedbytheconcreteinwhichhemustmix.Veblenlaidthisout vaunting thehabitofmindscientistasbeingfreestall,whilethat scientist, havingatechnologicalaim—wewillencounterthisagainwithDewey—and we havehadahintalreadyinVeblen’svauntingtheimpossibilityofscientist, 20 never evenclosetorejections. and thenheproceedstoinsist thatitjustain’tso.Foralthough, the ideals,aims,methodsand standardsofscienceandscholarship’. institution inAmericanlife, its ‘pecuniaryvalues…willnecessarilyleavetheirmark on Conduct ofUniversitiesByBusinessMen his historicalmaterialistperspectiveinthispolemicsubtitled The HigherLearninginAmerica completely putasidehispostureofsocial–scientificskepticism andspoke The workmostrevealingofVeblen’sownvalues,the workinwhichhemost P. Forman knowledge inwhichthecharacteristic intellectualbentofmoderncivilizationculminates There aremanyoftheseworkday interestsextraneous…tothatdisinterestedpursuitof similar unquestionedplaceintheconvictionsofcivilizedmankind. edge amongmen’isindefeasiblyrightandgood.…nootherculturalidealholdsa secure holding-groundoflatterdayconviction,that‘theincreaseanddiffusionknowl- passes, whiletheachievementsofscienceareheldhigherastimepasses.Thisisone comparison withtheachievementsofscience.Theydwindleinmen’sesteemastime an endofendeavor;butintheeyesmoderncivilizedmenallthesethingsseemfutile consumption ofsuperfluities—thesehaveallintheirtimebeenfelttojustifythemselvesas propagation ofcreedsandthecreationsects,accumulationfortunes, The makingofstatesanddynasties,thefoundingfamilies,prosecutionfeuds, 93

Certainly Veblen,likeJames,wasambivalentabouttheimpersonal,dispas-

(1918). Not,ofcourse,thatVeblenavowedlyabandons 95

96 Veblen’s mostfundamentalcommitmentwasto . Onthecontrary,asbusinessishegemonic 94 These,however,wereonlyreservations— A MemorandumOnthe 92 97

So Veblensays— pro domo qua , is Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 as in1906,that, primacy inrankorrolerelation totechnology. he iscitedbyhistoriansoftechnology asaweightyfigurewhoconcededtoscience no higher thanVeblen’sintheir owntime,hasdeservedlynotheldupsowellasVeblen’s, final testofthisrealityaboutwhichtheinquiriesmodernmensoturnisnot[ its-own-sake knowledgeinmechanisticconcepts,Veblenregardedasessentialthat‘the Similarly, notwithstandinghisgeneralprinciplethatmodernmanformulatessuchfor- offers that Veblenashistoricalmaterialisttheorizestechnology’sprimacytoscience,and The greatlengthofthisquotationisjustifiedbyitsinterestandpertinence:forall the testofmechanicalserviceabilityforhumanuse’. and emulatoroftheauthor of economist, waslessthehistoricalmaterialistthanVeblen, butevenmoretheadmirer Veblen’s Germancontemporary,WernerSombart,economic historianandpolitical ing onVeblen’sscaleofculturalvalues. role inthescience–technologyrelationshipwascrushingly trumpedbyscience’srank- quences ofhishistoricalmaterialistprinciples,inconstantly concededtotechnology’s in theirrelationshipwithoneanother.SuchprimacyasVeblen, inexploringtheconse- technology onscalesofculturalvaluesandthe‘relative’roles ofscienceandtechnology distinction betweenrankandrole—betweenthe‘absolute’ rankingsofscienceand Veblen insistsonthisnotmerelyashisownview,buttheuniversalviewofage. end-in-itself scientificknowledgeisthehighestvalueofmoderncivilization.More, Veblen asmodernmandarinbrushesthehistoricalmaterialistasideandinsiststhat modern scienceandtechnology,sothatthey‘playintooneanother’shands’, Sombart’s 1911essay,‘Technik undKultur’,andtoashortsectionintheconcluding As previouslywithMarx,weseehereonceagainVeblen thehelpfulnessof knowledge foritsownsake. favor of…includinginthepeculiarworkuniversityanythingbeyondpursuit … thereisnogeneralorabidingconsensusamongthevariousclassesofcommunityin spiritual assetofcivilizedmankind. modern civilizationthanthemiscarriageofthislearning,whichismostvalued that indubitablyjustifiesitself.Sonothingmoreirretrievablyshamefulcouldovertake men havecometoholdthatthismatter-of-factknowledgeofthingsistheonlyendinlife systematic knowledgehastakenonthecharacterofmatterfact.Forgoodorill,civilized much thesamemeasureandinperiodoftimeascurrentbody such effecthasfoundlodgmentasacommonplaceconvictioninthepopularmind, common sensejudgmentofenlightenedpublicopinion.Asettledpresumptiontosome civilized men,theadvanceofculturemustconverge.Suchhascometobelong-term enlightened nations,beingitselftheconsummationuponwhich,inapprehensionof longer heldindoubt,becauseithasceasedtobeaquestionofexpediencyamongthe public-spirited friendofcivilization.Theexpediencysuch‘increaseanddiffusion’isno humane andmeritoriousworktobetakencareofbyanyenlightenedcommunityor that ‘theincreaseanddiffusionofknowledgeamongmen’isnowfreelyratedasthemost … duringthepastfewgenerations,thislearninghassofarbecomeanavowed‘endinitself’ avant latitre

Heidegger’s explanationfor‘theeasycopartnership’between 98 Das Kapital 100 . 101

Though Sombart’sreputation, much 102 99 Suchcitationspoint,regularly, to

Rather, Vebleninsisted,in1918 History andTechnology sic 21 !] Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 development isoneandthesame.’ which generatedtheother.Theyaresimplyone,andconsequentlytheircourseof false, question(onethatImyselfonceposed)whichofthetwoisgeneticallyearlier, continued thisthoughtonthefollowingpage,insistingthatitis‘auseless,indeeda power washisdisagreement withStalin’sconceptoftheFiveYearPlanandspecifically Admittedly, amongBukharin’s conflictswithStalinleadingtothatejectionfrom when forcingBukharinout ofhismostimportantleadershippositionsin1929. Bukharin afterLenin’sdeath in1925,stigmatizedBukharinasarightistdeviationist doxy ofBukharin’sMarxism. Admittedly,Stalin,whohadsharedsupremepowerwith historical-materialist theoristinhisownrightthatLenin haddoubtsabouttheortho- until liquidatedinthegreatpurgeof1937/38.Admittedly, Bukharinwassomucha pre-Revolutionary Bolshevikmovementandafterwards inthatoftheSovietregime— generally. innovation andthemostneedfulaideguidein tasksofsocialistconstruction it wasbeyondquestionthatscienceboththeoriginative sourceoftechnological Ivanovich Bukharinwillgiveconsistentprimacytotechnology? No:forBukharintoo, neither VeblennorSombartwasaMarxist.Surelylife-long BolsheviklikeNikolai For allthattheyadmiredMarxand,likeMarx,gaveprimacy inprincipletopractice, role intechnologywithscience’ssuperiorrankonhisownscaleofculturalvalues. Veblen, Sombartwassomuchquickerandopenerinconfusingscience’sfunctional primacy toandfortechnology.BeingsomuchmoreaffectiveathinkerthanMarxor declared twopagesearlier,andreascribestoscienceanunqualifiedfoundational So quicklydoesSombartforgetthatparityoftechnologywithsciencehehad volumes ofSombart’s 22 edge’. modern technologyfromthestagesofdevelopmentnatural-scientificknowl- and technologythat‘Wecanthereforedeterminethemainfeaturesofstages ing linesof higher thaneveryandanypracticalactivity.ThusSombartintheimmediatelyfollow- theoretical, abstractand,aboveall,interest-free,for-its-own-sake,knowledgestands tion becauseatbottombothwritersbelieveinthecreedofmandarins—believethat technology intheirprogrammaticstatementsevaporatessubsequentexposi- concluding: major advancesinchemistryassociatedwithLavoisier,Priestley,WöhlerandLiebig, mechanics associatedwithGalileo,Newton,EulerandLagrange,and,likewise,the science bytechnology,Sombartproceededthentolistthemajoradvancesinrational declaration that‘moderntechnology…isatwinsisterofmodernscience’. Lenin apart,Bukharinwastheonetruescholar–intellectual intheleadershipof Nonetheless, itiswithSombartjustaswasVeblen:thatparityaccordedto P. Forman the worldasawhole. artificially aworldthatrunsaccordingtotheformulasnaturalsciencehassetupfor If naturalscienceconceivestheworldasmechanicalorchemical,thentechnologycreates 105

Without offeringtheslightestsuggestionofasymmetricaldetermination Der moderneKapitalismus Der moderneKapitalismus 106 104

inferred fromthisunityandidentityofscience

(1927), whichsectionopenswitha 103

Sombart Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 practical rootsofscientificdisciplinesarenowuncovered’. these statementsinmind‘wearedirectlyrequiredtoformulatethepositionthat Bukharin, withmuchthesamelogicemployedbyHeidegger,insiststhatifwebear emphatic thatcontemporarytechnologyis,andisincreasingly,appliedscience, a numberofrecentwriters—oneBritish,oneGerman,American,French—all that theinverserelationobtainedinWesternworldofhisday.Thusafterquoting materialism ishisproofofthisoriginationscienceouttechnologythroughthefact network mustgrowfasterthaneventheleadingbranchesofsocialistheavyindustry be basedonatechnologicalrevolution,andthattherefore‘ biographer StephenCohenstressed,wasthatgenuineindustrializationwouldhaveto Stalin’s principleofthepriorityheavyindustry.Bukharin’scontraryview,ashis proletarian country.Thisslogan isthecentraldirectiveofwholeplannedscientific ‘the slogan:allintheservice ofthegreatsocialistconstructionanddefense grounds thatthenewstatehad urgentneedofeverythingthatsciencecouldprovide: grounds thatMarxismshows ittobeanimpossibility,butontheentirelypractical Bukharin doesnotcondemn thebourgeoisideologyofend-in-itselfknowledgeon to bebaseduponscientificresearch. implicit expansion ofexistingtechnology,couldhaveimaginedanyobjectiontoBukharin’s Yet itisunlikelythatStalin,whoseFiveYearPlanaimedquitedeliberatelyatavast socialism doessciencebecometrulyfree: that onlythesocialiststateknowshowtovaluescience foritsownsake;onlyunder idealist conceptionofscienceisnotatallBukharin’saim. Onthecontrary,histhesisis between scienceandtechnology?No,ahistorical-materialist revisionofthebourgeois– on theotherhand,scienceoriginatestechnology,imply toBukharinanidentity mining.’ from thenecessityoforientingourselves….Chemistryaroseonbasis the practiceofclassstruggle’.Indeed,itis‘knowntoeveryonethatastronomyarose stration that‘Sciencegrowsoutofpractice,fromthepracticeeconomyand science’s putativeprimacytoandfortechnology. science tothetasksofsocialismseemedBukharinsonecessaryandimportantwas Alan Mackay,BirkbeckCollege—showsquiteclearlythatthereasonharnessingof acquainted throughanasyetunpublishedEnglishtranslationpreparedbyProfessor address ‘TheMethodologyandPlanningofScienceTechnology’—withwhichIam All-Union ConferenceonthePlanningofScientific-ResearchWork.Thetextthis bespeaks sharedassumptionsoftheSovietleadership—gavekeynoteaddressatan Supreme EconomicCouncil’sScientific–TechnologicDepartment—theveryname Does thenthefactthat,ononehand,scienceoriginates fromtechnology,while, Of courseBukharinbeginshisaddresswiththehackneyed,butcanonical,demon- In April1931,Bukharin,theninhismuchreducedpositionofdirectorthe practice liberatesboththeproductiveforcesandscience…. exploiters, makingitanexploitingscience.Thisleadsscienceinto acul-de-sac.Proletarian The practiceofthebourgeoisiereallydisparagesscience,putting itattheserviceof 110 minor

More interestingasrevealingtheGermanidealismatbaseofBukharin’s

premise: atechnologicalrevolution—werethatthegoal—wouldhave 108 109 112 111 History andTechnology the scientific-research ’. 107 23 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 attitude. …Itsinterestinchange isinwhatitleadsto,canbedonewithit,to knowledge iscontrolofnatural energies’,that‘thescientificattitude…isapractical Further, invariouswaysand variousplacesDeweyinsiststhat‘thegistofscientific 19th centuryfromthethrallofHegelianidealism, he wasalsothemostinfluential.Hisstance,afterfreeinghimselfinlastyearsof most prolificphilosopherwritinginEnglishtheperiodbetweentwoworldwars; primacy ofpracticewhoseviewsmustbeconsidered.JohnDeweywasnotmerelythe Turning backfromRussiatotheWesternworld,thereisonefurtherproponentof John Dewey never before. (albeit notunderjustthatrubric),flourishedinRussiathefollowingfourdecadesas It isnowonder,then,that‘purescience’,generouslysupportedbythesocialiststate Thus: research work,thealphaandomega….’ 24 essential principlequitedistinctanddistinguishable: science—to scienceassomethingthat,thoughnotentirelyself-sufficient,isyetinits as highlyanybourgeoiswriter,Bukharinconcludeshisaddresswithapaeanto over science’. with having‘simultaneouslyHeideggerarguedforaprecedenceoftechnology ment thatapostmodernphilosopheroftechnologyhasathisdisposal,creditsDewey knowledge, butfirstandforemost,ofscience.Ihde,payingDeweythehighestcompli- consistent exponentofaninstrumentalconceptionknowledge—ofeverybrand Dewey was,duringtheentirefirsthalfof20thcentury,mostimportantand attribution totechnologyofgeneticprecedencescience thatwefoundinBukharin: such precedenceoftechnologyoverscience.Wecanfind inDeweythesamehackneyed for thatofscience,wouldhavebeenamongthelasttodo so. of sciencetoandfortechnology.Dewey,havingexchanged theHegelianworldspirit intellectual, howeverradicalandconsistentaninstrumentalist, tounthinktheprimacy practice hasprimedustoanticipate,itwassimplybeyond thecapacityofamodernist To besure,Deweyinscribedmanyatextthat,takenout ofcontext,impliedsome P. Forman science takesitsorigin. Technologies ofthiskindgive that common-senseknowledgeofnatureoutwhich knowledge enlarges,thesequencesobservedbecomemorecomplex andofgreaterscope. As theartsandcraftsdevelopbecomemoreelaborate,body ofpositiveandtested able toendurethegreat,world-historicexaminationstandingbeforeus. courageously unitingitwiththeindustrialandagriculturaleconomyaboveall,willwebe Only …increasingthespecificweightofscienceinwholesociallifeUnion,only reason in allsociallife,somuchgreatermustbetheroleof The biggertheelementsofplanning,reasoning,weighing,insocialeconomy,living, . 115 117

Wrongly. AsourreviewoftheMarxiantraditionprimacy 118 113

Idealizing andromanticizingsciencequite science 116

, whichfulfillstheprincipleof was radicallyinstrumentalist: 114 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 measured degreeofgoodwithayardstickhandeddownfromantiquity. teoria assumed, heonlyrarelyandbarelyasserted,thissocialmoralsuperiorityof those twopractices. entiation betweenscienceandtechnology,basedupon a differentialmoralrankingof science andtechnologyendsrightthere.Inthenextsentence entersa‘practical’differ- science andthemethodpursuedintechnologies’, that, ‘Moreover,thereisnodifferenceinlogicalprinciple betweenthemethodof equating sciencewith‘inventionandconstruction’continues withDeweyinsisting Thus althoughtheabovequotedpassagefromDewey’s GiffordLecturesverynearly alone andofitselfcondemnedtechnologytoalowerrank thanscienceincivilization. to thedisinterested,whichDeweyaspre-postmodern tooktobebeyondquestion, social endeavor,Deweywasbothcertainandassertive.That inferiorityoftheinterested knowledge. namely, themoralaswellintellectualsuperiorityofdisinterestedtointerested low utilitariansense’—alertustoasetofmoreconsciousandexplicitprejudices, regarded aspractical(inalowutilitariansense)intoitself’. and again,‘scientificinquiryhasraisedactivities,materials,toolsofthetypeonce nates theindividualcasetoageneralrule‘sinkslevelofroutinemechanic’; two activities:‘nomatterhowgreathislearning’thephysicianwhomerelysubordi- evident inDewey’soff-handeduseofhierarchicalmetaphorwhenreferringtothose use itcanbeput.’ far astosay,‘isitselfessentiallyatechnologyofapparatus,materialsandnumbers’. and orientationinitsmoderndevelopment,butscience,Deweyatleastoncewentso Not onlydoessciencehaveitsoriginintechnology,andretainatechnologicalcharacter More thanthat,saidDeweyinhisGiffordLectures(1929), technology: is obviousthathehimselfassumedimplicitlythesuperiorityof craftsmen asphilosophy’soriginalsin,settingitonthewrongpathformillennia, view ofscience,andhoweveroftenherepeatedhisindictmenttheancientdespise factually correcttheymaybe.HoweverfarDeweywentinarticulatinganinstrumental Of disinterestednessasvirtueineveryhumanendeavor,andcategorically Yet wemustnotallowourselvestobemisledbythesestatements,nomatterhow nite relatedtechniquesofusingapparatus. rial devicesandrelatedtechniques—ofcomplexrefinedformsofapparatusdefi- The historyofactualscientificadvanceismarkedbytheadoptionandinventionmate- of changeismaterialcomfortor pecuniary gain. undertaken; especially,sincethe dominantmotiveoflarge-scaleregulationthecourse sake ofwhichregulatedcontrol ofmodificationsnaturalexistencesandenergiesis control throughisolationofconditions operative,andespeciallyinthepurposefor The differenceispractical;inthe scaleofoperationsconducted;inthelesserdegree physical instrumentalitiesforproducing,registeringandmeasuringchanges. The progressofinquiryisidenticalwithadvanceintheinventionandconstruction

to techne . 126 119

Yet thequotedtermsinwhichDeweydisparagespractice—‘ina

Moreover, thepracticeandprogressofscienceisinseparablefrom 120 128 127 the‘in…principle’conflationof History andTechnology 125 teoria

Although Dewey 121

to techne 124

This is 123

and 122 it 25 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 the aimandoperationof freeindividualinthesphereofscienceandthat of University’s TercentenaryConference (1936),soughttoconvey‘thedifferencebetween presupposed incompatibility thanthefantasybywhichDewey,addressingHarvard instances—early andlate—none betterpointsupthealieneitytopostmodernityofthat this, andsoweshouldnot besurprisedthatDeweydidtoo.Amongthemany that ordinarilyorienttechnologicalactivities.Wehaveseen evenaVebleninsistupon firmly believed:thepursuitofscienceisintrinsicallyincompatible withthemotives difference. intrinsic differencebetweenscienceandtechnology,a differencethatmakesallthe tions ofdisinterestednesstovirtue,arefoundeverywhereinDewey. especially passionateexpressiondeliveredatadepression-eraconclave: Auerbach’s—in makingthe seen hereincontext,turnsouttobeDewey’sfoil—just asthelikeassertionhadbeen Thus, Dewey’sassertionquotedabovethatscience‘isitself essentiallyatechnology’, is onlypotentiallygood,contingentlyandmoreoftenthannot,not: disinterested, areinherentlymorallygood;notneutral,butgood.Technology,however, course thatscience—andthescientist,too, This ancientprejudiceDewey,likeothermoderns,shared.Hetookitasamatterof been integralwithaconceptionoftheintrinsicsuperioritysciencetotechnology. An antipathytotheinterested,especiallypecuniarilyhas,sinceantiquity, an individualisticallyinterestedutilitarianism: interested, nothingenragedDeweymorethantheconstrualofhisinstrumentalismas Consistent withhisinsistencethatnothingtrulygoodcamefromtheeffortsof socialists. as entrepreneursinanantitheticeconomyofideas,andagainpoliticaleconomic tice sharedastrongdistastefor‘thepecuniaryinstitution’—asVeblentermedit—both he stoodpoliticallyclose—wasofaverydifferentmind.Thesetwoproponentsprac- must bearinmindthatDewey—likeVeblen,whomhegreatlyadmired,andto suggests nodisparagementoftechnology.Indeed,quitethecontrary!However,we To ourpostmodernsensibilitythisreferenceto‘materialcomfortorpecuniarygain’ 26 What Deweyherevoicesiswhatineveryerapriortopostmodernity nearlyeveryone P. Forman the inherentnatureofscience. which havedecidedthesocialresultsofusethesetechnologies havenotflowedfrom itself essentiallyatechnologyofapparatus,materialsandnumbers.Butthepecuniaryaims The technologiesofindustryhaveflowedfromtheintrinsicnaturescience.Forthatis that thewonderiscriticshaveattributedsuchanotiontosanemen. conception oftruthwhichmakesitameretoolprivateambitionandaggrandizement, end, someprofituponwhichaparticularindividualhassethisheart.Sorepulsiveis when truthisdefinedasutility,itoftenthoughttomeanutilityforsomepurelypersonal and whothenplacedthefruitsoftheirlaboratdisposalothers. produced andinventedbythescientistswhowereworkingdisinterestedlyhonestly men whooperateoureconomicsystemproducethesethings?No,Isayagain.Theywere Our discoveriesandourinventionsinthefieldofelectricityradio—didbusiness 129

Expressions ofantipathytowardpecuniaryaimsandmotives,equa- opposite 135

point, namely,thatthereisinjustthisregardan qua

scientist—being assuchnecessarily 131 130 132

To takejustone 134 133

Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 that weinpostmodernitynolongerrecognize—Deweyurgeduponhisauditorstheir, current individualisticeconomicenterprise’.Tograspthisdifference—adifference principle’ primacyofpractice notwithstanding,thehackneyedgenesesofgeometry sive primacytoandfortechnology. Norcoulditpossiblyhavebeenotherwise.The ‘in derivative fromscience.Itwas indeedDewey’sviewthatscienceheldsuchcomprehen- science throughtechnologies equipsmankind’isindicativeofaviewtechnology as Dewey’s referencehereto‘those agenciesandinstrumentalitieswithwhichnatural But if proof oftheincompatibilitybetweenbeingpersonallyinterestedandscientific. audience thefantasyoftheireasycoexistenceinascientistas cible motivations.SomuchsothatDeweycouldofferhisHarvardTercentenary tist, whateverthesettingandgoalsoftheirseeking,seemedtoDeweytotallyimmis- That is,whattodaywetakeasamatter-of-coursemixofmotivesinanyandeveryscien- traitorous aswellinsulting: upon pragmatismbyLewisMumford—anattackthatDewey hadreasontofeelbe early in1927,atthebroadpeakofhisinfluence,heconcluded hisreplytoanattack ties andiniquitiesoftheworldasitis: very largeproblemforaphilosopherlargelyconcernedasDeweywaswiththeinequi- employed morethanwiththeknowledgeattained.However,therewasaproblem, ancient—and allthemoremoderninthatheidentifiedsciencewithmethod emulate thatsuccessandtoorderbyintelligencethehumansceneaswell. had notyetlearnedenoughfromthesuccessofphysicalinquiry—hadto produced muchharmandevilonthehumanscene,thatwasproofonlymankind scientism, neededascientistictheodicy.Itwasthis:ifthesuccessofphysicalinquiry the modernworld,thenDewey,havingtradedhistheisticHegelianismforanatheistic Dewey statedandrestatedthatfaithoverthroughfivedecades.Writing Dewey’s convictionoftheintrinsicgoodnesssciencewasnolessmodernthan vidual freedominthesetwoareasofhumanactivity. tion ofsuchanabsurdityvividlydisclosesthegapthatdividesmanifestationsindi- private wantsandeffortsgoadinghimontoseekhisadvantage.Themeresugges- conclusion wasscientificandinsosayingmaintainthatitalsotheproductofhis dards ofthebusinessentrepreneur.Imaginescientificmanwhoshouldsaythathis … stretchingthefancytopointofimaginingascientificinquireradoptingstan- those whoknowandrespecttheroadsthatconducttokingdom. equips mankind.NotallwhosayIdeals,Idealsshallenterthekingdom oftheideal,but of thoseagenciesandinstrumentalitieswithwhichnaturalscience throughtechnologies monopolized indistribution,becauseoflackmeanscontrol; bylack,inotherwords, have themselvesinthepastbeenprecariouspossession,arbitrary, accidentaland way ofappreciationthattheidealvalueswhichdignifyandgive meaningtohumanlife The impliedidealizationofscienceandtechnologyisnotbyway ofacquiescence.Itisby and ofshared)wayslivingwhathasitsoriginin is whatitbecause…oftheentryintoeverydayandcommon(insenseordinary factually speaking,thepresenthumanscene,forgoodandevil,harmbenefitalike, physical

inquiry—and theemphasisisDewey’s—isveritable 136 physical inquiry. History andTechnology 140 reductio adabsurdum 138 fons etorigo 139 137

of 27 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 science’; modern industrialdevelopmentisthefruitoftechnologicalapplications nology thanthoseDeweyprovides,inplenty. find anyfirmerormorecategoricalassertionsoftheprimacysciencetoandfortech- question: path oftechnologicaldevelopment’,nonethelesstookthe primacyofscienceasbeyond 1930s, thoughtheyrejectedimitationoftheWestandinsisted on‘auniquelyJapanese ical andgeographical,anti-occidentalJapaneseracial culturalnationalistsofthe some scientistengagedinphysicalorchemicalresearch’; commerce hasitsrootsinsomediscoverymadesomewherelaboratoryby Dunn, themanofaffairsand influenceatthenational,eveninternational,level,whose The mainfocusofthecasethat IseekheretomakeistheUSA,andsoreturnGano effort to‘catchupandsurpass’ theWest. just asTsaristRussia,gavequite preposterousprimacytoscienceinitsever-renewed Between thesetwopoles,stretchingfromtheoneverynearly totheother,SovietRussia, government. among engineersandindustrialists,aswelltheelitesexercisingpowersof the world—manyindicationsofprevalenceconvictionprimacyscience countries—and, inconsequencethereof,India,China,Japanandelsewherearound presented relatestotheUSAandGermany,only.Thereare,however,inallEuropean positions andaffirmedscience’sprimacytofortechnology.Theevidencehere ing, andmilkingtheirsociety’smaterialpracticesdisregardedthelogicofsocial shown, inmodernitynearlyallofthosewhoearnedtheirlivingsmaintaining,multiply- addressing therelationbetweenscienceandtechnology.Similarly,asisnowtobe higher culturalproductions,disregardedthelogicoftheirintellectualpositionswhen minative roleofasociety’smaterialpracticesforthecharacterandcontentsits We haveseenthatinmodernityevengrandtheoristswhotookasaxiomaticthedeter- Engineers andIndustrialists certainty that‘modernindustry subordinate andderivativeentity.OveroveragainDeweystateshiscomplete addressed therelationbetweentwohehadnecessarilytoregardtechnologyas many prejudicesrankingscienceabovetechnologyinsorespects,thatwhenhe tially atechnologyofapparatus’notwithstanding,Deweywassofirmlypossessedby and astronomyinpracticalactivitiesnotwithstanding,theviewofscienceas‘essen- 28 more especially‘ofpurescience,ofivorytowerscience’. subject aspre-eminentlyacountryandcultureaffirmingtheprimacyofscience, controlling andcharacteristicfactofmodernlife’. natural science,throughthemediumofinventionsandtechnologies,isfinally P. Forman reason thepromotionofsuchresearchiscurrentlyanurgentnecessity. ity, willprovideafirmbasisforthecultivationofCo-Prosperity Sphere,andforthis The existenceofscientificresearch,whichmaygivebirthtothisnew technologicalcreativ- 142

that ‘practicallyeveryphaseofourpresenttechniqueindustryand 146

France, inparticular,isregardedbyallwhohavemadehertheirspecial is

so muchappliedscience’; 149 145 144

One wouldbehardpressedto 147 143

At theotherpole,ideolog- 141

‘that theapplicationof

that ‘infact,theentire 148 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 to thatsameprofessionalassociationin1916 tions thatJ.Carty,chiefengineerofAmericanTelephoneandTelegraph(AT&T),put Institute ofElectricalEngineers—were,Klinepointsout,verysimilartotheproposi- the content ofhis1912presidentialaddresstofellowmemberstheAmerican Columbia Universityalumniin1930—whichreproducedheightenedrhetoric the commonlyexpressedviewofhispeers. 20th century,andshownthatitisonlyinrhetoricalexcessDunndepartedfrom estimation ofscienceamongAmericanengineersfromthelate19thcenturytomid of scienceinmodernity.Klinehasamplydocumentedthenearuniversalityover- extravagant obeisancetoscienceIquotedattheoutsetofthisexpositionprimacy their attentionfrommaking discoveriestomakingweapons.Itwasreaffirmednearly example ofEuropeancountries lockedintheFirstWorldWar,werebeginningtoturn Carty’s declarationwasmade asleadingfiguresinAmericanscience,followingthe is nohighermotivethanthesearchfortruthitself’. quently thatinthescientist‘theremustbesomeofdivine sparkandforhimthere stirs theirpulsesistheloveofknowledgeandjoy ofdiscovery…”’,andconse- scientists isconductedwithoutanyutilitarianmotive,for, asHuxleysays,“thatwhich scientist, explainedtohisaudienceofelectricalengineersthat‘theworkthepure primacy relativetotechnology.ThusCarty,continuingwiththisexaltationofthe the assertedculturalrankofpurescientist,exaggeratingstillfurtherscience’s even spokespersonsforengineeringandindustrywerepushedtoheightenstillfurther representation ofthescientist:inordertodifferentiatesciencefromindustrialresearch, purity oftheextra-industrialinvestigator,hadoppositeeffectoncommon trial researchintheUSAearly20thcentury,farfromdiminishingputative Ironically—and becauseironically,significantly—theenormousexpansionofindus- Thus Carty,inconcludinghis1916presidentialaddress, urgeduponhisaudience: are sodirectlyandheavilydependentupontheresultsof thescientists’inspiredefforts. create acorrespondingmoralobligationinengineers,and allthemoresoasengineers in respectofscience’srank:‘Theinvestigatorpurescience’,saidCarty, science (inasubordinatemanner)’. of engineeringsocietiesfollowedthetime-honoredtraditiontyingtheirfieldto Kline foundthatthroughoutthehalf-centurybeforeSecondWorldWar‘presidents Such extraordinaryvirtueandmeritasCartyattributes tothescientistmustneeds That subordinationoftechnologytosciencewasbothinrespectscience’sroleand They pointthewaywhichwemust follow. let usforwardtheworkofpure scientists,fortheyaretheadvanceguardofcivilization. By everymeansinourpower,therefore,letusshowappreciation ofpurescienceand the settlersandpreparefortheiroccupationofnewcountry. extent ofitsforests,andthelocationarableland,whoinotherwaysprecede newly discoveredterritoryintheendeavortolocateitsmineralresources,determine The investigatorinindustrialresearchmaybecomparedtothepioneerswhosurvey unknown territory.Heiscontinuallyseekingtoextendtheboundariesofknowledge. may belikenedtotheexplorerwhodiscoversnewcontinentsorislandshitherto 152 155 150

Thus Dunn’saffirmationstohisfellow his 154

presidential address. History andTechnology 153 151

Indeed, 29 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 General Electricadvocatedthe…pure-scienceidealmorestronglythanJewett’. contrary, Klinefoundthatintheinter-waryears‘leadersofindustrialresearchat the …purescienceideal.’ cates ofengineeringresearch inacademiatookratherweakrhetoricalstancesagainst toward theendofthatperiod, ‘[MITvicepresidentVannevar]Bushandotheradvo- 20 ing presidentialaddressestoAmericanengineeringsocieties inthelate19 I.e. Richardsregretfullyrenouncedengineering’sclaim to bescienceofasort.Survey- it Klinewrote: science, itisalsotheonlysignificantsourceofsuchtechnologiesasinvolvescience. practical man.Tothecontrary,Huxleyinsistedthatpurescienceisnotonly as thoughthereweresomeotherformofsciencethatissufficienttotheneeds tical-minded persontothinkthatpurescienceisunnecessaryhispracticalinterests, That is,Huxleydeploredtheconceptof‘appliedscience’becauseitcouldleadprac- industry’ ofBritain—Huxleyhadsaid: factor haddefinedasbeing‘topromotetheprosperityofmanufacturesand science-based curriculumforthatinstitution—whosepurposetheeponymousbene- College atBirmingham,andspecificallyinthecontextofdefendingplanned ‘this phrase“appliedscience”.’In1880attheinaugurationofJosiahMason’sScience and enactedritualself-disparagementwasaffirmativequotationofHuxleydeploring the stereotypictropesthroughwhichAmericanengineersexaltedpurescienceideal engineering audiencewaswellfamiliarwithhisauthorityandtheses.Indeed,oneof The formofCarty’sabove-quotedinvocationT.H.Huxleyshowsthathis purposes’. science discoveriesandtheemploymentofscientificmethodsforusefulordesirable of AT&T’sBellTelephoneLaboratories,‘isnothingbuttheapplicationfundamental enlarged researchportfolio:‘allthatwecall“technology”’,declaredFrankJewett,head mobilization ofscientistsintotechnologists,bythemanwhothenheldCarty’shugely 30 yearslaterinalatephaseoftheSecondWorldWar,withitsfarmorethorough 30 ically extravagantobeisance toscience,itwasratherthat: and moveditsmeaningtoward thesubservientendofspectrum.’ th Kline setHuxley’sstatementasepigraphtohispaper.Inmostdirectreference

P. Forman centuries, Klinefoundthatthey‘ignoredtheautonomous senseof science.’ although thetermwouldseemtobeamisnomer,forthereisno othersciencethanpure not beclassedasafundamentalscience.…Ithasoftenbeenclassified asanappliedscience, repeated Huxley’sargumentofnearlyfiftyyearsearlierwhenhesaid thatengineering‘can In 1928CharlesRichards,formerdeanofengineeringattwomid-western universities, science isnothingbuttheapplicationofpuretoparticularclassesproblems. ‘pure science.’Butthereisnomorecompletefallacythanthis.Whatpeoplecallapplied another sortofscientificknowledgewhichisnopracticalutility,andtermed is asortofscientificknowledgedirectpracticaluse,whichcanbestudiedapartfrom I oftenwishthisphrase,‘appliedscience,’hadneverbeeninvented.Foritsuggeststhatthere 156 159

This convictionwasinnowaypeculiartotheBellSystem.On 161

If GanoDunnwasinanyway outoflinewithhisrhetor- applied science 160 th

Similarly, and early 158 157 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Lazarus’s sheerlyworshipfulsister,Mary. for Jesusallthepracticalservicesofhospitality,wasdisregardedbyinfavor engineers asspiritualsonsofMartha,Lazarus’ssister—shewho,thoughsheperformed neer andthescientist. just asclearandstronginDunn’scharacterizationoftherelationbetweenengi- rank, andtheir(self-imposed)subserviencetothoseofhigherculturalremains definite groundsforself-esteem,theimplicationoftheirsubordinationincultural in contrastwithquotationofHuxleyon‘appliedscience’,providedengineers tion of can engineersoftenconstruedtechnologynotas‘appliedscience,’buttheapplica- Thus KlinestressedthatinthesevendecadesfollowingHuxley’s1880address,Ameri- on scienceinanydirector substantial way. into the1930s—Americanengineeringeducationwasnot, anddidnotseektobe,based neers. Ontheonehand,asSeelyhasshown,throughmost ofthisperiod—indeed,well is nottoberationalizedbyreferenceanydirectmaterial orsocialinterestoftheengi- technological ideologyfromtheGildedAgeintofirst decadesoftheColdWar.This relative to‘purescience’was,manifestly,ageneralandconsistent featureofAmerican This preposterousdisparagementbytechnologistsofthemselves andoftheirworks good ofthetrulygood. neers ofKipling’sparabolicpresentationtheidealselflessself-sacrificefor Ruth Oldenzielhasdrawnattentiontothepervasiveandcontinuingappealengi- and itsconcludingstanzais: 20th centurythetrusteeschose asuccessionofphysiciststoheadtheinstitution, of serious efforttoaltertheirpractice inthatdirection.AtMITthefirstdecadesof practice wasnot,ingeneral, basedinscience,andduringwhichtheyweremaking no articulated aprimacy-of-science ideologythroughahalf-centuryduringwhichtheir held primacy. persons devotedtohigherculturalgoodsandfunctions, amongwhompurescientists tion ofRudyardKipling’s1907poem,‘TheSonsMartha’. interests ofhigherformsculture,andtothoseembodyingthem,istheirappropria- cultural hierarchysubordinatingtechnologytoscience. indispensability ofthepurescientistfortechnologicaladvance,andtheyaffirmeda A furtherindicationoftheAmericanengineers’postureproudsubservienceto nated ittoscience. allowed hisprofessionsomeautonomywithinahierarchicalrelationshipthatsubordi- By callingtheengineer’screativity‘art,’traditionaldefinitionofengineering,Dunn They havecasttheirburdenupontheLord,and—theLordHelaysitonMartha’sSons! They sitatthefeet—theyhearWord—TheyseehowtrulyPromiseruns. They knowinthemistheGraceconfessed,andforareMerciesmultiplied. The SonsofMarysmileandareblessed—theyknowtheAngelsontheirside. But theSonsofMartha…mustwaituponMary’sSons,worldwithoutend,reprieve,orrest. The SonsofMaryseldombother,fortheyhaveinheritedthatgoodpart; pure science.Insodoingtheyunderscoredtheprimacyof 167 162 165 166

While itmustbesaidthatcitationof‘TheSonsMartha’, Pride ofplace,ratherthanservice,istheprivilege of 164 Thepoemopens: 168

That is,Americanengineers heldand History andTechnology 163

The poemcelebrated pure scienceandthe 31 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 energetically setaboutacorrespondingreformoftheinstitution. research” was“absolutelyprerequisiteandbasictoinventiondevelopment”’,but bringing inKarlT.Compton,whodidnotmerelyinsist‘that“purelyscientific Laboratories, initiatedthetransformationofMITintoascience-baseduniversityby Swope, headofGeneralElectric,andFrankJewett,AT&T’sBellTelephone in theirownlaboratories,asthebasisofsuccess’. paid homagetoresearchin“pure”or“fundamental”science, eitherinuniversitiesor Kline foundthat‘industrialresearchersatRCA,theMellon InstituteandAT&T…all ‘by everymeansinourpower’. scientist withanexplicitappealtohisfellowengineersforwardthescientists’work seen, inhis1916presidentialaddresstotheIEE,Cartycoupledexaltationof between scienceandtechnology isnot,primarily,amatteroffact,butculturalvalues. succession ofassumptions and opinionsaboutthatrelation:theputativerelation between scienceandtechnology arenot,inthemain,determinativeofhistorical with thehistoriographicthesis hereadvanced,namely,thattheactual,factualrelations leaders ofindustrialresearch andtechnologicenterprise.This,again,isfullyconsistent support thatideologyreceived,notonlyinthecultureatlarge butmorespecificallyfrom despite substantiallychangedinstitutionalrealitylies, presumably, intheincreased engineering. money fromwealthindustrialistsonitsboardwitharhetoricofpurescienceasbasefor which thefirst,theoristRobertC.Maclaurin(1909–20),washighlysuccessfulinraising 32 the firstdecadesof20thcentury. of the19thcenturybyAmericanphysicistsdidnotchange inanysignificantwayduring industrial research,thepuresciencerhetoricandideology adoptedinthelastdecades change inthetypicallife-worldofaphysicistasresult oftheenormousgrowth for thepurposeofinterpretingtrendsandresultspureresearch’. adequate financing’,andto‘Promotethethoughtofemployingscientistsinindustry ‘Study theimportanceofpureresearchtopublicgenerallyandproblemits a morewidespreaduseofscientificresearchinindustry’.Tothisenditundertookto benefit societyasawholethroughincreasingproductionandemploymentbymeansof exclusively, hadasannouncedobjective‘toraisethestandardoflivingandotherwise committee, onwhichscientificresearchwasrepresentedbypurescientistsalmost Association ofManufacturersaJointCommitteeonScientificResearch.That practice ofscienceintheinterim.SuchisreflectedformationbyNational emphasis uponpracticalbenefits,befittingthattimeandthealteredimportancein sense ofobligationto,andconcernfor,thewelfare‘pureresearch’,butwithan means sufficienttoenablethemworkefficientlyandproductively”’. ical engineersto“findfortheseself-sacrificingstudentsofscience,pureandapplied, President oftheAmericanSocietyMechanicalEngineers,had‘exhortedmechan- for thesupportof‘purescience’.Oncontrary,asearly1880,R.H.Thurston, enabling leadingengineersandindustrialiststoevadeconcernwithorresponsibility Fully consistentwiththesecircumstancesisthefactthat, notwithstandingthegreat Two decadeslater,inthedepthsofGreatDepression,onefindsagainthatsame Neither wasthisparadoxicalexaltationofscienceoverengineeringastratagem P. Forman 169

This remainedlargelymerelyrhetoricuntilin1930trusteesGerard 172 175

The explanationforthisunchangingideology 174 170 171 173

As wehave

Similarly, Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 advancement, remainedvirtuallyunchallengedthrough theearly1960s. becomes anindustrialist’. ‘the linearmodel’oftechnologicalinnovation: away fromtheBushreportwaswhattheybroughttoit,unqualifiedaffirmationof science—in disinterestedscience—asthe That faithinscience—in‘pure’science,‘abstract’ ‘theoretical’science,‘basic’ in cathedrals. ‘IftheGeneralElectriclaboratorieshavetaughtanylesson’,a1950editorial alien asthatoftheagewhichexpresseditsfaiththrougharchitecturegothic Viewed frompostmodernity,thepreposterouscredulousnessofthatmindsetseemsas ties insplendidlymodernisticarchitecturalisolationfrommanufacturingactivities. following theSecondWorldWar,broughtaproliferationofindustrialresearchfacili- That ‘ageoffaithinthelinearmodel’,asHounshellaptlycharacterizedtwodecades research onlybyoverridinghiscommittee. his draftingcommittee.Heobtainedtheinclusionofmoreelevatedsortsengineering erly withinthescopeofproposedNationalResearchFoundationwasridiculedby ‘idiosyncratic’ advocacyofWrightBrothers’-likeinnovativeactivityasalsobeingprop- indispensable leadershipofscience,ispatentinitstitlejustasitunderliestext.Bush’s the EndlessFrontier report’—in itstitle,intextandthehistoryofwritingreading tion betweenscienceandtechnology.Thiscomesforwardclearlywith‘theBush of may becalleda“basicresearch”ideal—seemtohavebeenoverlookedbymostreaders pointment, even‘thesemodificationstothepure-science-ideal—amountingwhat tists’. ical chemist,Bakerhadbeen chosen‘torespondonbehalfofthecommunityscien- director ofresearchin1955; hewouldheadthelaboratory,1973–1979.Himselfaphys- Jewett, hadcomeupthroughtheranksatBellTelephone Laboratories,becoming physicists didindeedchangeinimportantways, the AdvancementofScience. Moral UnneutralityofScience’,atthe1960meeting theAmericanAssociationfor for technologyisWilliamO.Baker’spreparedresponse toC.P.Snow’saddress,‘The today regardasappropriate to anindustrialist,Bakerdisregardedtheopeningsoffered In thedecadefollowingSecondWorldWarideologyandself-imageofUS Indicative ofthispostwarpersistencethepreposterous primacyofsciencetoand Science, theEndlessFrontier The NewYorkTimes money. endows research;thereisnothingsopracticalasthetheoristwho givesnotathoughtto There isnothingsoimpracticalinscienceasthemanwhothinksonlyofprofitswhenhe science. tions, whichinturnarepainstakinglydevelopedbyresearchthepurestrealmsof processes donotappearfull-grown.Theyarefoundedonnewprinciplesandconcep- from whichthepracticalapplicationsofknowledgemustbedrawn.Newproductsandnew Basic researchleadstonewknowledge.Itprovidesscientificcapital.createsthefund 184

He proposedinsteadto‘remark onaratherpracticalaspectofthematter,as 181 179 . Thusthestereotypicmetaphorofexploration,embodying stated,‘itisthis’: 185

—then andnow.’ 183 Yet sofarfrombringingany perspectivethatwecould

Baker, inthedirectlineofdescentfromCartyand 177 fons etorigo

‘Yet’, Klineobservedwithevidentdisap- 178 176

Rather, whatalmostallreaderstook

but notatallinregardtotherela-

of allmajortechnological History andTechnology 182 Science, 180 33 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 similarly, theowlofscience wasperchedabovethegearwheeloftechnology.This nonetheless: necessarily—natural sciencewasgivenprecedenceinitstitle.In‘logo’, ments oftechnologists,most especiallyGermantechnologists. the museumwasintendedto beamonumentandaninspiringtestamenttotheachieve- technological museum.Receiving itsfinancialsupportlargelyfromGermanindustry, and TechnologyinMunich),founded1903,quickly becametheworld’sforemost und TechnikinMünchen(TheGermanMuseumofMasterworks ofNaturalScience electrical engineer,DasDeutscheMuseumvonMeisterwerken derNaturwissenschaft influentially infoundingtheDeutschesMuseum. alists andengineerswasdisplayedmoreprominently, moreindicativelyand decades earlier,thatsamedeferencetonaturalscienceon thepartofGermanindustri- in foundingtheHelmholtz-Gesellschaftaftermath oftheFirstWorldWar.Two illustrated abovethroughtheconceptionof‘physical–technical research’putforward recently observed,‘moreideologicallythanrationallybased’. trialists accordedscienceaprimacythatwas,ashistoriansoftechnologytherehave preposterous primacytosciencerelativetechnology.InGermanytooleadingindus- Among engineersandindustrialistsAmericanswerenotexceptionalinaccording ‘come oneatatimefrompersonandmindtime’. weapons, …morereliablemoonrockets’—upon‘theideasofscientificdiscovery’that placed allhope—includinghopesfor‘acurecancer,…adefenseagainstnuclear ing majorityofhislaboratory’sworkforce—novirtuesworthmentioning,andinstead Baker, however,foundinengineers—thatclassofresearchersformingtheoverwhelm- respect oftheaestheticaspecttheiractivities. values. Inparticular,Snowhadinsistedthattheengineerwasscientist’speerin by Snowtostressthatengineeringtoowasasourceandanembodimentofmoral 34 exalted rankandrolerelativetotechnologywerebased. of themeltingawaymodernistculturalpresuppositionsuponwhichscience’s precipitous inthedecadebetweenmid1970sand1980s,wasaconcomitant discovery thatappearedhereandthereinthe1960s. empirical disproofsoftheallegeddependencynewtechnologyuponscientific of technologicalinnovationisnottobeattributedthefew,partial,andequivocal from thatheightisastrongargumenttheriseofskepticismaboutscienceassource another threedecadesthatfaithhadallbutvanished.Theveryrapidityofthedescent terested scienceasgeneratoroftechnology’smiraclestoreachthisheight;inlessthan quickly thattimewouldpass!Ithadtakenmorethanthreecenturiesforfaithindisin- the historiantobearinmind,isthatnoonewasastonishedattime.Yethow Conceived anddirectedbyOskarvonMiller,ahighlysuccessful andhighlyenergetic Astonishing, buttrue—andwhatisevenmoreastonishing,andimportantfor P. Forman neers arethefirsttoknowthattheylackinginvirtue. development, theestheticexperienceisasrealtoengineers.Whentheyforgetit…engi- has itsbeauties,whichare,inmyview,identicalnature.…Rightdownthefieldof We shouldnotrestricttheestheticvaluestowhatwecall‘pure’science.Appliedscience 186 188 189

Rather, thatdescent,most 191 190 187

Nonetheless—no, not

This circumstanceI Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ing speakeratitsfoundingmeeting: decisively byits‘Protector’,HisRoyalHighness,PrinceLudwigofBavaria,astheopen- matter oftherelationshipbetweenscienceandtechnologywasdealtwithquickly based inanddependentupontechnology, While wetodaywouldregardastronomyaswellsuitedtoillustrateaviewofscience omy beinggivenanespeciallylargeandprominentplaceintheinitialexhibition. realized inthemuseum’spractices,withphysicsdominatingcollectionsandastron- In thefollowingyearsthisprogrammaticprimacyofsciencewasindeedextensively outstanding andtypicalmasterworks’. hensible thehistoricaldevelopmentofvariousindustries,especiallythrough show theinfluenceofscientificresearchupontechnologyandtomakevisuallyappre- adopted atthatfoundingmeetingdefinedthepurposeofDeutschesMuseumas‘to However pompous,theprincewasnotbeingidiosyncratic.Thepreliminarystatutes ary driveofmathematicstoward increasingabstraction. matics intheeducationofengineers—arevoltoccasioned inlargepartbythedisciplin- Technische Hochschulen German engineeringschools.Thelastyearsofthe19th centurysawarevoltinthe against thesocialsubordinationofgraduates intellectual andculturalsubordinationoftechnologyto science,andmoreespecially exhibition: question waseffectivelydecidedthroughtheadoptedguidelinesforcollectingand a conceptionoftechnologyasdependentuponsciencefor and thesubordinationofmathematics toengineeringinstructioninthe instrument-maker whocreatedit,accordedtheroleofits ‘inventor’. conceived andemployedtheinstrument,notexceptionally skilledandingenious tific disciplinesorwerescientificideasmaterialized’ message. Rather,hereaselsewhere,‘thetechnicalartifacts stoodaboveallelseforscien- Prussian institutesoftechnology in1899andtotheotherssoonafter. the righttoconferdoctorates—in consequenceofwhichthatrightwasaccordedthe pointing inrathertheopposite direction,theseinstitutionsbegantoagitateobtain Yet itisalsotruethatinGermany,unliketheUSA,protests wereraisedagainstthis If thisstatementleftopenjusthowexclusivelythemuseumwouldpropagandizefor into practice. retically abouttheforcesofnatureandtheirutilization;technologycarriesthatutilization nothing otherthannaturalscience.Thedifferenceconsistsinthis:physicsteachesustheo- the greatsignificanceoftechnology.Technologyisnothingotherthanphysicsand It isnotmytaskheretomakealongspeech,butsurelyIamalloweddrawattention means ofscientificefforts. also tothosebrancheswhoselaterdevelopmenthasbeenoutstandinglyinfluencedby be givenbothtothosebranchesofindustrythatoriginatedoutscientificresearchand outstanding masterpieces,aswellbymeansofdrawingsanddocuments.Attentionisto be presenteddevelopmentallybymeansofhistoricapparatus,models,othertypicaland Such ofthevariousbranchestechnologyasstandincloseconnectionwithscienceareto 192

against thelargeplacethathadearlierbeenaccordedmathe- 194 193 196

such wasbynomeansthemuseum’s 197 —with theastronomerwho Technische Hochschulen 199 History andTechnology

every At thesametime,and

step forward,the 198 200 The‘Dr.Ing.’ Technische , the 195 35 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 of technology that themuseumnotbeusedtopayhomagescience,butpromoteaconception the DeutschesMuseumcametoRiedler’sattention,hewrotevonMillerdemanding ear ofthetechnology-friendlyKaiserWilhelmII fomenting therevoltagainstpuremathematicsin forms ofeliteculture. 1820 intothe1840sAmerican popularmindwasintimidatinglydisrespectfulof all longest byfarbeingthatoftheJacksoniandecadesinantebellum America.Fromabout knowledge. Yettheseaberrationsgainedtractionforonly relativelybriefperiods,the of, evenassaultson,theallegedhegemonyofalearnedelite withitsclaimstosuperior with regardtoitsroleinrelationtechnology—followed fromeachoftheserejections science’s primacy—ofrighttoprimacyfromany perspective,butspecifically and culturalsubordinationof some fewindividualengineersremainedoutspokenindeploringthecontinuingsocial Socialism wassuchapopulistrevolt. tion, oftheprimacysciencetoandfortechnologyare thepopulistrevolts.National that modernitywascharacterizednotonlybyapresumption, butalsobyanaffirma- primacy ofscience. as itis—orboth.Eitherway,theyareimplicitconfirmations,fullyorpartially,ofthe to aconvictionthatscienceisprimarilyresponsiblefortheworldbeinginsobadway to aconvictionthatscienceinfactenjoysprimacy‘rightly’itshouldnothave,or most oftheepisodesthathavebeencategorizedasrevoltsagainstsciencetestifyeither technology inmodernity.Whilesome‘revolts’makeseeminglyinescapabledifficulties, comprehended canhaveforthethesisofthispaper,primacysciencetoand requires tobeexaminedinorderbetterunderstandwhatbearingtheepisodesso historical-conceptual category‘revoltagainstscience’isitselfratherbroadandloose.It has recognizedquiteafewinthelasttwoorthreecenturiesofmodernity?However, already disprovedbythefactofrevoltsagainstscience,whichhistoricalscholarship Can thematterreallystandasIhavepresentedit?Isnotputativeprimacyofscience ‘Revolts’ AgainstScience the these voicesofprotestwasthatAloisRiedler,professormechanicalengineeringat Hochschulen 36 elite wasgivingvoicetoasense ofrelief. decade ofthe18thcenturyand thefirstdecadesof19th,forallitsromanticization nologists andengineers,joinedwithhiscritique’. ‘scarcely oneofRiedler’sacademiccolleagues,tosaynothingthemajoritytech- to hisprotest,Füsslpointsoutthatitfoundnoresonanceattime,inplace: generally inclinedtosidewithRiedler,andthusattributeconsiderableimportance ideologies ofJacobinFrance,JacksonianAmericaandBolshevik Russia. The revoltsagainstsciencethatpresenttheclearestcontradiction ofmycontention By contrast,theromanticrevolt againstsciencethatthrivedinGermanythelast P. Forman Technische Hochschule

put anend,largely,toorganizedeffortsforinstitutionalreforms,but as

culture. 205

That phasepassed,andbyabout 1850theAmericancultural 201

in Berlin.ForRiedler,whohadbeeninstrumental

Although ourpresentdayhistoriansoftechnologyare Technik 203 . Loudestandprobablymostinfluentialamong 206

Similarly populistweretheanti-intellectual . Whentheconstitutivedocumentsof 202 Technische Hochschulen 204

Denials of , hadthe Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 be responsible. was commonlydescribedas ‘technological’, itwasagainsciencethatwidelyheld to deplored conditions. science actuallycontributedlittle,eitherdirectlyor indirectly, toproducingthe conditions oflifeweredeplorable,theblamewaslaid upon science,nomatterthat placed onascholarlyfoundationbyMarcelLafollette. found wonderfullygood.Thisreadiness,socommonlynoticedastobeacliché,was the almostuniversalreadinesstocreditscienceforallchangesinlife-worldthatare Indeed, someofthemostromanticself-fashioningswerethoseengineers. in varyingdegreesalsoscientists,andhumanisticscholars,and,yes,evenengineers. and theself-conceptionofself-consciouslycreativetypes:artists,mostespecially,but late 20thcentury,whileelsewhere—everywhere—significantlyinfluencingtheoutlook romanticism remainedapowerfullyinfluentialtraditioninGermansocietyintothe the culturalprimacyofscienceinmodernity.Forunlikepopulistaberrations, duration ofitsappeal,romanticismmakesthemostseriousdifficultyformythesis as inethicalandaestheticsensibilities.Inthatregard,butstillmorethebreadth of ‘thepeople’,wasneverpopulist,alwaystendedtowardelitisminrelationtoculture primacy. ‘science isresponsible’sort,andareassuchimplicitacknowledgementsofscience’s ‘revolts againstscience’in20thcenturyAmerica.Forthesequiteconsistentlyareofthe serious, forthethesisofthispaper.ItisthereforewithsomereliefthatIturnto All theaforementionedrevoltsagainstsciencepresentsomedifficulty,moreorless science, itdeprecatedtechnologyevenmore. tics. Thiswasinnosmallpartbecausehowevermuchromanticismdeprecatednatural science toandfortechnologywasneverinquestionamongpre-postmodernroman- of thoserelationswithHeideggerandafewhiscontemporaries,theprimacy science andtechnologyinmodernity.Makingallowanceforelementsofaninversion those self-consciouslycreativeofculture,alteredtheroleandrankrelationsbetween its defeatbyWoodrowWilson,northecontinuingromanticstraininmindsetof ing inGermanyfollowingitsdefeatbyNapoleonBonaparte,andagainthat at thatmomentthegeneralinclination wastopraise,notblame,science.When,out of ally seenasindispensableto deterring Sovietaggression,butpartlyalsosimplybecause the firsttodeplorethemwere theatomicscientists,partlybecausesciencewassogener- contributed toitsdevelopment’. social improvementbroughtpraisetoscientists,nomatter howlittletheyhadactually of the20thcentury,shetoogainedstrongimpressionthat‘Eachnewproductand of therepresentationscienceinAmericanmiddle-browmagazinesoverfirsthalf moratorium onscientificresearch. ‘humanist’ criticsofmoderncivilizationonbothsides oftheAtlantic,tocallfora unceasing roarandgrindofurbanlife’,ledtheBishop Ripon,joiningin1927with waterfronts, …hideousfactories,endlessrowsof monotonousdwellings,the Similarly, whentheGreatDepressionsetin,albeitthat the massiveunemployment Yet byandlargeneithertheepisodicsociety-wideromanticrevolts,suchasthataris- 209

This isevidentifonebearsinmindthatsuchrevoltsarebutthereverseof 213

For nuclearweaponsscience largelyescapedblame,partlybecause 211 212

It isthereforeonlylogicalthatthe‘dilapidated

That is,withthesamelogic,ifmaterial 208 210

From herquantitativestudy History andTechnology 207

37 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 dominated CommitteeonScientificResearch. Association ofManufacturers’sappointmentfouryearslaterapure-scientist- which shouldhavebeenthewindoftruthtoclearair,haspollutedair…’. strengthened thepublic’sfaithintechnicalleadershipby scientists. Second WorldWarquashedalmostallskepticismfromwhateverdirectionandgreatly the successofmobilizationscientiststodevelopnewtechnologiesduring nology’. aggrieved publicdoesnotdrawthefinelinebetween“good”scienceand“bad”tech- handing outthe1968NationalMedalsofScience,remindedattendeesthat‘An conditions uponhealth,itwasonceagainsciencethatblamed.PresidentJohnson, the 1960s,thereemergedintenseanxietyabouteffectsofalteredenvironmental 38 advisory roleinthedistribution ofresearchfunds—wereinitiallydrawnalmost central governmentonmatters ofsciencepolicy,andperhapstoplayamorethan the membersof technologies, totechnologic aspectsofeconomicpolicy. ing fromnewtechnologicsystems,throughremediation ofproblemswithdeployed scientists therolesofcritic,judge,andleaderinallmatters relatingtotechnology,rang- sibilities’. ThePresident,pressedandsupportedbythe Congress,hadaccordedto basic researchers—sciencewasthesmallestpartofits‘flabbergasting arrayofrespon- composed almostentirelyofscientists—andthosebyno means‘rocketscientists’,but Advisor andaPresident’sScienceAdvisoryCommittee. Althoughthecommitteewas crisis createdbytheSovietUnion’slaunchofanearthsatellite, ofaPresident’sScience nology wastheappointmentbyPresidentEisenhower,late in1957,responsetothe Roosevelt appointedaScienceAdvisoryBoard, science asresponsiblefortheindustrialsystemincollapse—that1933President solving theproblemsofhumansociety. evicted researcherscould,iftheythenputtheirmindstoit,makeabigcontribution he thenwentonshowhisownfaithinsciencebysuggestingmoreseriouslythatthose reduced iffor,say,tenyearseveryphysicalandchemicallaboratorywereclosed’,but ‘the sumofhumanhappiness,outsidescientificcircles,wouldnotnecessarilybe goals. TheBishopofRiponhadhistonguehalfincheek1927whensurmisingthat tion ofperceivedsocialproblemsasmuchintheachievementnewtechnological quarters ofthe20thcenturypubliclookedtoscience’sleadershipinremedia- altered byman.Itfollowsthen,bothlogicallyandinfact,thatthroughthefirstthree responsibility fortheworldinwhateverwayandtoextentithasrecentlybeen fundamental toeveryformofengineering,socialaswellindustrial. Science AdvisoryBoard,theirskepticismdidnotextendtodoubtsthatsciencewas fundamental researchinthenaturalsciencesaswasrecommendedbypresident’s economic andsocialproblemstocomefromtheexpenditureoflargesumsfor pressing planning-oriented, innercircleexpectedlittleimmediatereliefofthenation’s In averysimilarwayinWest Germany,asCarsonandOsietzkihavepointedout, The fullestexpressionofthisfaithinthescientistasboth seerandmastereroftech- It wasthereforeamorethanlogicalresponseto‘therisingrevoltagainstscience’— Unmistakable inthesereproachesisthepresumptionofscience’scomprehensive P. Forman 214

While forcriticsfartheronthelefttherewasnolineleft:‘preciselyscience Deutscher Forschungsrat 216 218 —formed around1950to advise the

If FDR’sexceptionallyun-ideological, 217

and solikewisetheNational 221 220 219

In anycase, 215 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 mid 1950s, in theconceptionandpromotionofanuclearreactorstationforWestGermany ment ofscientistsintogovernmenttoworkonthoseproblems. ising approachtothesolutionofproblemstechnologicalorder:recruit- conference Hutchins,quiteinagreementwiththeotherconferees,sawonlyoneprom- expressing averyderogatoryviewofthemoralcharacternaturalscientists,atthis for technology,andnotwithstandingthatHutchinswasataboutthissametime lebensphilosophisch all Mumford’s writingwasimbuedwith‘Life’rhetoricandappealstoromantic- and scienceasshaperofthecontemporarylife-world. Notwithoutsomereason: placing littlevalueandmuchblameonscience,science bothasamodeofthinking widely takenthen,andhehasbeenbyhistorians ofeverystripesincethen,as scientists couldandshouldspeakalsofortechnicalfields. entirely fromthepure,natural,sciences,foritwastakenasamatterofcoursethatsuch most seriousattackstheyhadtoconfrontinthatmutinous time. chine’ and‘scienceastechnology’seemtospokespersons forscienceasamongthe of-the-month-club middle-browsuccessthatmadehis tiradesagainst‘themegama- Only with importance forseveralscholarlyfields,thehistoryoftechnologymostespecially. century American‘publicintellectuals’,andheremainstothisdayafigureofprime 1000 articles,columns,andreviews—Mumfordwasoneofthemostprominent20th synthesist, andproponentofculturalrenewalinthebroadestsense—25books,overa begun about1920.Oversixdecadesaswide-rangingandhugelyprolificcritic, In the1960sandearly1970sLewisMumfordreachedapogeeofacareerthathad Lewis Mumford Technological Society a ‘Conference ontheTechnologicalOrder’,inspireddirectlybyJacquesEllul’s ing hisCenterfortheStudyofDemocraticInstitutions,Hutchinsorganizedin1962 suggested bytheviewsofotherwiseiconoclasticRobertM.Hutchins.Thendirect- Just howunthinkableatthattimewasanyotherdirectioninwhichtoseeksalvationis exception. respect—affirming thepreposterous primacyofsciencerelativetotechnology—no course ofthe1970s.Toanticipate: Mumford,forallhisexceptionality,wasinthis for discussionoftheexclusion ofsciencefromthehistorytechnologyover science inWesternculture generally throughthe1970sandanecessarypreparation and technology,isbothanecessarytestofmycontention ofthecontinuedprimacy Mumford’s viewofscience,andmoreparticularlythe relationshipbetweenscience leadership. knowledge, imaginationand(thoughthiswasnegotiable)asubstantialcomponentof nology, andnewtechnologychangestheworld.…Science,finally,wouldsupply predominant linearmodeloftechnologydevelopment—newsciencegeneratesnewtech- The plansforthecenter,likemanyofthatera,wereinstinctivelypredicatedon The PentagonofPower 223

values, aclaptrapwithdistinctlyanti-scientificfiliations. . 224

Notwithstanding thatEllulexplicitlydeniedscience’sprimacy

(1970), however,didMumfordachievethebook- 222 History andTechnology

Likewise, Carsonfound, 225 227

Mumford was 228

Thus The 226 39 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 that theabstract,mechanisticviewofworldhadwon overman. on personalityassourceofcreativity, Dewey’s aswaspossiblegiventhatMumfordsidedwith the romanticartist’sinsistence science, andnotmerelyofscience’sroleinrelationtotechnology, wasaboutascloseto the matteratissue—‘naturalsciencethroughtechnologies’—Mumford’s appraisalof better positiontofulfilltheendsoflifeitself’. simply byunderstandingscienceandtechnologyconceivedasinstrumentsweareina proclaimed hisgeneration’srecognitionoftheinsufficiencyDewey’s‘beliefthat these lasttenyears,nottohavefeltthestingofthiscriticismbefore?’—Mumford Dewey inthethirdpersonwithsomescornandsarcasm—‘whereonearthhashebeen all toosimilartotheworldviewof‘MrBabbitt’. coloration’ wasapredominantqualityofDewey’smind,andthatinstrumentalism judged that‘MrDewey’spagesareasdepressingasubwayride’,‘protective ad hominem War. TurningtoDewey’sversionofpragmatism,instrumentalism,Mumfordturned pragmatic acquiescence’toAmericanmaterialisminthedecadesfollowingCivil deplored waspragmatism’s‘preoccupation…withscienceandtechnology’‘the Dewey. ThereMumfordcouldnothaveimagineddisagreement.What in thephrase‘naturalsciencethroughtechnologies’,alreadyquoteddiscussing Mumford wasnottakingissuewiththesubordinationoftechnologytoscienceimplicit primarily withscienceandasscientist. At thedatementioned,andforalmostadecadeafter,Mumfordidentifiedhimself 40 tions ofsocialandculturallife,onecanpairaverysimilar Deweyandictum. every oneofMumford’sdictaoverthefollowingyearsregarding desirabletransforma- that ofamanletters—Mumfordremainedfundamentally theDeweyan:toalmost himself fromDewey—aspartofhisprogramexchanging hisscientistpersonafor founded. including, inparticular,thatfullfaithscienceonwhichDeweyanpragmatismwas intellectuals whocametoconceivethemselvesasinrevoltagainstVictorianvalues, Mumfordian romantic- the causal,determinative,originative roleofscienceinrelationtotechnology. primacy ofscience Strenuously thoughMumford,sometimepragmatist,sought circa1926todistance Born in1895NewYorkCity,MumfordwasofagenerationUSartistsand P. Forman scientists begantocreateanewworld ofsteelandironchemistryelectricity The originalmistake,whichwas responsibleforallthismisery,wascommittedwhenour than theking’shorsesandmenhelpedHumpty-Dumpty. science throughtechnologiesequipsmankind’willnotinthissituationhelpusmuchmore talism hasleftusimpotent:allthe‘agenciesandinstrumentalitieswithwhichnatural Acting alone,withoutacounterpoiseinthecreativeimagination,ournarrowinstrumen- note appendedtoanarticleofminein1914proudlystatedthatIwasapragmatist. A PluralisticUniversebeforeIhadreadawordofPlato…andtheveryfirstbiographic Roughly speaking,mostofmygenerationbeganaspragmatists.IstudiedPragmatismand 229

. Takingliterarystyleasanindicationof‘mentalrhythm’,Mumford for

technology inthestrongest, most categoricalterms,insistingon lebensphilosophisch 235 231

and deploredthehegemonyexclusiveofLife

indictment ofphysicalscience affirmedthe Now, however,earlyin1927,addressing 233 232 236

That is,the 230 234

As to Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Day modern man’sincontestableontology,appearsintheopeningchapterof process bywhichtheworldviewofphysicalsciencebecamehegemonic, The earliestversionofMumford’srepeatedlyretolddramatizationthehistorical technology. turned tothehistoryoftechnology,exaggeratescience’sputativeprimacyandfor presumption asmodernoftheprimacyscience,but,ironically,ledhim,whenhe miserable asitis.Mumford’sromanticrejectionofscientismnotonlybespokehis basis andreasonforourlifeworld,themodernindustrial–technicalbeingas Mumford’s critiqueoftheworldviewphysicalscienceconstituteanexposure Only ifscienceissupposedtohavesucharoleinrelationtechnologycould honorifically—reappear in cists—that is,precedemodern technologiesandtechnologiststemporally,causally, All thesemetaphorsandmechanisms bywhichscientiststakeprecedenceovertechni- further metaphors—notably,scientistsasagroupconstituting amilitarygeneralstaff: phase, expandedhisaccountofthecomingmachine andstrengtheneditwith and decisively,inthematerialworldoftechnologyindustry. pathfinder—pathfinder intherealmofmind,firstall,andthen,consequentially physicists. Andtheimageofscientistlatenthereiswell-familiarmetaphor as Mumfordwouldcometocallit,arenottechnicistsbutphilosophicallyengaged The protagonistsinthis‘drama…ofthecomingmachineintomodernsociety’, In 1930inanessay (1926): group ofcourageousleaders. forgot thatthehumanmind…marchesfromonetothreehundredyearsbehindsmall modern world. proper, andtheirinventiveleaders. Fivecenturieswereneededtosetthestagefor scientific advance-guardcametheshocktroops,miners, woodmen,thesoldiers their abstractequivalents,namely,steam-engines,locomotives,rifles, cranes.Behindthe duce—as infactitfirstdid—cumbrousmechanicalmenor horses,insteadof would nothavebeenadopted,andinventionprobably havesoughttorepro- abstract descriptions,theusefulhabitofisolatingcertainmovements andsequences invent asuperiortactics.Thesearethephysicistsandmathematicians; withouttheir general staff,whowouldseeadozenmovesbeyondtheimmediate strategyandwould ment hadbeentrained;aboveall,itwasnecessarytogatheragroup ofcreativeminds,a [T]he armyofmachinescouldnottakepossessionmodernsociety untileverydepart- the baker. merely tobakethebread,butincreaseyieldofwheat,grindflour,andeliminate was accompaniedbysomanycogentproofsofscience’spower.…scienceready,not operations thatledtoresults.…Anewviewoftheuniversewasacceptedbecauseit analysis andexperiment.…weighing,measuring,timing,decomposing,isolating—all motion. Alongthispathwenttheearlyscientists,ornaturalphilosophers.Bymathematical abstractions, andreducedtherichactualityofthingstoabaredescriptionmatterin to whatseemedhimhardandpatentreality:theexternalworld.…hetookrefugein Once theEuropean,indeed,hadabandoneddreamofmedievaltheology…heturned 238 239 Scribner’s Magazine Technics andCivilization 237 , Mumford,theninhisbriefphilotechnic (1934): History andTechnology The Golden 41 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 described, buthisviewofwhat infactthepursuitofsciencehadlargelycometobe in decades—not Mumford’sview oftheideality,norultimatereality,science so In justthisregardMumford’s viewofsciencechangeddrasticallyinthefollowing Plato andAristotlefromantiquity: Dewey inaffirmingacontinuingadherencetohierarchy ofvaluesderivingthrough end ofhislifeanunreconstructedculturalelitist,was much lessinhibitedthanwas terested scientist,ofthosemanyengagedinmakingthingsthatwork.Mumford,tothe We havealreadyheardfromDeweysuchdenigration,relativetotheabstractanddisin- Moreover, of technologicalhistory,theneotechnic: extension ofitsmethodstoothersubjectmatterswasemerginganewandbetterphase of thisdramainthe19thand20thcenturies.Directlyoutphysicalresearch and 17thcenturieshethenaffirmedstillmoreemphaticallyindescribingtheunfolding That precedenceofsciencetotechnologywhichMumfordascribedtherethe16th 42 P. Forman the statesofmindtheyproduceas wellasfortheexternalconditionstheychange. as theartsexist,notsimplyameans ofexploitingnature,butasamodelife:goodfor Clerk-Maxwell, aGibbs,wereuntouchedbypragmaticsanctions: forthemscienceexisted, to termsofimmediateprofitandsuccess.Thescientiststhe first order,aFaraday, nineteenth centurytoactasacounterweightthepassionatedesire toreduceallexistence cations, begantofillupageneralreservoirofideas…it[science] cameduringthe plative isolation,soforeigntothepushofpracticalsuccessand lureofimmediateappli- as themostfactualpragmaticresearch.Indeed,thisfreedom,remoteness, thiscontem- … thefactwasthataliberatedscientificcuriositymightatanymoment proveasvaluable in theprocessofinvention. The translationofthescientificknowledgeintopracticalinstrumentswasamereincident from thescientistwhoestablishesgenerallaw:inventionisaderivativeproduct.… In theneotechnicphase,maininitiativecomes,notfromingeniousinventor,but was tohaveaparticularlyimportanteffectupontechnics. also becametheobjectsofsystematicinvestigation,and…extensionsciencehere took possessionofotherdomainsexperience:thelivingorganismandhumansociety tific method,whosechiefadvanceshadbeeninmathematicsandthephysicalsciences, With theneotechnicphase,twofactsofcriticalimportancebecomeplain.First,scien- whole effort. nics, andthedirectionoftechnicstowardconquestnaturewereburden outline thespecificationsforneworder:useofscienceadvancementtech- … Leonardo,Andreae,Campanella,Bacon,HookeandGlanvillwrotedownin commanders inthefieldhaddevelopedatacticscapableofcarryingoutattackdetail. The generalstaffofsciencehadworkedoutthestrategycampaignlongbefore improvements: themechanicalWeltbildhadcomeintoexistence. lines, whichservedasastartingpointforallphysicalsciencesandfurthertechnical century, thereexistedafullyarticulatedphilosophyoftheuniverse,onpurelymechanical the end[of17thcentury]despiterelativesterilityofinventionitselfduringthis science, elaborateditsspecialtechniqueofresearch,anddemonstratedefficacy.…At A seriesofthinkers,Bacon,Descartes,Galileo,Pascal,definedtheprovince 241 243 242 240 244 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 primacy ofmind’. World Warevenmorestronglycommittedthanhehadbeeninearlierdecadesto‘the science. Ontheotherhand,Mumford,likesomanyothers,cameoutofSecond late 19thandearly20thcenturies,weretobeascribedalmostwhollysolely for Mumfordhisearlierviewthattheneotechnictechnologies,thoseemergingin modern andpremodern,of theprimacyofscience through allofMumford’slaterwriting. in rankaswellrole—ortheantipathytowardtechnologicactivitysuchthatruns primacy thatsciencecontinuedtoholdovertechnologyinMumford’smind—primacy worldly gainsandhisdisinterestedpursuitoftruth’,thereisnomistakingeitherthe qualities thatwereexaltedinthepastashisspecialhallmark:detachmentfrom ized byitsverysuccessasanagentoftechnology’and‘thescientisthasforfeitedthe expansion ofscienceasmasstechnology’throughwhichhas‘becomedemoral- the courseof20thcentury.YetinallMumford’ssubsequentrailingagainst‘the of nuclearweapons. of thewartimemobilizationscientistsastechnologists,especiallytheirachievement this followedforMumford,justashiscontemporariesgenerally,fromthesuccess about intwoways,oddlyantitheticbutbothtypicalforthatperiod.Ontheonehand, primacy thatinthe1930shehadattributedtosciencerelativetechnology.Thiscame The MumfordemergingfromtheSecondWorldWarincreasedstillfurther and awaythemostimportantpartofthatequipment. life’, Mumfordinsistedthat‘man’soverdevelopedandincessantlyactivebrain’wasfar technics, moreespecially,as‘butafragmentofbiotechnics:man’stotalequipmentfor persons creativelyengagedwithit.Regardingmaterialtechnics,generally,andtool- the importance,throughoutallrecordedhistory,oftheoreticalscienceand three decadesofhiswritinglife,Mumforddown-graded‘tool-technics’andincreased presumption oftheprimacy ofscience originated fromscience.More thanthat:Mumfordaffirmednotonlythemodern science fortechnology,elaborating accountsofhowtechnology,ancientandmodern, ical observationsandscientificcalculations’. the nascentscienceofastronomy’,megamachine‘sprang directly’from‘astronom- system’. Composedwhollyofmenandideas,‘aproduct ofmyth,magic,religion,and ‘radically newtypeofsocialorganization’,thatis,a merely‘abstractmechanical transformation atthatdawnofcivilizationwasthecreation ofthe‘megamachine’,a back fromthe16thand17thcenturiesto4thmillennium BC.Thedecisivetechnical bolts’ machines—Mumfordmovedtheepochcrucialfor inceptionofmechanization sions inthattitleisdoubtlesstohisnewbigideaofthe small importanceof‘nutsand Technics andCivilization roles engagingdirectlywiththem.Alreadyin1944Mumfordwashalfapologeticfor ment oftheimportancetobeattributed‘tool-technics’andthoseoccupational Evidently, then,fromearly to late,Mumfordaffirmedemphaticallytheprimacyof In thefirstvolumeof With Mumfordthislate-modernmentalismexpresseditselfasafurtherdiminish- 247 246

The scientists’creationofnewmilitarytechnologiesconfirmed The MythoftheMachine

having been‘whollydevoted’totechnics. for 245

technology, butalsothepresumption, both 250

(1967)—and oneoftheintendedallu- to 249 technology. Worsethanthat: History andTechnology 248

In theremaining 43 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 on the19thcentury—forthatcenturywasprologue to that amongMumford’slatewritingscomesclosesttobeing atestament.Lookingback neer andengineeringweremadeexplicitinanessay,‘Prologue toOurTime’(1975), temporal focusisthe20thcentury.Thevaluationsunderlying thatabsenceoftheengi- of Power much more. tion oftechnologycouldserveonlytoelevateMumford’svaluationsciencethat given Mumford’spresuppositionoftheprimacysciencefortechnology,anyeleva- diminishment ofthevalueMumfordplacedonscience,justoppositewascase: upward saltationinMumford’svaluationoftechnologybeingaccompaniedbya ‘distinguished individualinventorslikeEdison,Baekeland,andSperry’. in allitsaspects,Mumfordgavethecreditforneotechnicsonlytoscientists,plusafew becomes thecharacteristic,indeednearlyexclusive,operativeandimproveroftechnics neotechnic isexactlycoincidentwiththeperiodinwhichprofessionalengineer creation, deploymentandmaintenanceofneotechnics.Notwithstandingthatthe enthusiastic abouttheengineer,i.e.thosepersonsprofessionallyengagedin by 1934Mumfordwasnolongerable,ashehadbrieflybeenafewyearsearlier,tobe Mumford, wasideal. Science andartflourishing and enduring,whiletechnologyisobliterated.That,for symbolizing theemergenceofanewculturalsynthesis. lost, abeliefinfunctionalarchitectureandthemachineaestheticasembodying In 1927,Mumfordquitesuddenlyacquired,andthenaround1934,almostas neers moreespecially—excepting,butonlypartially,theyearsfrom1927to1935. Mumford, asromantic,hadaconsistentlyunfavorableviewoftechnology,andengi- 44 century whoseartheapproved—Mumfordfound: grudgingly. accomplishments ofengineers,iftheyaredescribedat all,aretreatedcursorilyand the subjectitselfdemandsattentiontoengineer,Mumfordpaysalmostnone.The books—and notleastinMumford’sbiggest, sion toelevatetheengineer,noteven‘systemsengineer’.Inallofthoselater engineer’ inThomasMann’s engineer’, andadducedasitstypicalproductHansCastorp,the‘half-bakednautical Mumford expresseddisdainfor‘thespecialized,one-sided,factualeducationofthe phase waswaning.The and cultureonceagainformabeautifulwhole,astheyhadinmedievalEurope. loosed hiseffusionstherewereofalife-fulfilling‘neotechnic’erainwhichman,society As Mumforddownplayed‘tool-technics’inthefollowingdecades,hefoundnoocca- Even asMumfordwaswriting P. Forman moments inhumanculture. creativity oftheWesternmind wouldstillhavemadethisoneofthemostnotable nical triumphssince1815hadbeen wipedouttheinstanttheyoccurred,exuberant tists nolessthanartists—whowereequallyexaltedbyafreshvision oflife.…Ifallthetech- Ranged alongsideRodinwerethemanymightyspiritsofnineteenth century—scien-

(1970)—are nottobefoundintheindex—notwithstanding thatthebook’s 257 253

Thus theengineerandengineeringarealmostabsentfrom telos

of Mumford’snarrativeinthatbook,andtheprospect 258 The MagicMountain Technics andCivilization The CityinHistory . 256 252

his

(1934), hisphilotechnic Yet farfromthatbrief

time andwasthelast

(1961)—even where 255 The Pentagon

In sodoing, 254 251 Yet Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 the good. value in‘life’—‘life’asthefundamental,irreducible,not-further-explicable,groundof German romanticismwasalwaysa far fromwishingtodefame Heidegger,hadmuchsympathyforatleasttheearly surmise, however,thatthebook waswrittenalmostentirelybyKamlah,asLorenzen, lebensphilosophisch naturally foundanespeciallystrongresonanceinGermanyduetotheromantic- of postmodernity,inthewake1960srevoltagainstvalue-freescience—which Of thisthelaterHeideggerismostpertinentexample. with technology,denigrateditasinseparableandindistinguishablefromtechnology. the onehand,romanticsdenigratedphysicalsciencebecauseofitscloseconnection remains specialevendisregardingtheNationalSocialistperiodasextra-special.On Germany, becauseofitsromantictradition,presentsaspecialcase—acasethat The 1970sWereStillModern:ErlangenSchoolandStarnberg Pre-School forTalkingSense wide attentionto‘theErlangen school’,wastheanti-Heideggerian theologian WilhelmKamlah. chair ofphilosophyatErlangenUniversity,joiningthere hisfriend,thephilosopher– In 1962themetamathematician–logicianPaulLorenzen, age47,wasappointedtoa Starnberg school. the positionsdevelopedonthisissuein1970sby Erlangenschoolandbythe points asdemarcationcriterionbetweenmodernityand postmodernity, thatIconsider science andtechnology,tojustifymytakingthedifference betweenthoseview- distinction betweenthemodernandpostmodern views oftherelationbetween some mannerordegreeasserttheprimacyoftechnology. Itisthentosharpenthe tions regardingtherealorrequiredrelationsbetweenscience andtechnologythatin primacy oftechnology. pessimism, asitusuallywasinGermany,toa‘discovery’,suchHeidegger’s,ofthe romantic animusagainsttechnologyandphysicalscience,ifjoinedwithadeepcultural understanding. fundamental prejudicesregardingthemoralandculturalvalueofdisinterested nents oftheprimacypracticewerepreventedfrombeingsologicalbyequally with Veblentoo,whoseoutlookwasclosetotheirs),eventhemostprincipledpropo- primacy totechnology.Nonetheless,aswesawwithMarxandSombart(and from theearly19thcenturytolate20thshould,logically,haveattributed as grounding, technology waseveradvancedpriortopostmodernity. ity astechnology.Nosuchun-antagonistic,non-punitivecategorizationofscience then tobeableviewtechnologywithoutdisdainandscienceanimos- ogy, ontheoneside,andwithexaltationofidea/idealotherinorder cal culturechange—wastobreaksufficientlywiththeromanticdevaluationoftechnol- Thus littleoriginalityorindependenceofmindwasrequiredtoproceedfromthe 260

To theextentthatpurposivenesswaspresupposedinthisappealto‘life’ Lebensphilosophie

coloring ofalmostallGermanthought 261

What requiredoriginality—or,morethanoriginality:radi-

(1967), whichin20yearssold some50,000copies. 264

was aformofpragmatism.Assuch,Germanthought Their principalcollaboration andtheworkthatdrew Lebensphilosophie , agroundingofknowledgeand 262 263

However, onthethreshold History andTechnology —there appearedconten- 259

On theotherhand, Logical Propaedeutic: 265 45 I Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 tions as‘technical’. in 1965,buteventually,Lorenzenwoulddescribethosefundamentalphysicalopera- Then twopageslater,fromthat epistemic‘is’toaseeminglypostmodern‘ought’: means thatthoughtmustbeginwithlife’. Lorenzen thenpointedtoHeidegger(andGeorgMisch)ashaving‘madeclearwhatit matic essay,publishedinbothEnglishandGerman1965,quotedDilthey’s Heidegger’s 46 himself tohavejustonetask: ogy oftheresearcherwhounravelsnature’ssecrets, the physicistwillunderstand the desirabilityofareformationphysicsthroughwhich, ‘inplaceofthemustyideol- product ofthe1960srevoltagainstvalue-freescience,urgedinhisinaugurallecture 1969). AdvancingrapidlytoaprofessorshipatConstanceUniversity(1973),Janich, program, andcuratorofDingler’slegacy,wasLorenzen’sstudent,PeterJanich(PhD and itsprolongationatConstanceUniversity. Dingler havecontinuedtobeadistinguishingmarkoftheworkErlangenschool mathematics whollyanduniquelyuponelementarynumericaloperations. ral sciencewouldbecreatedinamanneranalogoustotheintuitionists’foundingof basis ofelementaryphysicaloperations,secureandindubitablefoundationsfornatu- science. Throughtheconstructionofa‘protophysics’length,massandtime,on transcendental pragmatismunderlyingintuitionistconstructivismovertonatural tician intheintuitionistdirectionandhisprogramasphilosopherwastocarry ern epistemic‘is’: dependence uponphysics—Janichadvancedfiveyears later toaseeminglypostmod- left ‘ought’—an‘ought’thatremainsmodernistinitspresupposition oftechnology’s tion ofDingler’sreputationasepistemologist. Fundamentalwissenschaften’ (1943),Lorenzendevotedmuchefforttotheresuscita- ‘methodical’. BeginningwiththeeditionofDingler’sunpublished‘Aufbauderexakten ation, withoriginatingthisfoundationalistprogramandadoptedDingler’slabel credited HugoDingler,aradicallyrightistphilosopherofphysicsthepreviousgener- phie The principalelaboratorandstandard-bearerofLorenzen’s‘protophysics’ It isonefurtherillustrationofhowclosetogether,epistemologically,

P. Forman brought thepoliticalleftandrightinGermany,thatleftistLorenzen rather thantechnologyasanapplication ofnaturalscience. in anewway.Naturalscienceisto beunderstoodasasecondaryconsequenceoftechnology Consequently, therelationbetween naturalscienceandtechnologywillhavetobedefined artificial processesorstatesratherthanasasearchfortruesentences. construction ofmachinesratherthanasaninquiryintonature, anattempttoproduce appropriately asengineeringratherthanascientificactivity, properlyspeaking,asa doing experimentsismoreanactivitytoproduce prevailing inthepresenttime. direction ofphilosophyiscontained,beginninginthenineteenthcenturyandslowly Erkenntnis nichtzurückgehen.)…asaformulainwhichfundamentalchangethe … remarkablestatement:‘KnowledgecannotgobehindLife’.(HinterdasLebenkanndie lebensphilosophisch 269 enabling technology 266

pragmatism. ThusLorenzen,inhisprincipalprogram- 267

Lorenzen was,namely,ametamathema- 270 technical effects ’.

271 Down tothepresentdaytributes Fromthattypicallate-1960snew 273 , whichcanbedescribed 272 Lebensphiloso- 268

Not yet Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Janich hadquitebackedawayfromthiscontention. only inEnglish.Farfromthisbeinghisentranceintopostmodernity,bythelate1980s I haveseenhemadethestatementsquotedonlythatonce—andoncewas scientists throughoutEurope andAmericainthecourseof1960s. accord withthegeneralextension ofinterestinthe‘implicationsscience’among to environmentalpreservation policiesandthird-worlddevelopmentpolicies,quite in University, hadbeenoverseeing suchextra-universityanalyticalwork,withextensions that vonWeizsäcker,leaning outofhischairasprofessorphilosophyatHamburg scientists foreswearingworkonnuclearweapons.Theinstitute’s titlereflectedthefact strongly eversinceheputtogetherthe1957‘GöttingenDeclaration’ ofGermanatomic on alargerscaletheanalyses,initiallyofnuclearweapons policies,thathadengagedhim into existenceonJanuary1,1970,toenableCarlFriedrich vonWeizsäckertopursue knew. Janich’s epistemic‘is’parallelsthatofFelixAuerbach,whose1923bookheprobably to whichnocontentorthesiswasattached. Technik as-technology claimthatwentnearlysofar. seen, neither LorenzennoranyothermemberoftheErlangenschoolmadeascience- to postmodernity. nology, anddidsoatadate,1978,thatmustberegardedasnotyetoverthethreshold primacy toandfortechnology,indeedreversedasbetweensciencetech- in rankbetweenscienceandtechnology. experimental sciencesonwhichhehadbuilthiscase,hasalsoreversedthedifference worldview: notonlyhasJanichdroppedthedistinctionbetweenobservationaland between that‘is’statementandthefollowing‘ought’thereisadifferenceof sciences notcontenttocontemplateNaturebutdesiringrathermasterHer.Thus ally sympathizingwiththislong-familiarromanticcanarddirectedagainstthose reveals throughhisrhetoricthat,unlikeAuerbach,heisnotmerelyrestatingbutactu- true, truth-seekingscience,demotingittothelevelofengineering.Janich,however, Life-Conditions oftheScientific-technicalWorld. the task-group on‘Alternativesin Science’attheMaxPlanckInstitutetoExplore the guide-lines ofthedevelopmentscientifictheoryitself’wasconception Starnberg school.This‘processthroughwhichexternal goalsforsciencebecome than anyproductoftheErlangenschoolwas‘finalization theory’proposedbythe With aninstitutionalprominenceandintellectual–political controversialityfargreater earlier. animosity andpunitiveintentthataresoevidentinJanich’scontentionstwodecades is quiteinthespiritofpostmodernity:pragmatic,pluralist,andfreeromantic science oneamongtheothers. ogy, buttheelevationoftechnologyasmodelfor writings inthelate1990sitwasnolongerademotionofsciencetoleveltechnol- In thisradicalform,Janich’s1978claimremainedananomaly.SofarasIhave Though hisargumentslackedlogic,Janichdidunquestionablydenyscience’s 274 wasakeywordforthem,butitremainednothingmorethanthat:

In thatfirstquotedpassageJanichdeniedexperimentalsciencethedignityof 278

In thislaterformtheassertedprimacyoftechnology 276 275

Janich wasaprolificwriter,butsofaras

True, inthelate1970sandearly1980s all 279

higher culturalconstructions,with 277

That institutehadbeenbrought

When itappearedagaininhis History andTechnology 280 47 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 its prescientific–technicalorigins’. the creationofascience,anyinvolves‘detaching thescientificexperiencefrom doubt thatscience,beingnecessarilytranscended itstechnologicalorigins;that on theoriginsofpre-paradigmaticscienceincrafttechniques andpractices,hadno Thus theStarnberger,nomatterthattheydevotedthemselves toZilsel-inspiredessays 48 digmatic stageofscientific development endwiththeattainmentof‘closed-off for alltime’. notion of‘aclosed-offtheory’ promotedbyHeisenberg:‘Closed-offtheoriesarevalid from theoverreachingclaims ofthetheoreticalphysiciststhatday,specifically ‘mature’ science.Theconcept andwarrantforthisfinalstagetheydrew,ironically, in thedevelopmentofeverysciencetheyaddedathird stageofpost-paradigmaticor process ofdevelopment.Thatis,toKuhn’spre-paradigmatic andparadigmaticstages to eachofwhichtherecorrespondedascience,and everyscienceathree-stage tific realism,theStarnbergersawworldascomprising justsomanynaturalkinds, science totechnology(and,likewise,theErlanger’s‘Dingler-Komplex’). its-own-sake science,theStarnbergeremphaticallyrejectedErlanger’sdemotionof discussion partners,andsharedtheErlangenanimusagainstdiscipline-directed,for- nized intheErlangenschoolitsmostpertinent,andlargelysimilarlyintentioned literature theorizingscientificdevelopment.ThuswhiletheStarnberggrouprecog- and, stillmore,fromtherecent,Kuhn-dominated,Westernhistorical–philosophical their discoveryofthewritingsEdgarZilselonsocialoriginsmodernscience, Erlangen school,theprincipalinspirationof‘Alternatives’enterprisecamefrom himself hadrelativelylittleinterestin scientific basisforgovernmentpoliciessupportiveoftheMPG.AsvonWeizsäcker von Weizsäckerforadviceonsciencepolicyandhopedthathewoulddevelopasolid been largelyontheinitiativeofitsExecutiveDirectorandPresident,wholookedto ready accesstotheMunichheadquartersofMPG:creationinstitutehad and collaboratorsasufficientlydistancedviewofthescientific–technicalworld,yet Lake, 30minutesontheS-trainsouthofMunich,instituteaffordedvonWeizsäcker Böhme, theStarnberger’sleadingspokesman,insistedthat: vance’ inscientificresearch. theorizing withtheintentionofprovidingafoundationfor1960sdemand‘rele- sophical seminar,turnedfrompracticalsciencepolicyquestionstoworld-historical largely ofleft-leaningstudentsandassistantsbroughtalongfromhisHamburgphilo- collaborators, his‘AlternativesinScience’task-grouponsciencepolicy,madeup Far fromchallengingtheepistemicpresuppositionsof modern disciplinaryscien- Quite incontrastwiththehome-grownhermeneuticaltraditionthatinspired Situated inthelovelytownofStarnberg,onlargeandlargelyunspoiledStarnberg P. Forman correctable onthebasisofthoseideals. are transgressed,becomingideals,andconsequentlythecraftrulesbecomecriticizable ior consistsnamelyinthis:thatthedeterminativeobjectsorconditionsofmanualcraft transforms manualrulesintoregulativeonesgivingacompulsoryformtoscientificbehav- certain extentinsciencea‘highlystylized’form.…[However]thehighstylizationthat Yes, theprotophysicistsmaintainthatrulesofthumbhandworkerreappeartoa 285

Thus theStarnberger,using HeisenbergagainstKuhn,hadthepara- 281 284 283 science

policy andasheheldnoreinsonhis 282

Gernot Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 predictive powerofits‘closed’theoreticalapparatus. role inrelationtotechnologicalinnovation—anddidsoquitespecificallythroughthe retained itselevatedpositionrelativetotechnology,butgreatlyincreasedleadership reconvergence upontechnology,theStarnbergerconceivedthatasciencenotonly of scienceassuchincreatingtheterm‘finalization’forthatpost-paradigmaticstage scientists. ‘Webelieveit’—theinternal–externaldistinction— internal–external distinctionandontheautonomyofscience whenscientistsarebeing evidence ofpostmodernity,KrohnandvandenDaele werestillinsistingonthe matic stage: place oftheinternallogicdisciplinarydevelopmentcharacteristicparadig- determination ofitsfuturecoursedevelopmentbyextrinsic,sociallydefinedendsin future forthenowmaturescienceexceptacceptanceofits‘finalization’,thatis, theory’ specifictothatscience.Withitsintrinsictruthrealized,thereremainedno modernization assimilatethe modesofscientificoperation’. operation’ asamodelfor modernizing societiestoemulate:‘socialandpolitical arship inpostmodernity continuingtoconceivethat‘scienceoffersitsmode of Krohn andvandenDaeleareperhapsevenmoreoutof touchwithcultureandschol- conformity withtheories’—orshouldbe. science, ‘scientificadvancebecomesgoal-orientedandtechnologiesareplannedin logically definedgoals.Inthisfinalstageofdevelopmentascience,anyevery —in otherwords,reorientationofresearchfromdisciplinarilydefinedgoalstotechno- Thus, Indeed, the revivalofthattheorybytwoitsoriginalproponents. most pertinent—becomesespeciallyclearintheproposals madeinthelate1990sfor preconceptions—among whichtheprimacyofsciencetoandfortechnologyisonly virtues ofliberal,democratic, progressivesocieties,andhenceanysocietyaspiring to science, asinstitutionand amodeofoperation,embodiesinthehighestdegree That thereisinthetheoryoffinalizationanarrayunreflectivelymodernist differences thatremainbetweendoingresearchandmakingmoney. ment ofscientistsinthenetworksinnovation,ononehand, andthefunctional all themoreimportantandnecessaryinordertoaccountadequately forboththeinvolve- beginning ofthepossibilitytheoreticaldevelopmentinpursuitsocialgoals. the terminationoftheoreticaldevelopmentswithinthosefields;rather,itsignifies science, musteventuallycometoacloseinalldisciplines.Thisdoesnot,however,mean the paradigmaticphaseofscientificdevelopment,oftenpresentedas‘GoldenAge’ goals intothetheoreticalresearchprogramofafieldismadepossibleandrequired. we assume‘theoreticalmaturity’tobethepropertybywhichintegrationofexternal theory foritssubjectmatterisformulated. completed itswork.Thefundamentalproblemsofadisciplineareresolvedwhengeneral or fieldofknowledge)reachesastatematurityasresultwhichitcanbesaidtohave The finalizationthesispostulatesthatinthecourseofitsdevelopmentascience(discipline, 289 286

Thus, farfromintendingtosuggestanend 290 History andTechnology 291 292

293 In thefaceofall

The notionthat 288 287 49 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 the auspicesofAmericanAcademyArtsandSciences(Cambridge,MA). more especially,theCommissiononYear2000,whichhefoundedin1964under Commission onTechnology,Automation,andEconomicProgress(1964–6),and, sociology—at ColumbiaUniversity(1959–69)andthenatHarvard—theNational eventually intheworldatlarge.Thevenuesforhisforecastingeffortswerechairsof of theconditionsproductionandsociallife,inUSAfirstinstance years ofactivereflectiononthelikelycharacteristicsananticipatedtransformation Post-Industrial Society:AVentureinSocialForecasting stages astechnologicalphases. self-understanding andself-representation ofphysicistsinthe1960s,claimswhose Bell’s acceptanceandexhibition ofsuchexaggeratedclaims—claimstypicalthe widely knownandinfluential—worldwide. analyzing cultureandsocietyintheUSA1960s1970s.Hewasalsomost society–culture complex,DanielBell,andJean-FrançoisLyotard. 1980, Iofferthetwoprincipallate-modernconceptorsoffutureeconomy– looking. Asexemplaryofthispersistencemodernity,rightuptothebigbreak to andfortechnologyremainedfirmlyinplacethemindsofevenmostforward that totheWest,inFranceandUSA,through1970sprimacyofscience relation waspossible,butapostmodernviewnot.Itis,then,allthelesssurprising conceptions ofthescience–technologyrelation.Ananti-modern,romanticviewthat homeland the1970sremainedonwholeverymodernasregardsavailable Examination oftheErlangenandStarnbergschoolshasshownthateveninHeidegger’s The 1970sWereStillModern:BellandLyotard just aboutthetimethatStarnberginstitutewasshutdown,on30June1980. middle decadesofthe20thcentury.Itdisappeared,however,andratherabruptly,at such virtuesoughttotakescienceastheirmodel,wasindeedwidelyacceptedinthe 50 knowledge asthesourceofinnovationandpolicyformulation forthesociety’. ‘axial principle’ofpost-industrialsocietyBellpostulated ‘thecentralityoftheoretical primacy ofscience—andmoregenerally,the ‘theoreticalknowledge’:asthe Thus, atthecoreofBell’santicipationscoming post-industrialsocietyisthe ogy wasalwaysonlyanepiphenomenon,aby-product ofthecodificationtheory. appears incategoricalassertionsregardingphysical–technical connections: ‘the centralityoftheoreticalknowledge’asbasis of innovationsintechnology’ industrial society’. fully realizedinthecourseofnextthreedecades,constitutedwhatBellcalled‘post- ing establishedinAmericaandWesternEurope,thatheprojectedasbecoming Daniel Bellwasthebroadest,brightest,mostimaginativeandinsightfulsociologist Bell’s implicitrelianceuponhisAmericanAcademycolleagues forhisexamplesof Those transformedconditionsofproductionandsociallifethatBellsawbecom- P. Forman molecular opticalbeams. ago byFelixBloch.Thelasercame directlyoutofI.Rabi’sresearchthirtyyearsagoon The computerwouldnotexistwithout theworkinsolid-statephysicsinitiatedfortyyears 297

Without anyofMumford’sambivalence,Bellsawhistorical 300 298

Nonetheless, forBell,justasMumford,technol- 295

(1973) wasthefruitofadozen

His 500-page The Comingof 299 296 294 ca Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 postmoderne knowledge inthemosthighly developedsocieties’,publishedin1979as commission fromtheQuebecgovernmenttoprepare a reporton‘theconditionof thus athinkeroffirstimportanceforJean-FrançoisLyotard asheapproachedhis shared thephysicists’spresumptionofprimacytheirscience. scientific substanceBellhimselfonlyhalfunderstood—isindicativeofhowfully Europe. into nars fortheCongressCulturalFreedom,1956–7,and muchofwhathegathered appeared in1973.HehadresidedforayearParisasdirector ofinternationalsemi- Bell wasalreadywellknowninFrancewhen dead wrong. prestige ofscientists,andthetriumphmeritocracymoregenerally,Bell’sforecastwas before theyear2000itwasclearthatinanticipatingcontinuedgrowthofpowerand of amodernistintellectual,appearsnow,frompostmodernity,sheerestfantasy.Well Bell’s ‘ventureinsocialforecasting’,beingthisregardsolargelythewishfulthinking might sayits‘axial’question):‘WhoWillRule?’ gave voicetowardtheendofhisbigbookinanswertoitsmostbasicquestion(one mandarinism—a Deweyanismminusthefaithindemocracy. forming thebedrockofhisimaginings,wasanideology:modernist,meritocratic, earlier attachmenttothem. our erasureinpostmodernityofallmemorymodernity’spresuppositionsand our unreflectivelyfallinginwithpostmodernity’spresuppositions,anotherexampleof science. Blindtohispastblindness,Bell’sadoptionofthattitleisanotherinstance wrong inthe1970ssubordinatingtechnologysolargelyandfundamentallyto not consciouslyintendthattitlephrasetobeanacknowledgementhehadbeen principle’, Belltitledthisupdatingofhisthesis‘TheAxialAgeTechnology’.did foreword. Wherepreviouslytheprimacyoftheoreticalknowledgehadbeenhis‘axial remained. modern thisprincipalpromulgator ofpostmodernityandpostmodernism in Lyotard’sconceptualization ofthepostmodernconditionalertsustojusthow notwithstanding itsgreatlength,aFrenchtranslation appeared in1976. Behind andbeneathBell’spostulationoftheprimacytheoreticalknowledge, For the1999reissueof The EndofIdeology intellectual andscientificcommunities. talents buteventuallytheentirecomplexofprestigeandstatuswillberootedin and intellectualinstitutionswillbecomeaprimeconcernofthesociety;notonlybest research anddevelopment,….Thehusbandingoftalentthespreadeducational other forcesinsociety;…theywillbebaseduponthegovernment’ssponsorshipof society, productionandbusinessdecisionswillbesubordinatedto,orderivefrom, economists, andtheengineersofnewintellectualtechnology.…Inpost-industrial man, andtheindustrialexecutive,‘newmen’arescientists,mathematicians, If thedominantfiguresofpasthundredyearshavebeenentrepreneur,business- 306 309

His newbookdrewevenwiderattentiontherethanthe earlieroneand, . 304 308

That thereisagreatdealofBell’s conceptionofpost-industrialsociety

(1960) hadfirstbeenpresentedatconferencesandseminars in The ComingofPost-IndustrialSociety 305 303 The ComingofPost-IndustrialSociety History andTechnology 302 , Bellprovidedalengthy

To thisideologyBell 301 La condition 307

Bell was 51 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 the late1970s,haditfromHeidegger—inLyotard’scase,most probablyquitedirectly. et delatechniques’inverse.’ ‘The relationshipbetweenscienceandtechnologyisreversed’. (‘Lerapportdelascience to distinguishthepostmodernfrommodernera:now, onlynow,inpostmodernity, science, fromthe17thcenturyforward—asitwasforHeidegger—for Lyotarditserved metaphysical, buthistorical.Ratherthanbeingaromantic put-downofallmodern For Lyotard,however,thefunctionandapplicationofthis argumentwasdifferent:not science. issues, andexperimentsdependontechnology,technologyispriortoinclusiveof reasoning subsumingscienceintotechnology:becauseexperimentdecidesscientific fundamental revaluationofscience,technologyandtheirrelationship. than that,thepostmodernLyotardrecognizedthatsuchutilitarianismbringswithita goals, andintranscendentidealsimpliedafar-reachingpragmaticutilitarianism.More ern Lyotardrecognizedthatthefailureofcredenceingrandnarratives,collective look toscienceformould-breakingnovelty,thetrulyrevolutionary,postmod- For allthatthestillhalf-modernLyotard,muchlikelateMumford,continuedto 52 through widespreadacceptanceofanti-progressiveconceptionsscience. largely byanarrativeoflegitimationaboutscience,thenbeingdiscredited narrative, thecharacteristicallymodernmodeoflegitimation,isitselflegitimatedso progressive realization.Scienceiscentrallyinvolvedinthiscrisisbecausethegrand ness, rightness,andinevitabilityweconveyedtoourselvesthroughnarrativesoftheir i.e. inthosecomprehensive,‘universal’social,cultural,andcognitivegoalswhosegood- contrary, asFredricJamesonwroteinhisforewordtotheEnglishtranslation,Lyotard cates postmodernityfrommodernitydidnotdeprivescienceofitsprimacy.Onthe moderne special importancetoscientists.Thusthemainthemeandthesisof among thepostmodernists,followedBellingivingculturalprimacytoscienceand importance ofthosemakingandshakingideas.Moreover,Lyotard,exceptionally the centralityofintellectualandsociallegitimationideas,intrinsic III. ThePrimacyofIdeology amongHistoriansofTechnology ern—and soalso,unconsciously,wasalltheWesternworld. his statementprescient.Asthe1970sended,Lyotardwas becomingdistinctlypostmod- while placinghishopesfora‘savingpower’inscience—but hisintuitionwasverygood, Lyotard himselfactedoutthisrevaluationthroughthatnowfamiliarlineoffallacious Yet forLyotardhimselftheincredulousnesstowardsgrandnarrativesthatdemar- Lyotard sharedwithBellthepre-postmodernbeliefinprimacyofideas,including P. Forman the distinctionbetweenoutsidersand insidersremainshighlysalient. SHOT isatightlyknitorganization, and,amongitsmembers, system withthedisalienatingexcitementofnew…. ity forinnovation,change,break,renewal,whichwillinfusetheotherwiserepressive tionary power,toscienceandscientificresearchproper.Nowitisthelatter’sinfinitecapac- transfer[s] theolderideologiesofaesthetichighmodernism,celebrationitsrevolu- 312

is theemergent‘crisisofnarratives’,agrowingdisbeliefin‘grand

Most probably,Lyotard,likemostothersmakinguseofthisargumentsince 314 ) Lyotarddidnotelaborateonthisthesis—norcouldhe, 311 315 La conditionpost- 310 313 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 science andtechnology. recognizing thereversalin recentdecadesoftherankandrolerelationsbetween villain—the historiansoftechnologyhaverenderedthemselves effectivelyincapableof figure in up, inculturalrankandrole,similarly set againstallowingscienceto ically setagainstrecognizingthatinpostmodernitytechnology has‘gottenup’,way the popularmind. technology, or,ifnoticingit,havegenerallydeploreditanddismissedasafailingof while wiselyavoidingHeidegger,havealsolargelyignoredthisepochalelevationof modern revaluationofthescience–technologyrelation—historianstechnology, tance fortechnology—and,asistheirwont,absolutizing,nothistoricizing,thispost- taking Heidegger’swritingsastheirprophetictexts,havebeenclaimingprimeimpor- interest shouldsupportthisrecognition.Whilephilosophersoftechnology,generally the historicalperspectiveenablingthisrecognition,and,onemightthink,theirself- and valuationoftechnologyshouldbethehistorianstechnology.Theyhave of theapplicationnewtechnology. while scientificadvanceisitselfconceivedtobe,hencemadeprimarilytheresult the technologicfuture,inpostmodernityscienceisreducedtotechnology’sservitor, technologic change,andscientistswereregardedasthemostcompetentanticipatorsof Whereas inmodernitysciencereceivedmostofthecredit(andblame)forsignificant nology hasalsoassumedtheleadershiproleinscience–technologyrelationship. has nownotonlytheculturalprimacythatsciencehadenjoyedinmodernity,buttech- in postmodernitytherelationbetweenscienceandtechnologyhasreversed: all those‘ordering’activitiesthatconstituteculture.Thus,asLyotardprescientlysaid, model forknowledgeproduction,buthasalsoreplacedscienceasprincipal modernity ascribedtoit.Technologyhasnowreplacedsciencenotonlyastheprincipal role intheproductionofculturehasrisenenormouslyaboveandbeyondthatwhich It is,Ihaveargued,adefiningcharacteristicofpostmodernitythattechnology’sputative history of technologydisciplinehasattributed enormousimportanceto Ever sinceitsinstitutionalization attheendof1950s,USdivision ogy tokeepscienceout—and,whereitcouldnotbekept out,toput and theirdisciplinewasdealtwiththroughaconsensus amonghistoriansoftechnol- ity toscienceandthehistoryofthatmodernity imposedupontheirsubject to keeptechnologydown.Atthesametime,predictable resentmentoverinferior- pline’s foundingfigures,leadingtoaconsensusthatthe missionofthedisciplinewas toward technology,vergingonantagonism,wascharacteristic ofmostthatdisci- as ittookitspresentshapebetweenthelate1950sandearly1980s.Ambivalence logical characterofthathistoricaldisciplineandinthespecificideologyadoptedbyit, demands explanation.Theexplanationlies,asitseemstome,inthepeculiarlyideo- tially, oftheirdiscipline,thehistorytechnology,iscontrarytoexpectationand affects sofavorablythegeneralregardoftheirsubject,technology,andhence,poten- Among thefirsttorecognizethisepoch-makingchangeinculturalsignificance Such unwillingnesstorecognizeoracceptanepochalculturalreorientationthat their

history oftechnology—or,ifitmustfigureinsome way,thenas 316 317 History andTechnology it down.Ideolog- Technics and 53 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 published somefivepiecesbyMumfordin of and reviewsin testifies tothesustainedesteemforMumfordamonghistoriansoftechnology. Molella, technology’, ofaMumford ‘fascinated bytechnologysincechildhood’.According to tions totheelevationofsubjecttheirstudy,couldhave readMumfordinthatway. and allthoseotherhistoriansoftechnologypraisingMumford forhissignalcontribu- in Mumford’searlierandlaterwritings.Surprisingis,rather, thatWilliamsandHughes, of technologyturnedupinourexamination This isnotsurprisingwhenwebearinmindjusthowlittle supportforsuchanelevation technology soundsabitforced,and,whenthetwoarejuxtaposed, evenabitdesperate. Each oftheseassertionsaninnovativeandenduringelevation andhumanizationof Taking onthistaskagainin2002,Williamsthenfound,rather,that: Civilization Mumford, explainedthat,‘Ibeginthishistoryofcontrolsystemswith opening Thus Mindell, Civilization 54 where, orprobablycouldnothavepublishedelsewhere. what Mumfordhadalreadypublishedelsewhere,promisedforpublicationelse- Mumford wassoimportanttoherfield: the SocietyforHistoryofTechnology(SHOT),soughtin1990toarticulatejustwhy toward. scholarship thathisprojecteddisciplinaryassociationandjournalshouldstrive that disciplinaryformation,consideredMumford’sworkasamodelofthe‘integrative’ atic, organicandholistic’. technological andscientificchangefromthemechanicalanalyticaltosystem- own goalthethoroughlyMumfordianendeavor‘tochangeourwayofthinkingabout twentieth-century publicintellectual’,takingMumfordas‘mentor’,andhis even greaterMumfordolater,findingMumford‘arguablyAmerica’spre-eminent alone amongthefoundingfiguresinhisadmirationforMumford.Hugheshasbeenan highly complimentarynoticesofitintheirtexts. Indicative inthisregardisMolella’sconstructionof‘Mumford’s enthusiasmfor Mindell’s seniorcolleagueatMIT,Williams,thetimeofthiswritingpresident Technology andCulture P. Forman practices endured,ultimatelyinforming hismasterwork. machines ….Hisyouthfulinterest intechnicaldevices,processes,andindustrial Mumford’s interestinthehistory oftechnologyoriginatedinparthisfascinationwith expression ofhumanpersonality. His singularinnovationandenduringcontributionishisinsistenceontechnicsasan contribution. lization’ represents‘ashiftinthewholepointofview’.Thisishisfundamentalandlasting technology. …InMumford’sownwords,toseetechnicsas‘anintegralpartofhighercivi- What issountraditional…thewayMumford‘enlargescanonofculture’toinclude 319

Three oftheeightarticlesthatKranzbergassembledforhisfirstnumber becausehistoriansoftechnologyconsideritafoundationaltext’. and toitsauthor,Mumford. Technology andCulture 325 Between HumanandMachine 322

referred to

Moreover, thehighrateofcitationMumfordinarticles 326 Technics andCivilization

from itsearliesttomostrecentvolumes 318 Technology andCulture

Kranzberg, theprincipalentrepreneurof Technics andCivilization 320

Over thenext6yearsKranzberg 328 321

(2002) withseveralpageson

Kranzberg wasbynomeans , twoofthemoffering , partlybyprinting —and stillless Technics and 324 327 323 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ciers’, notwithstandingthat, aswasevidentinthelongquotationfromthatessaygiven essay, ‘TheDramaoftheMachines’, sherefersonlyto‘miners,monks,soldiers,finan- of civilizationbutto‘socialand physicalrealities’.WhenshecomestoMumford’s1930 part ofhighercivilization’,she explicatesthisnotbyreferringtoanyhigherelements Though shequotesandaffirms Mumfordashavingpresentedtechnics‘anintegral describe Mumford’sconceptionoftheneotechnicwithout anyreferencetoscience. career inelectricalengineering. disdain isespeciallyevidentinMumford’sreferencestohisownyouthfulinteresta references toeveryformofenthusiasmfor,orfascinationby,technology—andthat To seeMumfordso,itisnecessarytoignoreMumford’salmostinvariablypejorative Mumford toscience.InWilliams’s2002essayon nology aretobefreedenythattechnologydoesinfact advance. ical advanceresultsfromtheofsciencemustbe rejectedifhistoriansoftech- any moderntodenythatscienceadvances,‘theconventional wisdom’thattechnolog- discovery’ andthebelief‘thattechnology tion betweenregarding‘technologyessentiallyasthe productofpriorscientific mistic aboutthefuture’.Noristhereanydoubt directandnecessaryconnec- writing ofMumford,‘lefthimbasicallyreceptivetotechnologicaladvanceandopti- intellectual, evencharacterological,failingthatMolellameanstobepointingoutin sentences areperplexing.Toinitiates,asweshallsee,thereisnouncertaintyaboutthe To anyonenotinitiatedintothetruebeliefsofhistorianstechnologyquoted technology able factonlyinordertoexplainwhyMumfordheldthe,obviouslyfalse,belief‘that primacy tosciencefortechnologythroughouthistory.Molellaadducedthisdiscredit- quoted, finallyacknowledgedonhispenultimatepageMumford’sattributionof Molella, afterdoingsothroughthecourseofhis1989and1990essaysonMumfordjust advance overtheprecedingfourcenturies,indeedsixmillennia. Mumford’s emphasisontheimportanceofscienceandscientistsfortechnological Ignoring Mumford’sderogationsoftechnologyhasacuriouscorrelative,viz.ignoring than ideas. histories ofearlymanandcivilizationshavemistakenlyemphasizedtoolsrather tend toreadourownassumptionsandhabitsintothebehaviorofothersocieties’,all almost exclusivepreoccupationwithtechnology’,andbecause‘asaconsequencewe and Culture message ofeveryoneMumford’sfivepiecesinthoseearlyvolumes truth, nothingtoconsider:theword‘science’never appears. Consider Williams’shandlingofthissamematterthe significanceattributedby ical advanceandoptimisticaboutthefuture. at leastthewritingof process ofdiscoveryanddevelopmentthathadgoneonthroughouthistory.Suchbeliefs, product ofpriorscientificdiscoveryworkingitselfthroughsuccessivelevelspractice,a Accepting theconventionalwisdom,he[Mumford]sawtechnologyessentiallyas 330 itself : ‘becauseourownsocietyisinfactover-determinedbyitsexcessiveand advanced’: Technics andCivilization 329

Similarly, onemustignoretheclearandconstant itself 332 , lefthimbasicallyreceptivetotechnolog-

advanced’: becauseitisimpossiblefor Technics andCivilization History andTechnology 333

She managesto

Technology there is,in 331 55 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 journal, andadisciplineoftheir own. that group,ledbyMelvinKranzberg, resolvedthereandthentocreateasociety, a ‘ of ScienceSocietywouldnot‘condescend’toincludethe historyoftechnology,and Guerlac, thehighlyculturedhistorianofFrenchchemistry, rebuffedthem:theHistory Isis within thatsociety,ontheprogramofitsmeetings,and inthepagesofitsjournal, Henry Guerlac,witharequestthatthehistoryoftechnology beaccordedaplace approached theHistoryofScienceSociety,through personofitsthenpresident, group fromamongthestillfewpractitionersofhistory oftechnologyintheUSA every Americanhistorianoftechnologyreads. first chapterofthebookaboutintellectualconstitution oftheirdisciplinethat rian oftechnologyknowsandthegreatmajoritystillbelieve,issetasepigraphto technology discipline.ThestoryoftheorigintheirclanthateveryAmericanhisto- science isidentifiedinthecreationmythofAmericandivisionhistory source oftheanimusamonghistorianstechnologyagainstscienceandhistory With thesamepurelysymbolicconcretenesscharacteristicofothercreationmyths, have disabledthatrecognition,letusconsiderthemmoregenerallyandgenetically. from modernitytopostmodernity.Thusalertedtheideologiesandstrategiesthat ally, renderedthemunpreparedandunwillingtorecognizetheepochalculturalshift primacy ofbetweenscienceandtechnologyinpostmodernity,have,moregener- and ambivalencehaverenderedtheorthodoxunpreparedtorecognizereversalof professing ourcontemporaryhistoryoftechnologyorthodoxy—whichantagonism nism towardscienceandtheambivalencetechnologycharacteristicofthose In Williams’s,asinMolella’s,‘handling’ofMumfordweareencounteringtheantago- as themostprominentactorsinhisportrayalofit. above, Mumfordputscientistsforwardastheprimaryactuatorsofthisdrama,well 56 has shown ittobeexactlytheoppositeoftruth. ical researchbySeely,published morethan10yearsagoin distinctiveness. affirmative valencesandrenderedthescientists’rolesinister,whilealsodiminishingits tactics’. ParaphrasingMumford,WilliamsusedametaphorthatinvertedMumford’ would seeadozenmovesbeyondtheimmediatestrategyandinventsuperior ‘the physicistsandmathematicians’as‘agroupofcreativeminds,ageneralstaff,who used amilitarymetaphorformachinecivilization’sconquestoftheWest,describing it herantagonismtowardscientistsfoundmoreovertexpression.Mumford,aswesaw, Isis This storycontinuestobegenerally believedandoftenrepeated,eventhoughhistor- In her1990essayWilliamshadamoreextendedexpositionofthisdrama,andwith . Receiving thegroupathishome onahillabovetheCornellUniversitycampus,

P. Forman is notgoingtopublishanyarticlesdealingwithit’.Walking backdownthehill, immediate strategyandwouldinventasuperiortactics’. ideologists (physicalscientistsandthelike)‘whowouldseeadozenmovesbeyond revolution. Thefootsoldiersareworkers…;theydirectedbya‘generalstaff’,partyof forces within,arevolutionarycoup.Evenmoreprecisely,heimpliesLeninisttheoryof Mumford suggeststhatindustrializationisasortofconspiracy,takeoverbyhostile 337 336

334 In 1957,asthatstorygoes,asmall 335 338

Seely foundthatofficersof Technology andCulture , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ‘an appliedscientist’: could befoundintheengineer, andfullyinfavoroftheengineerthinkinghimself as scientific, wasstillfullofadmiration forscience,wasinfavorofwhateverscience views inthisregard—Layton, whoseoriginalorientationwasemphaticallysocial- this book—whichwhenit finally appearednolongerfullyrepresenteditsauthor’s neer asscientistagainsthispecuniarilyinterestedalterego, thebusinessman.Herein American mechanicalengineersinthefirstdecadesof 20thcentury—isoftheengi- that Laytontherehadinmind—therevolt found,andfavored,among with theconceptualproblemofrelatingtechnologytoscience. nology begintoexpressantagonismtowardscience—atfirstwhilestilldeeplyengaged of theirnewdiscipline,asitappearsfrommylimitedreading,didthehistorianstech- statement offact:‘Theengineerisbothascientistand businessman’. decades earlierasdoctoraldissertation,thebookopens, pageone,linewithaflat revolt againstsubordinationtoscience.Publishedin 1971, butbegunalmosttwo today inclinetogive the meetingsofHistoryScienceSocietyandinpages Engineering Education.Offeringincreasedemphasisuponthehistoryoftechnologyin then being assembledbyKranzbergundertheauspicesofAmericanSocietyfor the History ofScienceSocietyhadmadeoverturestothehistorianstechnology and thehistoryofscience. entiation seemstohavebeenpursuedwithoutmuchevidentanimositytowardscience was todistinguishsciencefromtechnology’,priorthelate1960sthattaskofdiffer- ‘One waytodistinguishbetweenthehistoryofscienceandtechnology from theeventsrequiringtobemisremembered.Thusalthough,asSeelyobserved, first’—so transparent.Yetsuchinversionscanariseandtakeholdonlyatsomedistance creation myths,butrarelyisthepsychodynamicsofinversion—‘theyrejectedus between scienceandtechnology’. early years,seemedaswellfocused,important,orinterestingtherelationship rial appearingin clearly inLayton’swritings. establish disciplinaryautonomyforthehistoryoftechnology—is traceableespecially tude towardscience(andhistoriansofscience)inconjunction withanendeavorto ability oftechnologybeingimbuedwithandinspiredbyscience,toanantagonisticatti- This changeinoutlook—fromanunquestioningaffirmationofthefactanddesir- tance andcurrency. disciplinary creationmyth,withits‘theyrejectedus’thrust,acquiredgreaterimpor- simply cuttingtheknot,declaredivorceoftechnologyfromscience.Therewith roughly about1980,didhistoriansoftechnologyturntheirbacksonthatproblemand, firmly inmindtocreateasocietyandjournalofhisown. in historythatwouldberecruitabletoaoftechnologybanner,alreadyhad neurial andconfidentthattherewerelargeconstituencieswithonlymarginalinterests the society’senthusiasticinterestincooperation.ButKranzberg,ambitious,entrepre- Inversion ofcircumstancesseemstobetheruleinformationdisciplinary Technology andCulture The RevoltoftheEngineers 340 343

Staudenmaier, inhissystematicexaminationofthemate-

Contrary tothereadingthathistoriansoftechnology 341

Not untilthelate1960s,fullyadecadeintolife , 1959–1980,foundthat‘Notheme,inSHOT’s , Laytondoesnottherecontemplatea 339 History andTechnology 342 Isis

Only adecadelater, , Guerlacconveyed 344

The revolt 57 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 realms ofscience’.Noantagonismwasyetevidentintheexposition. that ‘Newproductsandnewprocesses…arefoundedonresearchinthepurest admirer ofsciencethathehadalwaysbeen. nology inthe20thcentury. were toberegardedas 19th centurybywhat‘mightbetermed“thescientificrevolutionintechnology”’— that the‘technologicalsciences’,or‘engineeringsciences’—createdincourseof tional conceptionofscience’smoralsuperioritytoengineeringwasLayton’sinsistence what mollifying. include textwhosemoderated claimsofscience’sprimacyoughttohavebeensome- tion from Ideologies ofScienceandEngineering’. Thereheexhibitedonceagainthissamequota- Two yearslaterstillwecome in entirely neutralway,thatpassagein As exemplaryarticulationofthiscommonlyacceptedmodel,Laytonadduced,inan Technology andCulture at animportantconferenceonsciencein19thcenturyAmerica,andpublished Communities ofScienceandTechnologyin19thCenturyAmerica’,presented1970 cause Laytonmadehisown. was atoncedescribingandaffirmingtheperspectiveofprogressiveengineerswhose Without asuggestionofideologicaldistancefromthescientizingthatera,Layton 58 Technology andCulture farthest Laytontherewentwastocomplainthat: were novillains;onehadyetdeniedthatengineershavemindsandthink.The provokes anoutburst—principally,howeverunfairly,against historiansofscience: Endless Frontier While thebookwasstillinpress,Laytonwriting‘Mirror-ImageTwins:The Moving onthreeyearstoLayton’s‘Technologyas Knowledge’, appearingin P. Forman of technology. other historiansofsciencethatthistheorywasintroducedintothe writingofthehistory and Hall’s edge generatedelsewhere.Andthisispreciselythetheorywefind inSinger,Holmyard, produces nonewknowledge,andthetechnologist’srolebecomes thatofapplyingknowl- Clearly, ifbasicscienceisthesourceofallnewtechnicalknowledge, thentechnologyitself then apply. technology. Inessence,thisholdsthatsciencecreatesnewknowledgewhichtechnologists been obscuredbyacommonlyacceptedmodeloftherelationshipsbetweenscienceand The significance,indeedtheveryexistence,ofscientificrevolutionintechnologyhas of sciencesuchaslogicandimpartiality. and enlightenment.Similarly,theself-imageinvolvedtransferringtogroupattributes of scientificknowledgethatgaveweighttoengineers’claimsbetheagentsprogress the assumptionthatengineerwasanappliedscientist.Itcumulativecharacter themes leadingtowardacloseridentificationoftheengineerwithhisprofessionrestedon The cementbindingtheengineertohisprofessionwasscientificknowledge.Allof Science, TheEndlessFrontier 349 History ofTechnology . 351 353 352

Now, however,Laytonisonthewarpath;nowquoted assertion But Laytonwasunappeasable. Hissummaryoftheentirequotation the

in 1971. in 1974,wefindagainthissamequotationfrom

essentially autonomousandexclusiveproducersofnewtech- 348

Withal Layton’sexpositionremainedtemperate;there 346 . Indeed,itwasthroughtheworkofHallandcertain

In thatpaperLaytonremained,fundamentally,the Science, TheEndlessFrontier Technology andCulture 345 , continuingittotwiceits previous lengthto 347

Overlaid uponadherencetothetradi-

to Layton’s‘American

in whichitisasserted 350 Science, The Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 mentality ofourpresentpostmodern generation. resenting thementalityofmoderngenerationspastand offailingtoapprehendthe generally, andasacorporatebody,havetakenthatlatter course—atthecostofmisrep- contributing to of thethemescience–technologyrelationshipamonghistorianstechnology of technology,anditshistory,fromscience.Hereasonedasfollows:thepopularity extended Layton’sanalysis,takingitthatbigstepfarthertotheconclusionofadivorce in cognitiveterms.In Layton wasfarfromaloneinconceivingemancipationofthehistorianstechnology be noautonomyforthehistoryoftechnologywithouttechnology.Thus shaped thehistoryofscienceinpreviousdecades—butbythennolonger—therecould knowledge wasentitledtoautonomy.Bymuchthesameimplicitreasoningthathad issue ofautonomyforthehistorytechnology,inmodernityall(science-like) lem betterignoredthanaddressed. the science–technologyrelationshipwas‘athematicdead endinourfield’,wasaprob- and wellafterhistorygenerallyhadmadethatturn. ogy justwhenhistoryofsciencewasturningawayfromtheintellectualtosocial, engineers too,wereturningtowardit;advocatinganepistemicconceptionoftechnol- 1970s, turningawayfromtheissueofsocialresponsibilityjustwhenhismilieu,and There wassomethingoddlyretrogradeinLayton’sideologicaldevelopmenttheearly of intellectualparasitism’. was that,‘Inshort,thescientificideologyinterpretsasymbioticrelationshipascase propriate frameofreference’. science–technology relationshipisaninadequateframe of reference’,indeedan‘inap- From whichStaudenmaier,movedbysomethingmore than logic,concluded‘thatthe However: For: writing thehistoryoftechnology. from technology’,anotherwaywasintentionallyandsystematically toignoresciencein between thehistoryofscienceandtechnology wastodistinguishscience technology asaspecificsort ofknowledge,i.e.intheirceasingtoseekanepistemic that earlierprogramoffashioning thehistoryoftechnologyaroundconception of postmodern intheirassumptions andtheirpractices,itisinabandonment of Yet ifthereisanyrespectin whichthehistoriansoftechnologyaretodaydefinitely claim theroleastechnology’ssolesourceofknowledge…. … iftechnologicalknowledgeisirreduciblydistinctinitsownright,thensciencecannot ‘mindless’, bereftofitsownintellectualmethod. the claimthatscienceisonlyobjectivelyvalidformofknowledgeleavestechnology scientific knowledge…. knowledge againstaclaimthatmoderntechnologyisnothingmorethananapplicationof … isduetotheirconcernestablishtheirreduciblydistinctnatureoftechnological Technology andCulture Technology’s Storytellers 354 357

Behind thisnon-sequiturwasanemergingconsensus: 359 358

Following Staudenmaier,historiansoftechnology

Thus if,asSeelysaid,‘Onewaytodistinguish

360 (1985) Staudenmaieradoptedand 355

356 The logiclayofcourseinthe History andTechnology 59 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 mysterious waybeappliedtomaketechnology’. that hasafflictedgenerationsofsciencepolicystudents…caninsome cations, inwhichBroadfoundarejectionofthe‘remarkablywidespreadwrongidea published articlebyWilliamBroadinthe the HistoryofScienceSociety.Wiseopenedwithanaccountthenrecently remains verymuchinplacetoday. they originallyrationalizedbyanallegedlydistinctivecognitiveessenceoftechnology, of ‘policymakers’ disciplinary identity. science andthehistoryof science istheperennialappealofa‘they-rejected-us-first’ published inthefollowingtwodecades, the timethat historians oftechnologyagainsttheprimacysciencewerebeingpublishedatabout from sciencethantoinquire intothefactualrelationsbetweenscienceandtechnology, So muchstrongerwasWise’s concerntoestablishasfacttheautonomyoftechnology observation that: The breadth(andlackofdepth)thissearchforautonomy isevidentinWise’s rians ofscience)—Wise’sprincipalcontentionandconclusion wasthat: (perhaps astheconditionofpublicationthisprotestunder theauspicesofhisto- ‘historians ofscienceandtechnology’togetheras‘historians’withoutdistinction Then, making‘sciencepolicy-makers’thebadguys,‘historians’goodguys—lumping So fartheargumentcouldbeamanifestationofpostmodernreversalinprimacy. ans oftechnology. basis fortheassertedautonomyoftechnology,andhencetheirashistori- 60 on AmericanScience regarded asstillfundamentallymodern. protests, againstaprimacythatsciencewasimproperlythoughttohold,theymustbe way. However,takingintoconsiderationthefactoftheirbeingprotests,angry publications asmanifestationsofthepostmodernreversalinprimacythenunder A caseinpointisWise’schapteron‘ScienceandTechnology’ P. Forman metaphors isautonomy. armies, opposingmeteorological fronts,orsovereignstates.Thekeyideabehindallthe technology asmirror-imagetwins, amarriedcouple,lemonandlemonade,opposing Historians ofscienceandtechnology…haveputforwardmetaphors depictingscienceand edge isnotscience;technologyknowledge,too. historians haveassertedtheautonomyoftechnologyinrelationto science….Allknowl- discussion oftherelationscienceandtechnologyinmodernAmerica. Initsplace,most Refuting theassembly-linemodelstandsasamaincontribution ofthehistoriansto view, putmoneyintopurescienceatthefrontendofprocess. that ideaintoaninnovation.Asocietyseekinginnovationsshould,intheassembly-line labeled appliedresearch,invention,development,engineering,andmarketingtransform in theheadofscientist.Atsubsequentworkstationsalongthatassemblyline,operations … depictsscienceandtechnologyasanassemblyline.Thebeginningofthelineisidea Technology’s Storytellers 361

(1985), thefirstvolumeofnewseries 363

Nonetheless, theirpolicyofignorationscience,which

That is,ifoneconsideredonlyhowverymanyprotestsby 369 362

One groundforthiscontinuedignorationof 365 (1985) appeared,andhavecontinuedtobe 364 New YorkTimes

one mightbeinclinedtoregardthose 368 366

As statedbyWise,that‘wrongidea’ onDerekPrice’slastpubli- 367 Osiris Historical Writing , publishedby Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 he saidwasdiscussingit. view ofthecauseandsourcetechnologicaladvance—even onthepageortwowhere tion fortheproductionworker,MacKenziesimplyavoidedquestionofMarx’s determinist. Quoting MacKenzie founditunnecessarytomakeoutacasethatMarxwasnottechnological could beatechnologicaldeterminist.SinceMarxwas,withoutargument,goodguy, conviction, nowamatterofcourseamonghistorianstechnology,thatnogoodguy whether Marxwasatechnologicaldeterminist,MacKenzieproceededfromthe thus ourviewof—oneofmodernity’smainmen.Nominallyexaminingthequestion this motiveandmodusworkingeffectivelytogethertodistorttheviewsof—and has shown. always ahighlyimportantplace,indeedpreposterouslyasthisstudy in facthavethemindsoftechnologicalthinkersandactors.Inmodernitythatwas technology. Thatdistortiveeffectisthegrossermoreimportantaplacesciencedid the representationofpastresultsfromthisexclusionsciencehistory exclusion ofscienceholdsalmosteverywhere.Thusthegreaterdistortiveeffectupon sentation ofMumford—theanimuscanbeglimpsedonlyhereandthere,whilethe to theanimusagainstit.Typically—andwehaveseenthisalreadywithWilliams’repre- motive andthatmodus:onecannotignorescienceentirelywhilestillgivingexpression generally pointingtheway.Thereis,ofcourse,acertainincompatibilitybetweenthat science andthecommitmenttoignoringhavebeeninseparable—withanimus As cohesiveprinciplesforthedisciplineofhistorytechnology,animusagainst technology asappliedscience. writers inthatperiod,asalsotheview,almostuniversallyheldthroughof second halfofhispaper—Wisequiteignoredtheprimacygivensciencebynearlyall technology inrelationtosciencethe19thand20thcenturies—whatforms according toMacKenzie, MacKenzie seemedtofindquiteinsightful(butevenMumford knewbetter). machine. Marxdefinedamachineasmechanizedhand-tool, adefinitionwhich ingless’. to ‘maketheassertionthatscienceprovidesknowledgebasefortechnologymean- that heproposeddefinitionsofscienceandtechnologyspecificallyconstructedsoas and hedidnot—itisirrelevant toanythingthatMacKenziewasarguingaboutMarx ticians andexpertsonmechanics’ isentirelygratuitous:evenifMarxintendedone— With scienceessentiallyexcluded fromMacKenzie’sanalysis,theslurupon‘mathema- text thataddressMarx’sviews onthecontributionofsciencetomodernindustry. This isthefirstofjusttwo, quite brief,‘bytheway’passagesinMacKenzie’s30-page ‘Marx andtheMachine’(1984),MacKenzie’soften-citedessay,isagoodexampleof element ismissingfromit’ plane, thescrew,wedge,etc.’that‘explanationisworthnothing, machine isanalyzableasacomplexofmorebasicparts‘such thelever,inclined tions typicalof‘mathematiciansandexpertsonmechanics’.While itistruethatany rejected definitionswhichsawacontinuitybetweenthe‘tool’and the‘machine’,defini- 370

Thus itishardlysurprisingthatinhisreviewofthehistoricalliteratureon Capital . 373 371

over andontheawfulmeaningofmachineproduc-

Instead, MacKenziefocuseduponMarx’sdefinitionof History andTechnology because thehistorical 372

Marx, 61 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 MacKenzie’s own. adroitly insinuatedintoMarxananimositytowardsciencethatwas,presumably, the importancefortechnologythatMarxattributedtoscience.IndoingsoMacKenzie through MarxofUre—MacKenziehadbrokenhisotherwisestrictsilenceregarding unquestionably true. sion’ MacKenzieknewhewouldeventuallyhavetoquestion,butyetpresentedas science—though sciencewasnopartofMacKenzie’sargument—onewhose‘conclu- field ofAmericanStudies. of treatingtechnologywithoutreferencetosciencewas beingputintopracticeinthe plinary identitythroughdistinguishingtechnologyfrom science,theirfuturepolicy Twenty yearsearlier,whilethehistoriansoftechnology werestillseekingtheirdisci- they were,orwerebecoming,internationalorthodoxies. division ofthehistorytechnologydiscipline,that,on contrary,bytheearly1980s science andignorationofwerenotspecifictothe developmentoftheAmerican tic concerns,solikethoseof theMumfordof interests oftheworkingclass. (impertinent) purposeofemphasizingthatmechanizationwasobviouslynotinthe Philosophy ofManufactures sion. science), thatMacKenzierevealedscholarlyinquirydidnotsupportUre’sconclu- with anotherquotationofUretothissameeffect(brieferandwithoutreference Ure asmeansofdoingthis’,etc.ItisonlylaterinMacKenzie’spaper,conjunction evidence ofMarx’swhole-heartedendorsement:‘Marxcitedinventionsdiscussedby Presenting Ure’sthesisasthoughobviouslycorrect,MacKenzieimmediatelyprovided hand from Among MacKenzie’snumerousreferencestoUre—allofthem,apparently,second- cally employedanotherdefinitionof‘machine’. and technologythatinMarx’stimemathematiciansexpertsonmechanicstypi- 62 works mostfrequentlycited byAmericanhistoriansoftechnology. from the1790sto1850s, hadbecomebytheearly1980soneofhalf-dozen Marx’s descriptionandcritique oftechnologicalenthusiasmintheUnitedStates Machine intheGarden:Technology andthePastoralIdealinAmerica exert amajorinfluenceonthehistoryoftechnology atlarge.Inparticular, conception oftheculturalhistoryAmericantechnology, AmericanStudieswould in MacKenzie’stextrelatingtoscience: ive attitudetowardscientistsonMarx’spart.Thisisborneoutbytheoneotherpassage many referencestoscienceonethatlentitselfaninsinuationofahostileanddismiss- With bothhisreferencestoscience—hisquotationofMarxand What, itseems,wasimportanttoMacKenziedrawoutfromamongMarx’s P. Forman 376 Philosophy ofManufactures The theoristofthiswagingclassstrugglebytechnicalmeanswasAndrewUre.His1835 the refractoryhandoflabourwillalwaysbetaughtdocility’.

Marx hadgivenMacKenzieachoiceofdozenjuicyquotationsfromUre’s Capital 378 —this isthefirst,longestandmoststronglyemphasized.

Furthermore, theMacKenziecasesuggeststhatanimositytoward 379 , almostanyoneofwhichwouldhaveservedMacKenzie’s

concluded that‘whencapitalenlistsscienceintoherservice,

Through itsemphasisupon‘materialculture’and 377

MacKenzie chosethatonecontainingajabat The GoldenDay 374 375 , areamplyevidentin 380

Marx’s roman-

(1964), Leo The Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 of justification. higher groundofmechanicalphilosophyandtodosowithouttheneedforevenaline technology. references toscience,or,iftakingnoticeofthem,construedthemas emerging inAmericanStudiestheearly1960s,Marxsimplyignoredhissources’ allowed Walkertoshifttheissuefrommachineryofmoderncivilization primacy ofsciencetoandfortechnologyentirelyasamattercourse.Exactlythat essay, ‘DefenseofMechanicalPhilosophy’,indicatesclearlyenoughthathetookthe ined wasexceptionalinthatregard. to haveremainedlargelyunawareofjusthowfarandwhytheerathatheexam- cited acoupleofcontemporarycontestationsscience’sprimacy,but,withal,seems and otherformsofhighculturethatwasoccurringinthemidsthisperiod.He a goodcase,fortheJacksonianpopulistinsurgencyagainstprimacyofscience all theircontemporariestoo.NotthatMarxhadagoodappreciation,letalonemade admired writersmayhavethoughtandwrittenaboutscience—andnotonlythey,but period, stressedthehighvaluetheyplacedonscience,Marxignoredwhateverthose Emersons andHawthornes,thebestwhothoughtwrotein Mumford’s hadbeeninthatearlybook.However,whereMumford,discussingthe his title,andviewofthemachinewasremainedquiteasnegative also inhisrepeatedreuseofthisquotationsubsequent writings. Webster thenpointsto.Marxmanagednottomention science, andnotonlyhere,but here givestoscience,bothassuchandsourceofallthe technologicaladvancesthat One mightthinkithardtooverlooktheimportance,indeed theprimacy,thatWebster in hisrecent‘ClassicsRevisited’ reviewof among historiansoftechnology continuedtogrow.Meiklethusfoundsomedifficulty cal enthusiasmandthesensibilities ofthatera’smostsensitivewriters,hisreputation thoroughly, renderingunsustainable hisoppositionbetweenthepopulartechnologi- from thepointofviewhistoricalmethodandhistopic hadbeenredonemuchmore half isWebster’sdeclarationthat: prevailing mood’,Marxdisplayedalongquotationfromthataddress,ofwhichthefirst Railroad in1847.ToutingWebsteras‘keenpolitician,hisearnicelytunedtothe exposition anddiscussionofDanielWebster’saddressattheopeningNorthern (1831) isastrikingexampleofwillfulignorationscience. contrary, eveninthedisplayedquotations. nological basisofculture’andsimplyignoredeverythingthatWalkersaidtothe and Culture Although bythelate1970sMarx’sinterpretiveapproach hadbeenseverelycriticized Another stillmorestrikingexampleofMarx’signorationscienceishislengthy Marx’s extendedexpositionofTimothyWalker’s‘DefenseMechanicalPhilosophy’ research tothepursuitsoflife. is beneaththeearth;andperhapsmoreremarkablestillforapplication ofthisscientific knows thattheageisremarkableforscientificresearchintoheavens, theearthandwhat like itbefore.Iwillnotpretend,noonecantodiscern the end;buteverybody It isanextraordinaryerainwhichwelive.altogethernew.Theworldhasseennothing 382 with ‘thequestionofwhythis bookhasenjoyedsuchamajorscholarly 384

Marx, however,representedWalkerasholdinga‘theoryofthetech- 386 381

Rather, inlinewiththeanti-scienceideology 385 The MachineintheGarden 383 History andTechnology

The verytitleofWalker’s 387

in ante-bellum Technology up

to the 63 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 to thisdayconventionally cited forthisevidence—Layton’s The onestudy,theonly thatKlinecitedforsuchevidence,thestudyremains technology asappliedscience, Klineofferednoevidenceofhisown—nonewhatsoever. For this‘self-interests’interpretation ofengineers’andindustrialists’construals of To besure,thereareexceptionstoprovethisruleofignoration. asm inEmerson,Hawthorne ical enthusiasminAmericatheearly19thcentury,waswrongtobeliethatenthusi- important toMeiklethatMarxwaswrongunderratethepervasivenessoftechnolog- behind Meikle’sexplanation? address theculturalhistoryoftechnology’—thatthatisunspokenunderstanding sual amonghistoriansoftechnologygenerally,but‘especiallythosewho Meikle couldanddidtakeforgrantedthatMarx’santi-technologicalbiaswasconsen- technological enthusiasmtothelesssensitivestrataofpopulation.Orisitthat Marx’s manifest anti-technologicalbias,whichbiasledhimtorestrict most obviouslyinsufficientinfailingtoexplainanacclaimthatisindifferent much tothecreditofhistorianstechnologyasscholars.Yetitisinsufficient— Doubtless, thismustbepartofanexplanation—and,evenasfaritgoes,isnot In explanationofthisunreasonablyhighregardMeiklesuggestedthat: reputation, especiallyamongthosewhoaddresstheculturalhistoryoftechnology’. 64 asserted that, image, ofprofessionalpolitics.Overandover,inone wayandanother,Kline neers inestimablemotives:self-interestedconsiderations ofsocialstatus,public Kline soughttodelegitimateitintheusualway,namely byimputingtothoseengi- engineers exceptionallywell.Manifestly,hedidnotlike whatheheard.Notlikingit, with thereadersof science gotthecredit?Wasthatagainexpressionofanunspokenunderstanding right inignoringthegreatextenttowhich,thattechnologicallyenthusiasticera, tions reachingeventoprofessionsofsubservience science. engineers andindustrialistsoftheprimacyscienceto andfortechnology,affirma- relied heavilyinordertoputevidencethefar-reachingaffirmationsbyAmerican Kline’s deepanddetailedknowledgeoftheideologicalliteratureengineeringI to seeitwouldit,butin (1995)—published, oddly,notwherethehistoriansoftechnologywhomostneeded most pertinenttothisstudyisKline’s‘Construing“technology”as“appliedscience”’ places. Meikle isalsosilentaboutscience;nowheredoesthatwordappear.Itwasobviously P. Forman now call … engineers,andindustrialresearchersconstruedtherelationship betweenwhatwe marginalized areaofstudyattheverycenterAmericanculture. uncertain histechnicalknowledge,hadchosentosituatethesubjectofthisformerly Even aninternalisthistorianoftechnologycouldapplaudaliteraryscholarwho,however promote their…self-interestsregarding statusandfinancialsupport. 390

From hissilenceaboutscienceshouldweinferthatMeiklethoughtMarx science andtechnology Technology andCulture Isis et al

, thejournalofHistoryScienceSociety.Upon under theumbrellalabelof ., forMeiklepointsMarx’serroroutinseveral ? 391 applied science 389 Revolt oftheEngineers 393 394

392 Kline heardthose

That exception , inorderto ante-bellum 388 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 anyone entertainingthatheresy—‘Nogreatercrimecould beimagined’ social valuesandrole. creation ofnewtechnologies,remainedfromfirsttolast highly criticaloftheengineers’ the independence,autonomyandself-sufficiencyof engineeringsciencesinthe specific formofknowledge.Layton,forexample,although vehementlychampioning technological, andwhoseverymission,therefore,was tovindicatethatspecialand ing) sectorofthedisciplineinclinedtotakeessence oftechnologyassomething since Kline’swriting. construals oftechnologyasappliedsciencehasneverbeenbrought,neitherbeforenor evidence supportingthis‘self-interests’interpretationofengineers’andindustrialists’ ‘his’ progressive,science-emulatingengineers. (1971)—provides none.Norshouldithave,forLaytonhimselfheldnosuchviewof technology wasroundabout. technological determinism’ became establishedasthe‘officialposture’ofhistorians of ogy asfactandfactor.Still,theroutebywhich‘SHOT’s antipathytotheideologyof the clearestandmostconsequentialmanifestationofthat ambivalenceabouttechnol- technology? historians of for technologythatitdescribed,betakenupwithsuchenthusiasmbythe nology? Howelsecould publication intheearlyvolumesof How elsecouldthefoundingfigureshavebeensuchMumfordolaters,solicitingfor tutive ambivalencetowardtechnologyinthedisciplineofhistorytechnology. professed beliefs?Forthisthereisnoadequateexplanationwithoutinvokingaconsti- the historiansoftechnologysotodisparageanddelegitimatetheirsubjects’earnestly ested? Howcanthepassiontoliberatetheirsubjectsfromsubjectionsciencebring to thatendimputemotivestheirsubjectsarenarrowly,evenbasely,self-inter- from subordinationtoscienceanditshistorythattheytakeitasanacceptablemeans How canitbethathistoriansoftechnologyare disparage theirtechnologists’motives. sincerely todepreciatethemselvesrelativescienceandscientists,theyprefer exclude itfromthehistoryoftechnology,thatratherthanallowingtheirtechnologists discourses totheirsubjects.Suchisanimusagainstscienceandneed effectively revidicatedbyattributingself-interestedmotivesanddisingenuous technology, whowouldthusseemtobelievethatthedignityoftheirsubjectismost explaining suchaffirmationsawayhasbecomeacanonicaltropeamonghistoriansof political, ifnotcynical,tacticstogainsocialoreconomicadvancement.Thiswayof historians oftechnologyregularlydismisssuchaffirmationsbytechnologistsasbeing everybody believed—viz.technology’ssubordinaterankandrolerelativetoscience— more frequentthanwasdenial ofit.Eveninthelate1980s,Hughes’statedoppositions the firstdecadesofitsexistence, horrorattherealityoftechnologicaldeterminismwas generally tobefoundinany adherenttotheSocietyforHistoryofTechnology in The categoricaldenialoftechnologicaldeterminism, andanathematizationof Unwilling toallow‘their’technologistssincerelybelievewhat,inmodernity, 397

Nor hasthatambivalencegenerallybeenabsentfromthe(ever-shrink- 396 The MachineintheGarden 399 Withinthediverseassemblage ofambivalentattitudes Technology andCulture so

preoccupied withfreeingtheirsubject 395

, clearlydeploringtheenthusiasm To myknowledge,substantial

History andTechnology his diatribesagainsttech- 398 —is surely 65 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ogy asanautonomousformofknowledge. directed thethrustoftheirliberationmovementtowardsreconceptiontechnol- relations)’. nology itselfisnotautonomousinrelationtoeconomics,politics,andinternational parenthetical qualification:‘(atthesametimeastheyhavebeenemphasizingthattech- ‘most historianshaveassertedtheautonomyoftechnologyinrelationtoscience’, edge. So,forexample,Wiseplacedimmediatelyfollowinghisclaim,quotedabove,that above, analmostequallystrongconsensus an autonomousagentintheceaselesstransformationof ourlifeworlds. as theirmandatedmissioncombatingthemistaken‘popular’ beliefthattechnologyis In keepingwiththisdoctrinaltenet,forthepastquarter centurySHOTiteshavetaken will findpostedanoticestatingitandwarningagainstviolating it: technology istobekeptdown. nological progressand/ortechnologicaldeterminism.Sciencemustbekeptoutif to allowtechnologybeconsideredastheapplicationofitwhilestilldenyingtech- contemporaries asreasoning:scienceistooautonomous,itsprogressindubitable, If historiansoftechnologydonotallreasonsothemselves,atleasttheyseetheir nological determinism. to technologicaldeterminismalternatedwithevidencesofhiscontinuingbeliefintech- 66 science inrelationtotechnology.Forthisexceptionthereisevenlogicalreasoning: tion toscience’,beaccomplishedbythenecessarilytacitpolicyofignoration strong consensusagainst‘autonomoustechnology’, entangling itselfinquiteadifferentinconsistency:bytheendof1970stherewas determinism andoftheautonomytechnologyhavebecomeanorthodoxy. to dowithtechnologyasasocialphenomenon’,radicaldenialsofbothtechnological more andtoagreewithDanielsthat‘thebigquestionsforus,then,willallhave discipline lostinterestinthequestforcognitiveessenceoftechnology,andcame falsity oftechnologicaldeterminism. though themerestatement ofsuchaprogramconstitutedconclusiveproofthe and theritualcitationsof wholly unearnedimportance attachedtothesocialconstructionoftechnology(SCOT) message wasmoreideological thanempirical,couldnotbeadmitted.Hencethealmost Thus thereisananti-deterministorthodoxy,andanyonevisitingtheSHOTwebsite With onesignificantexception:theloudlyasserted‘autonomyoftechnologyinrela- The youngergenerationgavegreaterimportancetodisciplinaryideology,thus P. Forman very ofteninthecontextofdisputesoverpoliticalpower. rather, itisimpelledbychoicesmadeinthecontextofcircumstances inambientrealms, now understandthatitcannotdoanythingofthesort.Technology isnotautonomous; strong holdonpopularsensibilities,specialistsintheinteractionof technologyandculture While thenotionthattechnologymarchesofitsownpredetermined accordstillhasa ogy mustnotbeimpeded…. Science isunderstoodtooperatefreefromallbiasinitspursuitofobjectivetruth,technol- Since ‘Technology’isdefinedastheapplicationofmodern(Western)science,andsince 402 Thiscontradictionremainedirresolvablewhilehistoriansoftechnology 400 The SocialConstructionofTechnological Systems 405 408 for 403

the autonomyoftechnologicalknowl-

Since themid1980s,however,as 401 406

but therewasalso,aswesaw 407

That their (1987), as 404 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 injunction’: “Applied Science”’byquotingMayr,observedthat, ‘few …haveheededMayr’s than 10yearssinceKline,introducinghisexpositionof ‘Construing“Technology”as ings’ ‘We talkalotinSHOTaboutthegenerous-spiritednatureofourannualmeet- siveness ofthistechnology-as-applied-science viewamongUSengineers,didnot “Technology” as“AppliedScience”’, socreditableforitsdemonstrationoftheperva- attention isalsoadeficiency ofwhatKlinehimselfthereaddedtoit.‘Construing Yet thisdeficiencyofthehistoriography ofUStechnologytowhichKlinerightlydrew has beeninhistorybutwhatpreviouserasandcultures thought ittobe’. themselves thetask‘nottodiscoverwhatscience–technology relationshipactually It isnowfully30yearssinceMayrurgedhisfellowhistoriansoftechnologytoset IV. Conclusion of technologyinhistory. demands fordoctrinaluniformityandexclusivityof‘ownership’thebroadfield around 1970,thehistoriansoftechnologyhavebeenunusualinextremitytheir and policinganideologicalstance.Fromthetimethatprojectgotseriouslyunderway rians oftechnologywiththeir‘officialposture’,thecollectiveprojectdefining recent years.Theeffectofthatambivalenceisaggravatedbythepreoccupationhisto- science, mustunderliethisunwillingnesstoseehowlargelytechnologyhasrisenin ism thattheyencounterateveryhandasmerelyapersistentpopularmisconception. possible forthehistoriansoftechnologytoregardbeliefintechnologicaldetermin- the veryrealliberationoftechnologyin,andinconsequenceof,postmodernityisit widely, butcorrectly,regardedas‘unleashed’.Onlybywillfullyblindingthemselvesto Among them,science,aswehaveseen.Consequently,technologyistodaynotonly in modernityweresupposedcapableofexercisingsomegovernanceovertechnology. the storyoftechnologicalchange’. command overallthehighgroundofoursubject’,andabout‘whoisbestsuitedtotell must do‘inordertomaintaintheirdisciplinaryidentity’,aboutthe‘taskoftaking who hasnot‘closelyadheredtoestablisheddisciplinaryprecepts’,aboutwhatthey concern about‘sociologicalboundaries’and‘bedrockprinciple’,whohas exorbitant butantediluvian. doxy seemstoday,withmodernityabdicatinginfavorofpostmodernity,notmerely interest ofmoreandbetterhistoricalunderstanding,thatquestforideologicalortho- A constitutionalambivalencetowardtechnology,andnotmerelyanignorationof The factis,however,thatpostmodernityhasdisempoweredmostoftheforces 410 about thepast. relationship betweenscienceandtechnologythewaytheydid …whatthismaytellus beliefs) hasbeensopervasiveinAmericanculture.…whyhistorical actorsdescribedthe ogy—little attentionhasbeenpaidtothehistoryofthisview and whyit(andsimilar tation oftechnology—atleastamonghistoriansandsociologists ofscienceandtechnol- Although [a]largebodyofliteraturehasdiscreditedthesimpleapplied-science interpre- —the historiansoftechnologyhavedistinguishedthemselvesratherbytheir 414 409

412 Although pridingthemselvesupontheirreceptiveness— 411

Never realisticallyattainable,andneverinthe History andTechnology 413

It ismore 67 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 economic self-interests. the engineers’discoursebystigmatizingitasaparoleintendedtoadvancesocialand himself oftheopportunitytoaddressthosequestionswhenheopteddelegitimate American culture’,and‘whatthismaytellusaboutthepast’.Indeed,Klinedeprived larger andmorefundamentalquestions:whythatview‘hasbeensopervasivein pursue thequestion 68 tedly quiteold-fashioned, conception ofthehistorian’staskwewouldbehard temporally, socially,andintellectually ‘scattered’articulations.Withoutthis,admit- stood tobedelineatingthat constellation ofculturalvaluesbyconnectingthe‘dots’ of extended periodoftime;can performthisserviceonlyifthehistorian’staskisunder- positions integratingtheoutlooks ofactorsindiversesocialsituationsover an only if,asmodernitywouldhaveit,cultureisconceived asaconstellationofpresup- ized intoamultiplicityofcoexistingincoherentcultures; canperformthisservice Manufacturers. Ure, asaDunnandDewey,ThorsteinVeblen theNationalAssociationof socially, politically,andphilosophicallyopposedtoone anotherasaMarxand of thosepreposterous,butyettaken-for-granted,prejudices sharedbypersonsso tion for social’ andmakesacaseforreferenceto‘thecultural’asmoresatisfactoryexplana- cultural valuesofthehistoricalera. departures fromthepatternornormcreatedbyand answeringtothereigning tions isthenancillary,withtheirgreatestservice lying intheexplanationof ing passé explanation ofwhateveritisthatwepulloutfromthepast—aconceitnowincreas- plines sincethe1960sthatreductionto‘thesocial’providesmostsatisfactory with animportantdifference.Whereasithasbeenacommonconceitinourdisci- largely, whatthisexposéofthepreposterousprimacyscienceisabout,buthere history ofsciencetoo,hassolargelybeenaboutinthesepastthreedecades.Itisalso, ests. Tosuppose,onthecontrary,thatweknowthoseinterests determines theextenttowhichanera’sactorsactinfactaccordwiththeirinter- era’s actorsare.Whereitdoesnotdeterminethoseintereststhemselves,largely power of‘thecultural’. logical consequence.Thatpower,thepowerthatmakesanhistoricalera,is and Dewey,thehistorianmustneedsinvokeapowergreaterthansocialinterests systematically elaboratedintellectualpositionsaswefoundwithMarx,andVeblen, late-19th andearly-20thcenturyAmericanengineers,orfromthedemandsof diverging soflagrantlyfromthedemandsofsocialself-interestasthatfoundamong nation toscience. case withthe‘socialinterests’explanationofAmericanengineers’self-subordi- must necessarilyleadthehistorianintoanachronisticimputations—ashasbeen first graspingtheconstellationofpresuppositionsconstitutingaculturalepoch, ‘The cultural’canperformthis‘epochmaking’serviceonly ifitisnotpostmodern- To besure,delegitimatingdiscourseiswhatthehistoryoftechnology,and It is‘thecultural’thatinlargemeasuredecideswhatthesocialinterestsofan P. Forman 416 beliefs —this papercastsfurtherdoubtontheexplanatoryadequacyof‘the

held byhistoricalactors. 418

why The properroleofsocialand,especially,institutionalexplana- 415

US engineersheldthatview,anddidnotaddressatallthe 419

Foundational istheexistenceofthatnorm, 417

Thus, inordertoexplaindiscourse a priori , without Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 are inevitablyalsorejectinghistoryasascholarlydiscipline. reject thenotionofhistoricalerasasamodernistillusion,or,worse,oppression,we pressed toconceiveof,letalonedefine,distincthistoricaleras.If,furthermore,we of themoreorlessintentional obfuscationofscience’sdecisiveinvolvementwiththe the courseofourstudieslate modernscience,becameawareofthis‘divergence’and facts whenpittedagainstwidely andstronglyheldculturalvalues.Aswehistorians, in which Edgertonrightlyfound astonishing,isbutanotherexampleoftheimpotence of That ‘divergence’between accepted truthandactual,available,evenobviousfact, or, atleast,radicallydifferententerprises’: regarding modernity’sinsistence‘thatscienceandwarwere antitheticaltoeachother distribution ofthatgovernmentalsupportfor‘research’.AsEdgertonsaidadecadeago role thatthemilitarywasplayinginmakingofsciencethroughgenerationand where andasthescientists’confabulationsregarding‘science’obfuscatedverylarge as for-its-own-sakepursuitofunderstanding.Thistaskcametoseemespeciallyurgent under therubric‘research’approximatedtowidelyacceptedconceptionofscience conceived itandlaudedit;thatonlythesmallestpartofwhatgovernmentssupported modern science,andespeciallylatewasnotreallyasmodernity to seemurgentbringintolightandsightthetruefactofmatter,namely,that ness oftechnology. specifically here,today,seeingnovalueinscienceexceptreferencetoitsproductive- are ofsecondaryimportance;primaryimportancetheculturalvalues—and real worldutilities—istheonlyrelevantpointofreference.Thusfactsmatter both: apresumptionthat‘technology’—where‘technology’standsforthetotalityof ise tospawnnewtechnologies.Asalways,whatisfundamentalcommon technologies, whiletheharderheadssaythatsciencehasfailedtodeliveronitsprom- with science,thesofterheadssaythatsciencehasbeensourceofdeplorablenew facts bydifferentfolks.Whenaskedforthespecificgroundsofourdisillusionment this changeinourviewofscienceisattributedtotheforcefacts;butdifferent logical innovations—allgraduallygainingmoreforceandeffectsincethelate1970s— and moreespeciallyofthelossbeliefinbasicresearchaskeysourcetechno- science inculturalrank,ofthelossconfidencetrustworthinessscientists, inferences fromobviousfacts.Thustoday,whennoticeistakenofthedemotion tered bythehistorian:culturallydeterminedvaluationsareregardedasself-evident relation betweenscienceandtechnologyexemplifiesacircumstanceoftenencoun- How differentlymattersstoodinmodernity!Sothattosomeofusitcame The imperviousnesstotheforceoffactssoevidentinmodernity’sbeliefsabout picture …. There wasalwayssufficientinformationinthepublicdomain to yieldaverydifferent and muchremainstobediscoveredtoday,thedivergencecannot beexplainedbysecrecy. details oftherelationsscience,technologyandwarwerenotknown bycontemporaries, tions ofscienceandwar…willastonisheventhemosthard-bitten cynic.Althoughmany gence betweenthispictureandthemoststraight-forwardempirical analysisoftherela- have bewitchedmanystudentsoftherelationsscience,technology andwar.Thediver- These stories,whichwereintendedtobetakenliterally,fairy stories,butonesthat 421 420 History andTechnology 69 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 prior to ods, theorists,andpractitioners,allbiasedtowardtechnology,wehavefoundthat, Asking aftertheputativerelationbetweentechnologyandscienceinasampleofperi- investigation thatformsthecoreofthispaper. strongly heldbysomanyastocauseEdgerton’sobviousfactsbeignored.Hencethe of thestrengthandpervasivenessmodernvaluesinera—valuesso condition, itis,onthecontrary,mostneedfulforusashistorianstoremindourselves one preferredtoignore. military, itseemedmostneedfultodrawattentionwhatinmodernitynearlyevery- 70 relations betweenstates,where,as against whichthoseadoptingthatmaximoffended.Even intherestrictedsphereof ‘the endjustifiesthemeans’isagoodindicationof strengthoftheculturalvalue justified, indeedsanctified,bythemeansandonly meansemployedtoattainit. method inallitsdoings,insistencethatthemeansare priortoends,thattheendis most pertinentanddistinctivewasmodernity’s‘methodism’, itsstressuponproper values sustainingtheprimacyofsciencethatdemandour attention.Amongthose,the nity, specifically,thatwewishbettertounderstand,then itisthespecificallymodern was reinforcedbyelementsoftheJudeo-Christiantradition. If,however,itismoder- notably disinterestedness,thehighvalueofwhichinGreekphilosophicaltradition modern culturalvalues,butalsobyvaluescarriedoverfrompremodernity— modernity theprimacyofsciencetotechnologywassustainednotonlybyspecifically ogy, hasalonghistoryextendingbackthroughpremodernity.Consequently,in question. concluded withabriefindicationofwhatseemstomethesinglebestanswerthat of thereversalprimacybetweenscienceandtechnologyisthereforeappropriately about thepast’.Myendeavorheretobringclearlyintoviewfact—anddate— ship betweenscienceandtechnologythewaytheydid…whatthismaytellus ical conflicts,butbyallmanner ofinstitutions(institutionsresearchandhigher means’ isunapologeticallyasserted asrationaleforpolicyandpracticenotonlyinpolit- without statedorimpliedreservations. Today,onthecontrary,‘theendjustifies means’ wasconstantlycontested, andthatmaximwasneverassertedbyitsapologists practice, andhadapologists forsodoing,theacceptabilityof‘theendjustifies practice greater specificityandastillsignificance. reversal inthescience–technologyrelationgivestothishistorical–culturaltransitiona epoch-making. Ifidentifiedwiththetransitionfrommodernitytopostmodernity,that the millennial—primacyrelationsbetweenscienceandtechnologyisunquestionably populist upsurges.Therapidreversalabout1980inthemorethanmerelymodern— by apowerfulromantictraditionamongartistsandintellectuals,intermittently the primacyofscienceitselfasculturalvaluewascontinuallychallengedinmodernity The strengthofthetermsdeprecationthatmodernity directedagainstthemaxim The primacyofsciencetotechnology,andeventhe for technol- There remains,however,thequestion‘whyhistoricalactorsdescribedrelation- P. Forman ca for

1980, theprimacyofscienceinculturalvalue

technology, wasverynearlyuniversallypresupposed,notwithstandingthat 422

Today, however,infullerconsciousnessofourpostmodern Realpolitik , thatmaximwasgenerallyfollowedin 423 to

technology, andincultural Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 technocratic administeredstate,andeven,inaperverseway,of pre-eminently oftheliberal-democraticstate,butscarcelylessbureaucratic- century ‘methodism’hadbecometheonlygenerallyacceptabletheoryofstate— and Continentalstatistbureaucraciesontheotherside.Again,bymid-19th divergent developmentsasBritishlegalandparliamentaryproceduresontheoneside, constitution andconductofauthority.Methodwasatthecentersuchotherwise subjects, normativefor,ifnotactuallycharacteristicof,almostallaspectsofthe the end’becameoverridingregulatoryaxiominconceptionsofstateandits from whichallepistemologyproceeded.Similarlyinmodernity‘themeanslegitimate edge. Bythemid19thcentury‘themeanslegitimateend’hadbecomeaxiom be identifiedevermorecompletelywithmethodratherthanascertainedknowl- the 16thcenturyandoverfollowingthreecenturiesscienceinallitsformscameto nity (asinpremodernity)couldbesaidonlywithirony. ogy. Fortechnologythedeprecated inverseholds:‘theendjustifiesthemeans’. A methodist motto,‘themeans legitimatetheend’,isinherentlyinapplicabletotechnol- modernity adepreciativeregard, asubordinateculturalrank.Moreover,modernity’s consequently itsinherentlack ofautonomy—necessarilyandunavoidablyimplied in did forscientists.Technology’s incapacitytocreateandwarrantitsownends—and the essenceanduseoftheirwork,thatexcusenever workedsowellforthemasit like scientists,technologistcouldtrytoexcusethemselves bydistinguishingbetween uniquely, characteristicoffor-its-own-sakescience. autonomy—both ofthesevirtues,inthemodernmind, beingespecially,ifnot sized disinterestednessintheforegoingexposition,and Icouldhaveemphasized it wasthoughttoexist,esteemednotsolelyasmethodist. Ihaverepeatedlyempha- the method,withwhichthatknowledgewasattained.To besure,‘purescience’,while knowledge wasnotitsserviceabilitytosomepresetend,but theproprietyofmeans, science’, scienceasfor-its-own-sakeknowledge.What validatedsuchknowledgeas full forceonlyto—andthusundergirdstheesteemenjoyedinmodernityby—‘pure cultural standingasresultingfrommodernity’sattachmenttomethodismapplieswith methodism. outdated aboveallthroughthepostmoderndisinclinationtoward,andlossoffaithin, finalization theoryoftheStarnbergschool,clingtosothoroughlyoutdatedanideal— maxim inallpersonalrelationships.Today, learning emphaticallyincluded).More,‘theendjustifiesthemeans’isoperative society. and widelyacceptedas—amodelforthefunctioningofaliberal-democratic high: sohighatthemiddleof20thcenturythatsciencecouldbeputforwardas— exemplar ofcollectiveprogressthrough‘methodism’,itsculturalstandingwasdoubly for achievingcollectivesocialprogress.Becausesciencewasalsothemostpersuasive guiding conceptionnotonlyoftheconductauthority Modernity’s preoccupationwithmethodisevidentinnaturalphilosophyalready In alltheseregards,technologyistheantithesisoffor-its-own-sake science.Though It isimportanttobearinmind,however,thattheargumentforscience’shigh In liberal-democraticstates,orinsuchpartieswithinthestate,methodismwas 424

Today onlyunreconstructedmodernists,likethoseseekingtorevivethe is

fair inloveandwar,whatmoder- vis-à-vis History andTechnology der Führerstaat

the subjectbutalso . 71 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Notes Blumtritt, JonathanHarwood,LewisPyensonandAlex Roland. ‘When istheLaboratoryPostmodern?’washelpfullycriticized byRobertBud,Oskar the NationalAirandSpaceMuseum.Thetextofearlierpresentation,undertitle 2004 atthemonthlyHistoricalSeminaronContemporaryScienceandTechnology History ofTechnologyinAmsterdamOctober2004,andmorefullyDecember the thesisheredevelopedwaspresentedbrieflyatmeetingofSocietyfor prior toitspublication.Asregardsthedemarcationofpostmodernityfrommodernity, correspondence andreferences,toEricSchatzbergforcommunicatinghiswork nology literature.IamgratefultoGuidoFrisonforcopiesofhispublicationsand Shinn andSkuliSigurdssonwhoalsogavemevaluablepointersinthehistoryoftech- Cao, CathrynCarson,SorayadeChadarevian,DominiquePestre,DanielSerwer,Terry discussion withoutassumingtheburdenofsuchlengthypreparationIthankTianYu Walker kindlyreadthepaperindraftandgavevaluablecriticism.Forstimulusof nity inthebroadestterms.MartinCollins,RonaldDoel,CharlesGillispie,andMark Piet Hut,InstituteforAdvancedStudy,whohaspushedmetothinkaboutpostmoder- Jeffrey Stine;H.-J.Rheinberger,Max-Planck-InstitutfürWissenschaftsgeschichte,and the NationalMuseumofAmericanHistoryandmysupervisorsJamesGardner For supportofmyeffortstounderstandpostmodernityIamgratefulthedirector Acknowledgements to-be-argued-with, ends. 2 1 dernity—technology issimplyallthereis,apartfromour More thanthat:inpostmodernity—pragmatic-utilitarian,primacy-of-endspostmo- thought andaction,acoherencethatimplieshighculturalrankingoftechnology. is anintrinsiccoherencebetweentechnologyandtheperspectivesguidingour ation). Inpostmodernity,however,whentheenddoesindeedjustifymeans,there measures ofefficacyandefficiencywhateverotherendsaretobetakenintoconsider- uate thegoodnessandrightnessofmeansemployed(havingbundledintoour and efficiencywithwhichthatendisattainedwenecessarilylookinordertoeval- technology isbydefinitionasetofmeanstoanendorends,andittheefficacy 72 2 ‘TheTurnto TechnologyinScienceStudies’(1991)wasrecognizedearlyonbyWoolgar,and [2] Edgerton,‘“The LinearModel”DidNotExist’,providesampleevidenceofthepresentpopu- [1] P. Forman strategic theoreticalsignificance of thesociologyscientificknowledge’. avoid addressingit,turninginstead tothemoreurgentmatterof‘dangerforgetting ing thequestion,‘Whataccounts forthismovefromsciencetotechnology?’However,hedid author beingnoexception’.Having madethisobservation,Woolgarcouldhardlyavoidrais- sociologists ofscientificknowledge (SSK)intothesocialstudyoftechnology(SST),this appropriately reflexively:‘Inrecent yearstherehasbeenanalmostindecentrushbysome examinations ofthehistoricalrelationbetweenscienceandtechnology inthepast40years. of thenotioninnovationasalinearprocess’.Godin,‘Measuring Science’,citesnumerous thought itimportanttostressthat‘Iamnotsimplyrepeatingthe alreadycountlesscriticisms larity ofpummeling‘thelinearmodel’.Alreadyin1983Callon, ‘SocietyintheMaking’,83, de gustibus , not- Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 4 3 9 8 7 6 5 9 Kline,‘Cybernetics…TheEmergenceof“InformationTechnology”asaKeyword,1948- [9] Zierdt-Warshawetal., [8] Harding,‘TheMelancholyofTechnology’—but,asInotedabove,itwouldbeanevenmore [7] Withtheverybigdifferencethattodayourendsaretotally‘individualized’,i.e.relative [6] Fifteenyearsago,atameetingdevotedtocriticalproblemsinthehistoryofscienceand [5] EloquentinthisregardisDear,‘WhattheHistoryofScience [4] Idrewattentiontotheunwarrantedconfusionofpostmodernism,atheoryand ideology [3] technology. See,also,notes29and31,below,SectionIIIgenerally. cipally fromthephilosophyoftechnology,haslargelybeenignoredamonghistorians Tooze, Case AgainstGeneticEngineering’, appearing intheterm‘geneticengineering’, wasinitiallyopprobrious(e.g.GeorgeWald,‘The engineering. Thatconception,arising outoftherecombinantDNAcontroversyandfirst of theemergenceinmid1970s ofourcontemporaryconceptionmolecularbiologyas emphatically anaberrationinits early20thcenturycontext,arousedPauly’sinterestbecause Jacques LoebandhisstudentsidentifieddescribedbyPauly. ButLoeb’sconception, Weightier ascounterexampleis curator ofitsmodernphysicscollectionwhenthatmuseumwas createdintheearly1960s. National MuseumofHistoryandTechnology—giventhemuseum whichemploysmeas science too—counterexamplesarenothardtofind.Forme,the nearestlyingisthename— quotation. reversal indiscoursesettingataboutthattime—aexemplified, Isurmise,byhis and Germanic,haveincludedaconceptionofjusticeasmeans-sanctifiedend. expect tobeamongthelastrenouncescienceasnaturalphilosophy,is scholarly specialtyislessobviouslyself-definingthanitoncewas’.YetDear,whomonewould question inmytitle’,Dearexplained,‘arisesfromananxietythatthehistoryofscienceasa ing tion.”’ YetbecauseKlinewaspreoccupiedwithnursingagrievance overdiscourse‘subjugat- strictest senseisthenewscienceofcollecting,storing,processing, andtransmittinginforma- following quotation,dated1985,implicitlysupportingit:‘“Informationtechnologyinits 1985’, hasaccumulatedevidencetotestthisconjecture,andhisexpositionincludesthe serious mistakesimplytoequate‘Postmodernism’withpostmodernity. Society to, and chosenby,theindividualpersonorcorporateentity(Bauman, small partofthebiggerworld facts andprocessesthathasdominatedthehistoryoftechnologywillbeseenassimplyone period scienceappearssimplyasonemoretechnology.Moreover,thetechnologyofarti- in whichthehistoryoftechnology—ortechnologies—takesleadandmodern is adopted,wewillhaveaversionofthehistoryrelationsscienceandtechnology subsumed undertechnology;theoldhierarchyisbeingturnedonitshead.Ifthisinversion ‘Where oncetechnologywassubsumedunderscience,nowscienceisonthebrinkofbeing between theHistoriesofScienceandTechnology’,S26,statedprescientlyforcefullythat history oftechnology,Laudan,‘NaturalAllianceorForcedMarriage?ChangingRelations postmodernity, butbynomeansthewholeofit,norevenanaccuratedescriptionit. incipient, inForman,‘RecentScience’.Postmodernismwasamanifestationoftheonset articulated byintellectualsinthe1970sand1980s,withpostmodernity,historicalerathen But tosospecificandfar-reachingaclaim—thatinmodernity ‘technology’ natural philosophy’(pp.404–5),i.e.evenDearnowseesscienceastechnology. that ‘theinstrumentalityinmodernscienceneednotbeseenasnecessarilyreliantonscience’s mental effectivenessofscienceisaresultthetruthitstheoreticalconstructs.Dearinsists incensed by‘thebasicideologyofmodernscience’,namely,itspresumptionthattheinstru- confusion ofsciencewithtechnologybyhistoriansscience.Quitethecontrary.Dearis information technology ), andwiththequalificationthatpre-modernWesternlegaltraditions,bothRoman The DNAStory American WomeninTechnology , 110).Theopprobriousnessof ‘geneticengineering’aslabelfora

to information science techne The EngineeringIdealinBiology The Sciences ’. Thisradicallypostmodernprospect,derivingprin- ’ (529),hewasnotwellpreparedtoseea , Sept.1976,asreprintedinWatson and , TableA3. History andTechnology

(1987), theprogramof The Individualized not Of

?’ (2005).‘The never protesting the

denoted 73 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 15 14 13 12 11 10 74 1]Mirowski,‘Caveat emptor’,drewattentiontotheacuityofDavidNobleandDickson [15] Typicalfor theperiodisGilpin, [14] Forexample,the1992paroleofNicholasMetropolisquotedinForman,‘RecentScience’, [13] CollinsandPinch, [12] Thusin1992Galison,writing‘Introduction:TheManyFacesofBigScience’for thevolume [11] CapshewandRader,‘BigScience:PricetothePresent’.Thereferenceis,ofcourse, toDerekJ. [10] P. Forman conducts herargumentforkeepingscienceaheadoftechnology. them, isindicativebothofJacob’santi-postmodernpositionandthewayinwhichshehere et al. society. Similarly,HårdandJamison, ment of‘everyone’by‘you’bespeaks,andappealsto,thepostmodernindividualization nology’ isnottheonlypostmodernizationapparentintitleoftheirsequel:displace- “big building”wouldbetothehistorianofarchitecture’. view isthis:asananalyticterm,“bigphysics”abouthelpfultothehistorianofscience of hisgeneration. primarily. reversed, forthisworktooisconcernedwithscienceonlysecondarily, withtechnology times, ‘technologie’onlyonce.Needlesstosay,byrightsthe ratioshouldhavebeen ogy tooupthereinhissubtitle,butverydetailedtableofcontents ‘science’appears23 L’État etlascience:Lapolitiquepubliquedesciencetechnologie too begantoshiftinthemid1980s,butonlyslowly.So,for example, althoughRouban, scholars, ingoodpartbecausetheyhavethoughtofthemselves as scientists.Theirdiscourse technology longremainedespeciallystrongamongthepolitical scientists andsciencepolicy his quotedsourceswereinfactspeakingaboutscience.Thatcapacity of‘science’tocover own preconceptionsandFrench‘science’rhetoric,Gilpinremained oblivioustohowlittle Shapin andSchaffer, primacy ofscience—underahalfironic,postmoderntitle.Acontrivedslap(p.45)at by about1980,reflecttheincipientpostmodernizationofgeneralculturalmilieu. the negativeconnotationsof‘geneticengineering’,andwideacceptancethatappellation research programbespeaksitsorigininascientificmilieustillmodern.Theneutralizationof Noble andDicksonwerenotthen yetabletounthinktheassumptionofprimacy of thereversedrelationbetween scienceandtechnology.Itisthusthemorestrikingthat Politics ofScience ment sciencepolicywasfor,and wastodo.ThatlongpaperandalsoDickson’s shift havingtakenplaceintheUSA inthelate1970sassumptionsaboutwhatgovern- who soearlyas1981(‘ByForce of Reason’)wereabletorecognizethefactafundamental Sources’, andearlierpublicationscitedthere. consequently arguedagainsttheexistenceofapostmoderndiscontinuity:Shinn,‘New has arguedforthecentralroleof‘researchtechnologies’throughout20thcentury,and of primacyintheenvironmentalsciencespasttwodecades.Shinn,oncontrary, Kwa, ‘InterdisciplinarityandPostmodernity’,339–41,drawsattentiontohightheory’sloss Representing andIntervening tive, andinfluentialexampleinthehistoryphilosophyofscienceisHacking, imental physics.Therolesofpureandappliedsciencehavebeenreversed.’Anearly,indica- much inloftyhallsoftheoreticalphysicsastheless-noticedlabsengineeringandexper- 119: ‘SinceWorldWarIIthediscoveriesthathavechangedworldwerenotmadeso science’. However,JacobandStewart, nology andscience’,intheirchaptertitlesspeaknotatallofsciencebutonly‘techno- science.”’ Fiveyearson,in volume beingto‘explorethemanykindsofactivitiesthataresubsumedunderterm“big he editedwithHevly,treated‘bigscience’asanentirelyserviceableterm,theintentoftheir de SollaPrice(Price, , Telling theTruthaboutHistory

(1984) areimpressivelyperceptive, informedanddocumenteddescriptions The Golem Little Science,BigScience Leviathan andtheAirPump Image andLogic

and (1983), withits‘anti-theoretical’intentstatedinhispreface. France intheAgeofScientificState The GolematLarge Hubris andHybrids , isadefenseofmodernpresuppositions—herethe Practical Matter , 553,Galisonwascontemptuousofthatterm:‘My ), themostingeniousofhistoriansscience , withoutnamingthem,letaloneciting . Thedisplacementof‘science’by‘tech- , likeJacob’searlierwork,Appleby , insistontheinvertedorder,‘tech-

(1988), getstechnol- (1968). Betweenhis The New Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 2]Sibum,‘WhatKindofScience’;Auerbach, [24] PestreandKrige,‘SomeThoughts’,94,93. [23] In [22] Agoodindicationoftheorganizedresistancetoconflationsciencewithtechnologyis [21] Itreceiveditshighestpraiseinthe [20] Thescholarlyreviewsof [19] Latour, [18] LatourandWoolgar, [17] Alreadyin1979Lyotard, [16] strongly Dickson’s bookbutthroughthetextaswell.(Asnotedbelow,note73,aMarxianperspective science Heidegger byLatourandthephilosophic milieuinFrance.(Onwhichseenote37,below.) part only(asIwillshowinanotherpaper)—aninventionindicative oftheimportancegiven and allegingthathehaditfromHeidegger.Thattooisaninvention—and notonLatour’s personal communicationfromLatouradmittingthathehadnot infactinventedtheword Social StudiesofScience science studieshastakenhimathisword;so,forexample,Shapin inhisreviewofthebook a goodindicationofwhatisbeingresisted Lecourt’s prefatorymaterialto tion tosociologistsandhistoriansofscience’. Structure ofScientificRevolutionsbothasaprovocationtophilosophersandaninspira- predict thatScienceinActionwillhaveanimpactcomparabletoofThomasKuhn’s review: ‘Thisisnomerebricolage,butacoherentandpowerfulframeworkforresearch.I science andtechnologyareEtzkowitz,GoldmanShrum. Shapin, Shrum,StarandYearly.ThosetakingnoticeofLatour’sequation/conflation Etzkowitz, Goldman,Hacking,Jardine,Myers,Oldroyd,Overman,Pinch,Rocque,Rose, Boyle’s LiteraryTechnology’(1984)and,withSchaffer, more generally,wereShapin’searlierpublications:Shapin,‘PumpandCircumstance:Robert the primacyoftechnologyintohistoryscience,sciencestudies,andhumanisticstudies primacy inthescience–technologyrelation,butcertainlyimportantforintroductionof Experimental Science’,158.)ProbablyimportantforthatreversalinLatour’sconceptionof brief discussions ofthescience–technology relationbyRadder,‘TechnologyandTheoryin ‘Weimar Culture’. post-First WorldWarcultural milieu ofGermanCentralEuropearegiveninForman, Numerous examplesofsuchrhetorical concessionsbyphysicistsandmathematicianstothe science. Theynowspeaktoscience’. ing agenciesspokeinthenameofsciencetonationalstates,articulatingneeds 337–8, againmakingthatpoint.Likewise,Kwa,‘Programming’,abstract:‘Priorto1980,fund- ‘Research, Bureaucracy’,194,towhichmyattentionwasdrawnbyKwa,‘Interdisciplinarity’, science policy.Sciencepolicy—inthesenseofpolityforscience—ceasedtoexist’.Elzinga, in the1970sandthereafterinnovationpolicy1980s.Theendresulthasbeenof of the1960sunderwentatransformationintowhatismoreproperlycalledtechnologypolicy www.rouge.com.au/3/ister.html; accessed16November2004. (Ircam) attheCentrePompidou.Forbiographicalbackground andinterviews,see:http:// Pierre BoulezasdirectoroftheInstitutdeRechercheetCoordination Acoustique/Musique http://tekhnema.free.fr, or,stillbetter,thecareerofBernardStiegler, thesecondsuccessorto index ofthecoursemodern–postmoderntransition. paper Iwillexploretheoriginsandprogressof‘technoscience’insomedetail,likewiseas term ‘technoscience’—whichheneitherinvented,norclaimedtohaveinvented.Inanother science andtechnologyisreversed’).Beginningintheearly1980s,Lyotardbegantouse asserted that‘Lerapportdelascienceettechniques’inverse’(‘Therelationshipbetween Science inAction , whichassumptionenabled‘science’tostandfortechnologytoo,notonlyinthetitleof Science inAction supported

that assumption.)By1985Elzingahadrecognized‘Thesciencepolicy , 29,LatourclaimedtobecoiningthetermandAnglophone worldof Laboratory Life . Then,inanote(n.1,p.548)addedproof,Shapinreports a , 131–2,168–9.(MyattentionwasdrawntoLatour’stwovery La conditionpostmoderne Science inAction Dictionnaire d’histoireetdephilosophiedessciences Times LiterarySupplement ; Latour,‘GiveMeaLaboratory’,159–69.

Tekhnema: JournalofPhilosophyandTechnology that IhaveseenarebyAmsterdamska,Bijker, Entwicklungsgeschichte dermodernen Physik , 77( Leviathan andtheAir-Pump The PostmodernCondition History andTechnology , whereJardineconcludedhis

(1999). And (1985). , 47),had , 4. 75 , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 76 3]Historiansand sociologistsofscienceandalso,moresurprisingly,technologyhave [31] LovittandLovitt, [30] Ihde, [29] Lecourt, [28] Anunwillingnesstounderstandthat,how,why,inmodernityadistinctionwasdrawn [27] Auerbach, [26] Thisinvidiousdistinctionbetweenobservationalandexperimentalsciences,i.e. betweenthose [25] P. Forman technologies determinewhatisscience’. in thePhilosophyofTechnology technology texts. the firsttoreachthisinsight,andtranslateHeidegger’s principalprimacyof that hasinformedhistoryofboth scienceandtechnologyformostofthiscentury’.She broad interpretationof in contemporaryhistoryofscience), thetalkofmediationsandtransparency,very centrality ofpraxis(whichhasbeen transmutedintothetalkaboutpracticesthatissopopular has suppliedtheunderpinning for mostrecentsociologyofscience.Theinsistenceonthe philosophy, ofhermeneuticsstemming ultimatelyfromHusserlandHeidegger.Itisthisthat from anoldtradition,butitisnottheanalytic;rather, thetraditionofContinental S25–6, pointedoutratherearlyonthatthisunprecedentedprimacy oftechnology‘derives have becomethemselvesonlyunconsciouslyHeideggerian.Again, Laudan,‘NaturalAlliance’, remained largelyunawareofjusthowimportantHeideggerhas become,andconsequently Republic ofLetters’,107. between experimentalphysicsandtechnologyappearsalsoinSibum,‘Experimentaliststhe der reinenErkenntnisdient.’ ern sienicht(oderdochinersterLinie)auftechnischeAnwendungenausgeht,sondern der Methodenach;denndemZielenachistundbleibtsieeinereineNaturwissenschaft,insof- Sinne kannmansiegeradezualseinetechnischeWissenschaftbezeichnen.Wohlverstanden: sondern künstlichundnachWillkürdesForschershergestelltePhänomene;indiesem Astronomie, dieGeologie,Botanikusw.sind;siebehandeltgarkeineNaturerscheinungen, (nicht dem Ziele)nachstrenggenommenüberhauptkeineNaturwissenschaft,wieesdie frühromantische TheoriederMischung century Germanromanticsasstandingbetweenthemechanicalandorganic:Kapitza, See alsonote40,below.Chemicalexperimentationwasregardedmorefavorablybylate18th you needistotemptnaturebyforce;inheremergencyshewillalwaysmakeapainfulreply.’ Nothing iseasier,Müllersaid,thantomakeaseriesofso-calledinterestingexperiments.All he calledexperimentationartificial,impatient,eager,digressive,passionate,unreliable. Whereas Müllerbelievedobservationtobenatural,patient,assiduous,faithful,unprejudiced, contains achapterentitled“ObservationandExperiment”(“BeobachtungundVersuch”). ‘The textofMüller’sinauguralacademiclecture,deliveredin1824andprinted1826, Experimental Method’,19,referringtotheGoethe-idolizingphysiologistJohannesMüller: course toFrancisBacon,butnottheanimus.)AndRiese,‘TheImpactofRomanticismon off Nature’s limbsonthetorturerack’or‘withsharpknifecuts’.(Theimagegoesbackof quotations deploringsuchscienceas‘tearingphenomenaoutoftheircontext’, and Goetheregardingexperimentalscience,moreespeciallyphysics,displaysparallel die Zeit ungraspable andinallherpointshonorableunfathomable’.Höpfner, the nakedknifeofreasonthatshamelesslywantstomeasureoutNature,whoisalways 161–2, quotedSchilleronAlexandervonHumboldt’sexperimentsanimalelectricity:‘Itis romantics fromSchillerandGoetheonward.Rothschuh,‘BedeutungapparativerHilfsmittel’, attentive tonatureandthosetormentiveofnature,wasquitegenerallymaintainedbyGerman 1: 442. above inRichards, Instrumental Realism , 58–62,arguingtheessentialagreementbetweenNovalis(FriedrichvonHardenberg) Contra lapeur Entwicklungsgeschichte The RomanticConceptionofLife. Modern Technology , 144.Lecourt’sappraisalisquotedbyJanicaud, techne , 140,55.(ThegrammarisallIhde’s.)Similarly,Kaplan,

as purposiveactionallcomefrom outsidetheanalytictradition , 431,writes:‘Scienceisembodiedinitstechnologies,and , 4–5:‘IndiesemSinneistdiePhysikIherMethode , 166–9, , 265.Wm.Lovitt,ablindscholar,hadbeenoneof et passim . Icouldfindnodiscussionofthe Heidegger enFrance Wissenschaft wider Readings Die , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 36 35 34 33 32 3]‘…jederderTeilnehmerdieserFrageaufseine WeiseeineBeachtungschenkteundsieals [36] ‘Istdieneuzeitliche Naturwissenschaft—wiemanmeint—dieGrundlagedermodernen [35] Amoreforcefuldeprecationofthenotionthattechnologyisappliedscienceoccursin [34] Grene,‘Heidegger,Martin’,462.Heidegger,‘TheAgeoftheWorldView’,269(translatedby [33] Borgman,‘TheQuestionofHeideggerandTechnology’(1987),107–8.Alderman,‘Heidegger’s [32] Latour, ‘WhyHasCritiqueRunoutofSteam?’. argues openlyforHeideggerizationofsciencestudiesasthewayfrom‘critique’to‘concern’: so muchofthathiddeninfluenceHeideggerintosciencestudiesinrecentdecades,now about technologyandculture’:Hughes, recently, however,HughesexcludedHeideggerentirelyfromhisreflectionson‘howtothink (1989), 6,offeredadefinitionoftechnologythathehimselfregardedasHeideggerian.More Bijker Web’ (1986),288,andtheunsignedbutobviouslyHughes-authoredintroductiontoPartIin Hughes noticedtheHeideggerianaffinitiesofactor-networktheory:Hughes,‘TheSeamless definition of tional definitionoftechnologyashavingtodowithartifactsandhavenotembracedthewider continued toobserve(S27):‘Buthistoriansoftechnologyhavetendedstaywiththeirtradi- Relation ofModernScienceto Technology,”whichbecamethisyearstheme.’ ing ofthesociety,April11,1976. Inthisletter,Heideggercalledustoconsider“The (May 26,1976),andbreacheda twenty-fiveyearrejoindertohisletterthetenthconven- pants bothcommemoratedthetwenty-fifthanniversaryof deathofMartinHeidegger annual meetingoftheNorthAmericanHeideggerSocietywith observationthat‘partici- still unthinkableatthatdate.In2001,MichaelKellyintroduced hisreportofthe35th moderne Technik”’—whatHeideggerwouldcertainlyhavewelcomed, butwhatwasinfact the meetingasthatof‘einesKolloquiumsüber“Neuzeitliche Naturwissenschaftund last. Wolf,however,missedtheadmonitorypointofHeidegger’s ‘greeting’,misconstruing book onHeideggerbyquotingthissentenceandsurmisingthat thistextwasHeidegger’s applied science. published lotsmoreontechnology,issueanywherenearsostrongadenialthattechnologyis traditional viewisradicallyfalse.’Neveragain,however,wouldtheprolificEllul,thoughhe schaft’. Anregung fürseinenArbeitsbereich aufnähme’.Heidegger,‘NeuzeitlicheNaturwissen- ‘Neuzeitliche Naturwissenschaft’.Wolf, ausführende undeinrichtendeMachenschaftdermodernen Technik?’,Heidegger, bestimmende VorgriffundderständigeEingriffdestechnologischen Vorstellensindie Technologie oderistsieihrerseitsschondieGrundformdestechnologischen Denkens,der Society deprecation ofthatnotionbyEllul,in 21–3. Interestingly,Heidegger’sisexactlycontemporaneouswiththefirstandmostforceful Heidegger’s ‘DieFragenachderTechnik’:Heidegger, Quoted from‘DieZeitdesWeltbildes’,inHeidegger, neuzeitlichen Technik,dasmitdemWesenderMetaphysikidentischist’. fordert. DieMaschinentechnikbleibtderbisjetztsichtbarsteAusläuferdesWesens Praxis derart,daßdieseerstdieVerwendungdermathematischenNaturwissenschaft Praxis mißdeuten.DieMaschinentechnikistselbsteineeigenständigeVerwandlungder nicht alsbloßeAnwendungderneuzeitlichenmathematischenNaturwissenschaftaufdie dem RangenachgleichwichtigeErscheinungistdieMaschinentechnik.Mandarfsiejedoch Grene). ‘ZudenwesentlichenErscheinungenderNeuzeitgehörtihreWissenschaft.Eine Heidegger’s subordinationofsciencetotechnology. Critique ofScienceandTechnology’(1978),exemplifiestheinabilitypriorto1980sgrasp and Haynes). this workthatIhaveseenisHeidegger,‘TheAgeoftheWorldPicture’(translatedbyYoung , 7–8:‘Everyonehasbeentaughtthattechniqueisanapplicationofscience.…This et al ., techne The SocialConstructionofTechnologicalSystems

that isbecomingpopularamonghistoriansofscience’.Earlierstill,T.P. La Technique Human-Built World Hermeneutik undTechnik

(1954), translatedas Holzwege The QuestionConcerningTechnology

(2004). Latour,who‘laundered’ History andTechnology . Hughes, , 75.Thebesttranslationof , 11,openshislearned American Genesis The Technological 77 , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 42 41 40 39 38 37 78 4]RobertFrosch, physicist,sometimeheadofNASA,inFrosch,‘TheNotes’,reviewingthetwo [42] Inthisregard, asmyonlyhalfironicepigraphsuggests,postmodernismwasrightaboutpost- [41] Gode-vonAesch, [40] Theromanticantipathytotechnologywasnotnearlysostrong,oratleastuniform,inthe [39] AgainstmycharacterizationHeideggerwouldhaveobjectedthat‘Ichhabenie [38] Foucault, [37] P. Forman See, also,note25. antagonism towardtechnologyand,therewith,formsofscienceaimingatmasterynature. Art oftheModernAge alone, cameHeidegger’sconvictionthatinpoetizinghewasphilosophizing.E.g.Schaeffer, emphatically withinthattradition.Moregenerally,fromtheromantictradition,andit Krell, Heidegger thenexplainedthedifferencebetweengood find that‘implication’ofhisargumentationuncomfortable.Toaudience’srelief, clear, hewastoyingwithhisaudience,knowingthatthosewhocametohearhimwould Aufsätze nik. EsistderBereichEntbergung,d.h.Wahr-heit’(Heidegger, Achten wirdarauf,dann öffnet sichunseinganzandererBereichfür dasWesenderTech- ‘Die TechnikistalsonichtbloßeinMittel.DieeineWeisedesEntbergens. nik’, hisfulleststatement,Heideggerhadsaid—andthestatementisoftenquoted—that Technik ich versuchedasWesenderTechnikzuverstehen’,quotedbyWolf, Technik gesprochen,auchnichtgegendassogenannteDämonischederTechnik.Sondern definitions ofscience,asGieryn, satisfactory definitionofscience isnottobefound,scienceinseparablefromworking that ispreoccupiedwithitsown coherence,asthehistoryoftechnologyhasbeen.Thougha definition oftechnologyiseasily formulated,butwouldincludefartoomuchforadiscipline are afraidofincludingtoomuch, historiansofscienceincludingtoolittle.Asatisfactory ans ofscienceareleerydefining science,butforoppositereasons:historiansoftechnology the union.Historiansoftechnologyaregenerallyleerydefining technology,justashistori- and technology,himselfwritingof‘processesscience/technology’ withoutcommentingon Thus Froschtooknonoticeof,letaloneissuewith,Collinsand Pinch’s conflationofscience books, oftendisagreeingwithhowitissaid,andthinkingthat isdangerouslyincomplete’. Golem modernity. So,forexample,Lecourt, also proofoftheprowessBritish.SeeSussman, published in1829—thoughCarlylehimselfwasquiteambivalent,formodernindustry of machinery’alongwithitsromanticindictment,wasThomasCarlyle,‘SignstheTimes’, century advanced.Atextofhugeimportanceinthattradition,creatingtheconcept‘theage British–American context,buttendedtoapproximatetheGermanattitudeas19th Janicaud, seems tomethatEzrahi French, therefore,tolearnalanguageforthinkinganewtheempire oftechnology’.Thusit ists generallyas‘technophiliac’.SimilarlyKroker, pertinence willappearinSectionII,Heideggeranathematized especially aphilosopher’s,andmostHeidegger’s.So,totakeanexamplewhose quoted byWolf,ahistorianisunwisetoacceptwithoutquestionanyone’sdenials, romantic antipathytowardmoderntechnology.AsforHeidegger’scategoricaldenial ment totraditionalhandicrafts,andthelaterHeidegger,whowasdominatedbyanequally between theearlyHeidegger,sonofavillagecooper,whoexpressedromanticattach- by moderntechnology.SomepartofHeidegger’sdenialcanbeaccepteddistinguishing backwards inlinkingpostmodernismwithtechnological

Daimon Life books, said‘Iaminthepeculiarpositionofagreeingwithmessage ofthegolem , 11,fromHeidegger, , 20).However,asHeidegger’sexpositionthereandonthefollowingpagesmakes Heidegger enFrance Politics, Philosophy,Culture Natural Science , andWolfhimself, . et al . Seealsonote22,above. ., Gesamtausgabe Technology, PessimismandPostmodernism , 24–31,isbothdescriptionandexpressionoftheromantic Cultural Boundaries The Mediocracy , 250;Rockmore, Hermeneutik undTechnik , 16:706.Indeed,in‘DieFragenachderTech- , 72–3,sawLyotardandthepostmodern- The PossessedIndividual Victorians andtheMachine , hassteadilyemphasized:science is pessimism Entbergung Heidegger andFrenchPhilosophy . Lebensphilosophie

and thebad , haveshown,hewas , havethecasejust Hermeneutik und , 1:‘Readthe Vorträge und . Entbergung gegen , but,as

die ; Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 44 43 50 49 48 47 46 45 4]CechasquotedbyBlackman,‘TheRightResearchMix’.Similarly,Kaiser, [44] DeGennes, [43] 5]Galison,‘Three Laboratories’,1127,1148,keepingpostmodernizationdammedbackinthe [50] Moreparticularly,itseemstomeunwarrantedconstruethedevelopmentofenormous [49] Forexample,GreeleyandHout,‘Americans’IncreasingBeliefinLifeafterDeath’;Walter [48] Weintraub [47] JosephHenry,inhisretiringaddressastheAssociation’ssecondpresident,1850,admonished [46] AlanLeshner,thethennewCEO,addressingCouncilofAAAS,17February 2002,on [45] Spiritual’. Next Christendom included inscience,oraparticularscience. constituted byanongoingprocessofdrawingboundariesbetweenwhatisandnot ignores, asGalisondid,thedevelopmentofparticleaccelerators.) development ofparticledetectorsstylisticanalogiestopostmodern architectureifone energy acceleratorswerebeingbuilttoproduce.(Itissomuch easiertoimposeuponthe responses totheexigenciesofobservingjustthosespecialsorts ofprocessesthatthehigh- detector types,andinveststhosethematawitharchetypicalpowers—as otherthanobvious conception ofsuch‘hybrid’instruments—‘hybrid’onlyifoneaccepts Galison’sthemataof 684–5, and‘ThreeLaboratories’.Nothing,onGalison’sshowing, compelsustoregardthe God distorts ashereports. Janelia willemphasizetechnology.’ThereisalsoWade,‘NewHughesHaven’,who,asusual, tors freeofgrant-seekingpressuresworkinsmallgroups.Therewillbeatleastonedifference: such astheLaboratoryofMolecularBiologyinCambridge,UK,wherewell-fundedinvestiga- Farm directorGeraldRubinsayshewantstorecreatetheclose-knitfeelingoflegendarylabs thesis isthecommonone.Seenotes 346–8,below.)If,however,Iamanywherenearrightthat without argumentinthetwenty-first century.’(Johnson’smisrepresentationofLayton’s Image Twins.”Theseviews,while perhapsradicalinthe1970s,havecometobeaccepted interdependent, parallel,epistemologically equivalentbodies,whatLaytoncalls“Mirror science norcompletelyoutside of it;communitiestechnologistsandscientistsconstitute Johnson, ‘RevisitingTechnology asKnowledge’:‘Technologyisneithersubsumedunder in anywayhomogenized’.Amoreup-to-datestatementofthisinoffensive postmodernismis insisting on‘apictureinwhichscientificandengineeringcultures aretreatedonapar,butnot innocuous realmofstyle,declinedtoseeanylossscientific identityinpostmodernity, energy acceleratorsas and enormouslycomplexmulti-modeparticledetectorsusedinconjunctionwiththehighest Sleeping withExtra-terrestrials Waterhouse, ‘AVeryPrivateBelief:ReincarnationinContemporaryEngland’;Kaminer, Reingold, ‘JosephHenry’,159,167. give notaninch’,promisingthemthat‘Oursisthefuture’.(Andforahundredyearsitwas.) its membersto‘Holdstubbornlytheessentialsofourfaithinscience.Avoidclashesbut innovation …’),asrecordedbyme. the revisedstatementofmissionAssociation(‘Advancingscienceandpromoting Conceptions ofScience’,38–9. saw thiscoming.Indeed,PeterMedawarwasadvocatingitasearlythe1960s:Medawar,‘Two be soratedthanacademic industrial R&Ddirectorsrateditasimportanttotheirowninterests—tentimesmorelikely academic science,farmorelikethatofengineeringresearch,inthedegreetowhich cial orientationofbiology—academicbiologicalresearchwasfarlesslikethatinanyother 1980s—i.e. beforemolecularbiologyhadbecomealeadingfactorinthetechnicalandcommer- study byKlevorick contributors pointedtootherthantechnologicallydefinedgoals.Indicativeinthisregardisthe ; Rifkin, et al Soft Interfaces The AgeofAccess ., ‘ThroughtheGlassLightly’.Notoneofbiologicalscientistsamong45 ; Clark, et al postmodern ., ‘OntheSources’,Tables1and3,showingthatasearlymid , 104–5. From AngelstoAliens physics ; Fogel, ; Schiller,

research! Bytheearly1970s,ErwinChargaff,

manifestations, asdidGalison, The FourthGreatAwakening Irrational Exuberance ; Forman,‘FromtheSocialtoMoral ; Fuller, History andTechnology ; Frank, Image andLogic Spiritual One MarketUnder Heraclitean Fire Science ; Jenkins, : ‘Janelia , 553–5, The 79 , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 80 5]Rorty,‘AnAntirepresentationalist View’,125,128.AsRortypointsoutelsewhere(Saatkamp, [58] GrossandLevitt, [57] Forexample,Taylor, [56] Again,thecontrastwithfoundingpurposesofthisturn20thcenturyinstitution [55] ‘ThisMonthinPhysicsHistory’.SeealsothequotationofNicholasMetropolisnote13. [54] Baird [53] SeeBraunandDiospatonyi,‘ASimplisticApproach’.IamgratefultoProfessor Braunfor [52] CaoandSchweber,‘TheConceptualFoundations’,71. [51] P. Forman the termsinterchangeably. ‘Nanotechnology’—elide completelythedistinctionbetweenscienceandtechnologyuse that eventhemostinsightfulcriticalexaminationsofnanotechnology—forexample,Milburn budget forstudiesofthesocialandethicalimportitsresearchprogram.Characteristicis Genome ProjecthasbeenthereproductionofHGP’sset-asideasmallpercentageits for oneaspectoftheUSNationalNanotechnologyInitiative’semulationHuman superabundance of‘sciencestudies’literatureonnanotechnology,andatsunamiintheoffing, move inlockstep,butaremerelydifferentnamesforthesamething’. “technoscience” tosignaltheircommitmenttheideathatscience andtechnologynotonly sciously, forLevittwrites(104)that‘Somecritics[ofscience]have takentousingtermslike Levitt, Latour’s conflationofscienceandtechnology.Similarly,thevery titleofthefollow-upbook, Tigner, ‘DoesAccelerator-based’. in thedefinitionofthemselvesasinventorsthatsimplydidnotexistforthem30yearsago: today, theexperimentalphysicistsareseekingtorepossesstechnologicrole,seeingavalue physicist andthe(lowerstatus)acceleratordesigning,building,operatingphysicist,now, arisen asamodernistfunctionaldifferentiationbetweenthe(higherstatus)experimental generation earlierjustsuchaseparationbetweenthescientificandengineering‘cultures’had interesting toseethatthere,inthehigh-energyparticle-acceleratorlaboratories,wherea able—and allthepressuretomergeisexerteduponscientists.Inthisconnection,it in thepostmodernlaboratorytechnologysubsumesscience,nosuchseparationissustain- tism: ‘Inafamousfootnoteto Rorty &Pragmatism but toonewhousesitforsatisfyingthephysicalratherthanintellectualneedsofmankind’. not totheinvestigationinpureetherealphysicswhichourSocietyisformedcultivate, pursuit sothatthisfeelingmaysustainusinthemidstofaworldwhichgivesitshighestpraise, Rowland, ‘TheHighestAim’,826:‘Aboveall,letuscultivatetheideaofdignityour could hardlybegreater.Thus,HenryA.Rowland’saddressasfirstpresidentofthesociety, uted megascience”’. scientists iscontinuallybeingreprogrammedbysciencepolicyofficialssteeringtheir‘“distrib- plinary “littlescience”structuresseeminglycontinuetoexist’,evenastheworkofthoselittle passim communicating theseresultstomepriortheirpublication.Kwa,‘Programming’,457 intending neithergoodnorill),makes mostoftechnologyrankaboveallscience. only ofthemoralintentionsthose engagedinit,andsettingscienceatzero(itspractitioners pushing them.”’ButRortythepostmodern, bytakingthevalueofanyenterpriseasafunction that “thehealtiestnotion”ofphysics isas“thescienceofthewaystakingholdbodiesand discussion (57–60)ofLatour’s of Protestantethics. physicist ofthehighestdistinction,bothinhisdisciplineandpublic service,andaparagon wins big,overturninginthecourtsclaimsofpatentholder—‘the NobelLaureate’—a make afortuneoutofhisearlyanticipationhowlasermightwork.‘Theinventor’finally his failedscientificcareertodevoteeffortsanentrepreneurialpatentsuit,hoping which takesasprotagonistalotsaliving,laying,andliquorphysicist(‘theinventor’)whoquits et al , drawsattentiontoanothercharacteristicformofpostmodernscienceinwhich‘disci- Prometheus Bedeviled ., Discovering theNanoscale Higher Superstition , 211,n.6),hethereremainsin the mostauthentictraditionofpragma- Laser: TheInventor,theNobelLaureate,andThirty-YearPatentWar , bespeaksconflationofsciencewithtechnology—surelyuncon- Science inAction Pragmatism ; McCray,‘WillSmallBeBeautiful?’.Thereisalreadya , 48–9.TheemphasisisGrossandLevitt’s.Intheir , Jamesquotes[physicist]W.S.Franklin assaying , nonoticeistakenof,letaloneexceptionto, et , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 59 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 5]So,forexample,physicistSrdjanLelas, [59] 6]Pestre,‘TheMoralandPolitical’,245–6,introducing severalarticlesonMarieCurie,under- [67] ThusGeorgKlingenberg, oneoftheprincipallieutenantstoAEGchiefFelixDeutsch,wrote [66] Wien,‘AufrufzumBeitritt’.Forman,‘TheHelmholtzGesellschaft’,Appendix.Wien’srefer- [65] Dunn,‘TheRelationship’.In1912DunnhadtoldthemembersofAmericanInstitute [64] Mayr,‘TheScience–TechnologyRelationship’,671.AndinsosayingMayradmonishedhis [63] Dunn,‘TheRelationship’.The‘ [62] Mumford, [61] Mirowski,‘TheScientificDimensions’,311,and‘CaveatEmptor’presentinghis conceptof [60] Technology’. action withnaturebywayoftechnologyanditskin—experiment’.Similarly,Lelas,‘Scienceas basis forthatbelief,aswellthemeansachievingbelieved-inknowledge,‘physicalinter- ‘provide apowerfulbasisforourbeliefinthereliabilityandtruthfulnessofscience’,finds discovered, ofscience’. appropriate, practicalformsofthetheoretictruths,implicitorformulated,anticipated and beleaders’. progress—and scientistsbeingby functiondisinterested—theyhadtoplaythedominantrole scored ‘theleadingrolesheattributed toscientiststhemselves.Sciencebeingthemotherof ‘The FinancialSupport’. interested inmakingpoliticalalliances withtheleadersofscienceandscholarship:Forman, effect—in part,itmustbesaid,becausetheindustrialleaders were atthisjuncturemuch Farbenfabriken BayerAG,Leverkusen,signature46/8.Klingenberg’s protestwastono German isquotedinForman,‘TheHelmholtzGesellschaft’,115, fromletterinWerksarchiv, erroneous designationwhichcanpossiblybefoundfortechnology [ [ bly assumethattheexpression“appliedphysics”issupposed toincludetechnology ing critiquesosoonasthedocumentsoffoundingmeeting came tohand:‘Ican’tpossi- his boss,whohadacceptedthepositionoftreasurerHelmholtz-Gesellschaft, ascath- below. nology connection,seethediscussionsofHeidegger,above,and oftheErlangenSchool, ‘Weimar Culture’,40–4,49,55.Regardingromanticism’sreprehensionofthephysics–tech- emphasize beforeanacademicaudiencephysics’closeconnectionwithtechnology.Forman, reaction followingGermany’sdefeatintheFirstWorldWarmadeitmorethanunwiseto would havesaidthesametoanyaudienceuntiljustacoupleyearsearlier,butromantic ‘wissenschaftliche Führung’.Thisparolewasintendedforindustrialcirclesonly.Wien ence isto‘Hüttenkunde,MaschinenbaufüralleIndustriezweigeundElektrotechnik’and ‘Construing “Technology”’,204.Seemydiscussionof‘SonsMartha’atnote163,below. her inhonorandaffection,butdoingthepracticalchoresoflife’.AsquotedbyKline, Electrical Engineers,asitspresident,that‘EngineeringisScience’shandmaidfollowingafter accepted ashistoricalexplanation’. is tobetakenasanideologythat‘itselfneedsunderstoodhistorically,ratherthan ‘Afterword’, 358,similarlystressedthattheallegedrelationbetweenscienceandtechnology and fallen,bothabsolutelyrelativetoeachother’,fromcenturycentury.Hevly, fellow historiansoftechnologyto‘Considerhowthey’—scienceandtechnology—‘haverisen warrant labelingasanewhistoricalepoch. 50, 154–5,wherethenumberofaspectsrestructuringcirca1980issogreataswould would adjoinKwa,‘Interdisciplinarity’and‘Programming’Pestre, other scholarslocatingarestructuringofknowledgeproductionataboutthatdate.TotheseI ‘the globalprivatizationregime’withinceptionabout1980,citedpublicationsbyhalfadozen Document (accessed17March2005). www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf/(leftnav)/AboutTheNAS_NASBuilding?Open then recentlyconstructedbuildinghousingtheNationalAcademyofSciences.Http:// Technik ] proper,sincetheexpression“appliedphysics”isjustabout falsestandmost Technics andCivilization temple , 52.Or,withouttheellipsis,‘Technicsisatranslationinto

of scienceinWashington’towhichDunnrefersisthe Science andModernity , 274,professedlyintendingto History andTechnology Technik Science ]’. Theoriginal , 98–104,144– 81 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 82 7]WhatMarxtook tobetrueofthemachinetechnologyhistime,Braverman,writingin [73] [72] Marx, [71] ‘DestoprakischerhatdieNaturwissenschaftvermittelstderIndustrieindasmenschliche [70] Gillispie,‘TheNaturalHistoryofIndustry’(1957),tookthisstance50yearsago inoneof [69] Exemplaryforthemodernistadulationofabstraction(theepitometheoretical) is [68] 7]Müller,‘Materialismus’,xli–lxii.Marx, [74] P. Forman mentioned. ‘science’ standssocompletelyboth foritselfandtechnologythat‘technology’isnever forces ofproduction’.Likewise,Schmidt, of Science into capital’.AsquotedbyNoble, the productsofthesescience-technologies,butratherintransformation ofscienceitself innovation isnottobefoundinchemistry,electronics,automatic machinery…oranyof 1974, madetheresultofmorenearlyscience-basedtechnologies ofhistime:‘Thekey Leben eingegriffenundesumgestaltet’.AsquotedbyHabermas, whatsoever’. science forsurrenderingscience’sclaimstoprimacy,‘usually[with]noevidence Reingold, ‘Theorists’,129(1973),139(1991),attackedGillispieandlikemindedhistoriansof historians oftechnologyfounditimportanttodoso.Thusaslate1973,Molellaand ness ofthetraditionalassertionsprimacysciencerelativetotechnologywellbefore technological advance.Moregenerally,historiansofsciencepointedoutthepreposterous- the firsthistoricalstudiestoexamine,withoutprejudice,relationbetweenscienceand below, note120,asquotedbyDewey. seventh chapterunderscoringthecentralityofinstrumentsinprogressscience,quoted himself testifiedatotherpointsinthisbook,e.g.thepassagefourthparagraphof not prevent,butonlytrumped,highregardforthematerialandpractical,asWhitehead published in1925andfollowingdecades.Suchadulationofabstractionmodernitydid the widerangeofpolitico-epistemicpositionsfromwhichthisbookwaspraisedwhen Whitehead, perspective inconceptualizingmodern industry.Itseemstome,however,that, Technologie ‘Technical’, 305 anized handtool.See,also,note372,below. is theromanticanti-mechanismthatwouldtrapMarxintoregarding themachineasamech- ones’ soasthentobereplaceablebymechanisms.Evidentherein theanti-mechanicalanimus of labor,whichgraduallytransformstheworkers’operationsinto moreandmechanical large, arose,andevenlesstheroadbywhichitprogressesindetail’.Thatis‘thedivision pressed intotheserviceofcapital.…Butthisisnotroadbywhichmachinery,and [grosse Industrie]hasreachedahigherstageandallthescienceshavebeencaughtup ‘the developmentofmachineryentersuponthispathonlyasandwhenlarge-scaleindustry nological advanceinearlierperiods,onlyherethisonepassage science oughttohaveledMarxgivesomeattentionthequestionofsourcestech- tence that(only)fullydevelopedcapitalismistobeequatedwithtechnologyasapplied befähigt dieselbeArbeitzuverrichten,diefrüherderArbeiterverrichtete’.Whilethisinsis- Analyse andAnwendungenmechanischerundchemischerGesetze,welchedieMaschine [Marx-Engels, found itincomprehensible. like, butmorecompletelythan,anynaturalscientist.Habermas, possible culturalforms,andconsequentlyhisownhighestaspirationwastobeascientist, (found underHabermas, ( Ibid Knowledge andHumanInterests ., 587–8(700),andagain,591(704):‘Esist…direktausderWissenschaftentspringende Grundrisse

(1984), 6:‘decisionmakingoverscience—thekeytothedevelopment ofthe

as thesciencethatsystematizedartisanal knowledge,andthatMarxemployedthis Science intheModernWorld Gesamtausgabe et passim , 594( Grundrisse: Foundations , hasarguedthatMarxtookfrom Poppethecameralistconceptof Erkenntnis ], I,3:122;Habermas, , 45–6,50),pointedoutthisaspectofMarx’sthought,but America byDesign ). Marxwascertainthatsciencethehighestofall , 25,31–2,andallofch.10—themoreindicativefor Die technologisch-historischenExzerpte The ConceptofNatureinMarx , 706). , 6.Similarly,Dickson, Knowledge andHumanInterests Grundrisse Erkenntnis Erkenntnis The NewPolitics

doeshedoso: , fromMEGA (1971), where contra , 62–3,66–8 . Frison,

Frison, , 45 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 77 76 75 7]Marx, [77] Marx, [76] Marxmaintainedintohislastyearspreoccupationwiththemerelyconceptual: [75] compared’. Icanreadilyimaginethat‘ ‘ Frison’s contention,hasallegedthatinGermanyduringthesecondhalfof19thcentury kindly communicatedthispapertomeprioritsappearance—acceptingandextending 2006). Marx, 23: 510,availableathttp://www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_483.htm,(accessed23June besonderte AnwendungenderNaturwissenschaft’.Marx, lösten sichaufinbewußtplanmäßigeundjenachdembezwecktenNutzeffektsystematisch menhangslosen undverknöchertenGestaltendesgesellschaftlichenProduktionsprozesses schuf dieganzmoderneWissenschaftderTechnologie.Diebuntscheckigen,scheinbarzusam- alle RücksichtaufdiemenschlicheHand,inseinekonstituierendenElementeaufzulösen, that of‘DiegroßeIndustrie’],jedenProduktionsprozeß,anundfürsichzunächstohne the ‘applicationofnaturalscience’inimmediatelyfollowingsentence:‘IhrPrinzip[i.e. discourses’. compared’, butonlybecause,asMarx’susageimplies,theywere in thefirstsentence(‘themodernscienceoftechnology’)toanequation in the followingpassageMarxcontinuesfromoneofhisrarecameralisticuses Das Kapital erfahrungsmäßiger Routinedurch bewußteAnwendungderNaturwissenschaft’.Availableat role everywhere.’Similarly, mechanics, chemistryandthewhole rangeofthenaturalsciences,nowplaysdetermining constituent phases,andsolution oftheproblemsarisingfromthisbyapplication ‘The principleofmachineproduction, namelythedivisionofproductionprocessintoits www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_483.htm (accessed23June2006).Marx, kurz derNaturwissenschaftenzulösen,wirdüberallbestimmend’. Availableathttp:// analysieren unddiesogegebnenProblemedurchAnwendungder Mechanik,Chemieusw., Prinzip desMaschinenbetriebs,denProduktionsprozeßinseine konstituierendenPhasenzu Marx’s useof 049.htm#Kap_1_1 (accessed23June2006).Marx, und durchNaturverhältnisse’.Availableathttp://www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_ des Produktionsprozesses,denUmfangunddieWirkungsfähigkeit derProduktionsprozesses, Wissenschaft undihrertechnologischenAnwendbarkeit,diegesellschaftliche Kombination durch den DurchschnittsgraddesGeschickes der Arbeiter,dieEntwicklungsstufe Produktivkraft derArbeitistdurchmannigfacheUmständebestimmt,unteranderen Eugen Dühring’s years tomathematics,physics,andchemistry.Seetheprefacewrittenin1885Engels, conviction Engelstoo,onretirementfrombusiness,turnedhisattentionimmediatelyandfor of naturewhichisdialecticalandatthesametimematerialist’,inconsequencethat Marx aswell,that‘knowledgeofmathematicsandnaturalscienceisessentialtoaconception unique spontaneousexpressionisEngels’publicdeclaration,inwhichheclaimedtospeakfor by Rürup,‘Historians’,186;alsoJamison,‘Technology’sTheorists’,514).Againstthis science thancantenuniversities’(quoted,intranslation,fromMarx–Engels, requirements. Ifsocietyhasaneedforcertaintechnology,thenthisdoesmoretoadvance latter isfarmoredependentonthedegreetowhichtechnologyhasadvancedaswellits dependent ontheextenttowhichscienceisadvanced,asyousay,then[Imustinsistthat] letter disparagingthenotionofscience’sprimacyfortechnology:‘Iftechnologyischiefly Mathematical ManuscriptsofKarlMarx science anditstechnologicalapplication….’ labour.…is determinedby…theworkers’averagedegreeofskill, thelevelofdevelopment Technik Das Kapital Das Kapital

and , wherethewordisusedmoreoftenasasynonymfor Capital Technologie Technologie , 15. , ‘DreizehntesKapitel:MaschinerieundgroßeIndustrie’,inibid., 486:‘Das , ‘ErstesKapitel:DieWare’,inMarx–Engels, , 1:616-7.Recently,Schatzberg,‘

in thecameralistsenseofscienceartefactionisexceptional

were thefocusofindependentdiscoursesandalmostnever ibid ., 407:‘ErsetzungderMenschenkraft durchNaturkräfteund (1983).Thereis,ofcourse,Engels’oft-quotedprivate Technik

and Technik Capital Technologie Das Kapital

, 1:130:‘theproductivityof Comes toAmerica’,494—who History andTechnology not

Technik ‘the focusofindependent

, inMarx-Engels, were …almostnever Werke . So,forexample, Technologie Capital , 23:54:‘Die Werke Technologie , 39:205, , 1:590: Werke

Herr with 83 , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 82 81 80 79 78 84 8]Veblen,‘ThePreconceptions’, 143;‘ThePlaceofScience’,598; [81] ForVeblen,evenmoretheromanticthanMarx,historicalmaterialismwaslessamatter [80] Marx—exactlylikeUre,whomhequotesasleadingapologistformachineproduction, and [79] [78] 8]Veblen,‘ThePlaceofScience’;Evolution’. Thesecondofthesepaperselaborates [82] P. Forman nology. but forthehegemonyofananti-science ideologyinthedisciplineofhistorytech- whole’. Thearticulationofsoinsupportable apropositionwouldnot,Ithink,bepossible was clearlyunderstoodasafieldofscienceandtherelationship wassimplythatofpartto There werenodiscussionsofthisrelationshipinthenineteenth century,when relationship waspossibleonlybecauseofhis empirical Schatzberg’scontentiontherethat‘Veblen’sanalysis ofthe Veblen employedaspecificandsophisticatedconceptoftechnology. StilllesscanIseeas can seenobasisfortheclaimsinSchatzberg,‘ themselves. Torepeatre:VeblenwhatIhavealreadysaid Marxinnote74,above,I science ofproductiveactivities,butmoreoftenusedtodesignate theproductiveactivities nological’ wasquiteaslooseMarx’s,i.e.usedsometimesin thecameralistsenseofa the quotationssuggest,Veblen’suseofnoun‘technology’as wellastheadjective‘tech- thumb bytheconsciousapplicationofnaturalscience.’ 508: ‘thereplacementofhumanforcebynaturalforces,andtherule http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_391.htm (accessed23June2006).Marx, Class Morris thanhecaredtoadmit,butevenalsovalues.So,e.g.Veblen, scientist. VeblenhadnotonlymoreconcernsincommonwithJohnRuskinandWilliam of belieforpreference:itwasaworkinghypothesis,theobligatoryhypothesisfor chen FabrikanteninderChemiezuerzählen’. Mechanik, undLiebigweißvonderhaarsträubendenUnwissenheitenglischenchemis- grobe Unbekanntschaftseinerlieben,MaschinenexploitierendenFabrikantenmitder “nichts,” wasihndurchausnichthindert,siezuexploitieren.…Dr.Ureselbstbejammertedie tion intoquestion,inthefactthat,‘DieWissenschaftkostetdemKapitalistenüberhaupt that technologyisappliedsciencehefindsnocontradiction,callingofthispresump- whose viewsontheproletariatMarxthereforeexhibitstodespise—issofirmlyofview first—the broader,morebalanced essay. and qualifiesthehistoricalmaterialist thesisthatisadvanced,stillquitesummarily,inthe mous influenceofRuskininVeblen’smilieu,seeStein, Veblen withthattitlephrasetakenfromPerryMiller’sdiscussionofVeblen.Fortheenor- 705, citing in thehistoryoftechnology’wasnotedalsobyRoland,‘WhatHathKranzbergWrought?’, Engels wrote.ThatRosenberg‘arguesthatKarlMarxshouldbethefoundationofallthinking nology/industry, withoutevenbotheringtodistinguishbetweenwhatMarxwroteand correctness ofMarx’s(correctlyunderstood)viewsontherelationbetweenscienceandtech- none oftheabovequotedpassages.Rather,Rosenberghimselfpolemicizedforperfect shades ofthepoliticalspectrumseemtobringtheirreadingMarx’,drewattention been ignored,perhapsbecauseofthestrongpolemicalorientationwhichreadersfromall that ‘ManyofthemostinterestingaspectsMarx’streatmenttechnologicalchangehave 508-9, note23.Rosenberg,‘KarlMarxontheEconomicRoleofScience’,126,complaining www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_391.htm#M108 (accessed23June2006).Marx, science replacestheprevioushighlyirrationalandslothfullytraditionalwayofworking.’ (accessed 23June2006).Marx, Wissenschaft’. Availableathttp://www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_483.htm#Kap_13_10 faulsten undirrationellstenBetriebstrittbewußte,technologischeAnwendungder ärsten, alssiedasBollwerkderaltenGesellschaftvernichtet….AndieStelledesgewohnheits- Ibid ., 527:‘InderSphäreAgrikulturwirktdiegroßeIndustrieinsofernamrevolution- , 162,and‘ArtsCrafts’.Diggins, Inside theBlackBox , 34. Capital , 1:637:‘Aconscious,technologicalapplicationof The BardofSavagery Technik Ibid Technik ., 407,note108.Availableathttp:// John Ruskin -centered definitionof

comes toAmerica’,504–5,that The HigherLearning , emphasizedtheromantic . The TheoryoftheLeisure science–technology technology Capital Capital technology , 6.As , 1: , 1: . Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 84 83 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 8]Veblen,‘ThePlaceofScience’,585.Thisthesis,whichwenowcommonlyassociate withMax [84] Veblen, [83] [91] Veblen, [90] Veblen, [89] Veblen, [88] Heidegger,‘TheQuestion’,21–2. [87] Veblen,‘ThePlaceofScience’,598.Tobeespeciallynoted,foritisessentialtoVeblen’sassign- [86] QuotationsfromVeblen,‘ThePlaceofScience’,595,608,586,608.This‘ubiquitous presence [85] Veblen andWeber. as aresourceuponwhich‘the industrialsystemoftoday’‘constantlydraws’.Likewise, Weber, wasacommonplaceatthattime.Diggins, fuller discussion. Imperial Germany Science andtechnologyplayintooneanother’shands’(Veblen,‘ThePlaceofScience’,598). same testsofvalidityasmodernscience.…Hencetheeasycopartnershipbetweentwo. technology makesuseofthesamerangeconcepts,thinksinterms,andapplies in thenextparagraphsuchawayastodemotetechnologyfromprimacyparity:‘Modern fortable withtheconsequencesofprimacyhehasattributedtopractice,restatesissue [the scientist]worksarethoseimposedbythemoderntechnology’—Veblen,evidentlyuncom- for this‘applicability’ofscience—thefactthat‘thecanonsvalidityunderwhoseguidancehe theories canbeturnedto…technologicalpurpose’.Havingfirstgiventhequotedexplanation also betakenofanindicativeinconsistencyinVeblen’sexposition‘thereasonwhyscientific aim attechnologicalends.Cf.thediscussionofDewey,below.Inthisconnectionnoticeshould ment ofhighculturalranktoscience,ishisinsistenceherethatthescientist,ascannot conception ofscientificexplanation. interpretation inplaceofcontemporarypositivistpolemicsagainsttheolder,cause–effect dissipation ofallstableandefficientsubstances’,i.e.Veblenoffersahistoricalmaterialist interpretation ofphenomenaintermsconsecutivechange…withthedisappearanceor cause workingtoagiveneffect’.Inphysicsandchemistrythisproduces‘ahighlyimpersonal thinking intermsofprocessratherthantheworkmanlikeefficiencyagiven ‘whether intechnologicalworkorscientificinquiry…menhavefallenintothehabitof teristic disciplineintotheculturalsituation’(Veblen,‘TheEvolution’,54).Inthislaterphase, 19th century‘thetechnologicalascendancyofthemachineprocessbroughtanewandcharac- man’ (Veblen,‘ThePlaceofScience’,595),butintheperiodsinceearlydecades era ofhandicraft,‘theconceptsthescientistscametobedrawninimagework- industrial revolution’(Veblen,‘TheEvolution’,54).Intheearly-modernperiod,thatbeingan of themachinetechnology’is,however,characteristiconlyperiodsince‘theso-called Veblen, science–technology relationship is suggestedbythefactthatscienceverynearlyabsentfrom industry uponscience.ThatVeblen hadthenonlyveryrecentlyacceptedthisviewofthe science thathecitesEdwinSlosson, somber work,hisfinalindictment’. and Chemistry’.Diggins, attributing ittoeconomics(‘counterpart’). fies, rather,Veblen’svacillationbetweenattributingprimacytotechnology (‘precipitate’)and quotation asillustrativeoftheprimacythatVeblenallegedlygave totechnology,itexempli- intellectual precipitateandcounterpartistheexactsciences’.Although Jamisonexhibitedthis mechanistic conception.Itspracticalworking-outisthemachine technology,ofwhichthe in highorlowdegree,iswhathas,thesimplesttermshitherto givenit,beencalledthe Germany the sameinconsistencies.AndrewJamison,‘AmericanAnxieties’,83,quotedfrom Ibid ., 259.Itisanindicationofhow farVeblenhadboughtintotheideologyofprimacy The Engineers Absentee Ownership The Instinct The InstinctofWorkmanship Absentee Ownership , 268:‘themostcharacteristichabitofthoughtthatpervadesthismodern civilization, , 110–20,whereVeblenrefersthereaderto , 253.Veblen’sdiscussionin ; anisolatedexceptionisthereference onp.52to‘thematerialsciences’ Bard ofSavagery , 265–6. , 261,255.Thechapter,X,istitled‘TheTechnologyofPhysics , chs6and7.AsimilarbutbrieferdiscussionisVeblen, Creative Chemistry , 24–6,appraisedthisbookasVeblen’s‘most Imperial Germany The BardofSavagery

for evidenceofthisdependence of The InstinctofWorkmanship History andTechnology , 110–20,268–70,involves , 114–18,compares Imperial

for 85 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 17 Cohen, [107] 107 [106] 106 [105] 105 [104] 104 ‘Diemoderne Technik…isteineZwillingsschwesterdermodernenNaturwissenschaft’. [103] 103 Hård,‘German Regulation’,56–60;Dietz [102] 102 Proctor, [101] 101 Veblen, [100] 100 Veblen, [99] 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 86 [98] Veblen,‘TheHigherLearning’,6. [97] Veblen,‘TheSocialistEconomics’,576.OtherexamplesofVeblen’swhollypositiveusage [96] DavidHollinger,‘JustificationbyVerification’,127,whilerecognizingthedisinterested [95] ThatambivalencemadeJamesanenthusiastforBergsonandrenderedVeblen half sympa- [94] [93] Veblen,‘ThePlaceofScience’,587.Thephrase,‘theincreaseanddiffusionknowledge [92] P. Forman ples theidealsofscholarshipcouldsurvive’. calling eveninacapitalistculture.…Evenunderthecorrosiveinfluenceofbusinessprinci- acknowledged whathehadslightedinhispreviousworks—theeminenceoftheacademic although Veblencouldreferin aufgestellten Formelnabläuft’. die TechnikkünstlicheineWelt, dienachdenvonderNaurwissenschaftfürdasWeltganze dadurch istihrEntwicklungsgangderselbe’. beiden genetischdiefrüheresei,welcheandereerzeugthabe. Siesindebeneins,und Sombart, as onpp.340–1. Technik rians oftechnologyhaveseeninSombart’s‘TechnikundKultur’ acelebrationofthevalue Sieferle, ‘science’ words:‘ThePreconceptions’;‘GustavSchmoller’s’. deliberated inpreparingitforpublication(pp.405–6). intent toJames,areadingnotconsistentwiththetext,itscontext,oralterationsthatJames critical editionof upon ‘“thousandsofdisinterestedmorallives”’(quotingJamesfrompp.17–18the1979 rary conceptionofscienceinreferringtotheedificeashavingbeenbuiltbyand excepted WilliamJames.HollingertheredescribedJamesashaving‘parodied’thecontempo- research scientistasaculturalidealwidelysharedinthelate19thandearly20thcenturies, thetic toBergson:Veblen, postmodern presuppositionshavetakeneverfirmerhold. manifold manifestationsofthediminishedpowerandallegianceitsmodernistmandateas nian Institution.Thehistoryofthatinstitutionoverthepastthirtyyearscanbeunderstoodas be recognizedastheoperativemandateinJamesSmithson’sbequestestablishingSmithso- among men’,whichVeblenquoteshere(andheisquotedbelowquotingitagainin1918)will Etappen derAusbildungnaturwissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisbestimmen’. the machinetechnology’,thattooremainedanisolatedexception. ophischen Paradigma’. Ibid Ibid Ibid. Ibid Ibid practicality’. tically liberatingonlysolongasthemindremainedtheoreticallyfreefromdemandsof … Itwas,perhaps,theresidueofKantianisminVeblenthatledhimtoseescienceasprac- cism, thatscienceprogressesonlytotheextentitservesnoimmediateusefulpurpose. ‘attempted toturnutilitarianismonitsheadbyclaiming,againsteverycanonofempiri- what Veblensaidiseveryonethought,wasastonishedandperplexedthat ., 81:‘ .: ‘WirkönnendeshalbdieEtappen dermodernenTechnikingrossenZügenausden ., 46–7;Diggins, ., concludingparagraph;James, , 79:Itis‘einemüssige,jafalscheFrage(dieichselbsteinstgestellt habe):welchevon

Bukharin The HigherLearning for Die conservativeRevolution The HigherLearning Value-free Science? Der moderneKapitalismus Denkt Kultur

die NaturwissenschaftWeltas MaschinismusoderChemismus,so , 353,etpassim. , thatrequiresignoringSombart’sexpressionthereofquiteantithetic views, The WilltoBelieve The BardofSavagery The Instinct , 10–11. , 85–92,122–9;butforthe , 8;Diggins, Imperial Germany , 86:‘DerKernseinerTheoriefolgte…demlebensphilos- , 78. The WilltoBelieve ). Hollingercitednoevidenceforimputingaparodic , 332–6. et al The BardofSavagery , 180–1:‘Thusin ., ‘Der“KulturwertderTechnik”’.Whilehisto- , 198,to‘therangeofappliedsciencecalled . lebensphilosophisch The HigherLearning , 29–30,notgraspingthat

Sombart, see

Veblen schafft Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 18 Thereis,however,Joravsky’scounter-thesis,developedtoexplaintheextraordinary inter- [108] 108 18 Dewey, [118] 118 Ihde,‘Editor’s Foreword’,viii.More:‘evenbeforeWittgensteinandHeidegger,[Dewey] [117] 117 White, [116] 116 Kojevnikov, [115] 115 [114] 114 Bukharin,‘The Methodology’,openingparagraph. [113] 113 [112] 112 [111] 111 Bukharin,‘TheMethodology’. [110] 110 Bukharin,‘TheMethodology’.ThiseventandspeecharethesubjectofGraham,‘Bukharin’, [109] 109 particular. even alsointhisverycompulsionforself-justificationbythepoliticalleaders,Stalin Affair Marxist theory’.SeeJoravsky,‘TheStalinistMentality’,583;also scholars andscientistsincluded.ThatwasprobablyStalin’smostsignificantinnovationin his ‘bigtruth’supersedesthe‘littletruths’perceivedbylessercreaturesdownbelow, of allbybossing.Thehigheruptheboss,greaterhisrealmpracticalmastery,more practice, theyaretheultimatearbitersoftruth.Inshort,onelearnsinmanyways,butmost political leadersofthehistoricallyprogressiveclassaresupremereaderslessons the mentalityofcommunistleaders.Sincepracticeisultimatecriteriontruth,and tions andcontroversies—whatJoravskyidentifiedas‘thecentralmodeofself-justificationin ventions bySovietpoliticalleaders,beginningwithStalin,intoscientificandscholarlyques- ger, Dewey,‘ByNatureandbyArt’ (1944),asreprintedinDewey, ‘Pragmatism’, 72–87;Hickman, of science andtechnologyinwhichlosesitsprimacytotechnology.See,Hickman, trator ofthismisrepresentationDewey,foistinguponhim apostmodernconflation moved philosophyintothepostmodernperiod’.Hickmanhimself hasbeenaprincipalperpe- which islargelyincorporatedinGraham, Zilsel’s publications,specifically, ‘TheSociologicalRootsofScience’(1942). dependable scientificdata’.Itislikely thatwhenwritingtheselinesDeweywasawareofEdgar apparatus andprocessesfrom the industrialartsandusedthemasmeansofobtaining ‘The scientificrevolutionmaybe saidtohavebeeninitiatedwheninvestigatorsborrowed and regulatesitsoperation’. sciences) ultimatelyservesasaguidefortheprocessofproduction, increasesitseffectiveness production andtechnology;…Sciencelikewise(letussupposewearespeakingofthenatural tion impossible,thatadestructionofmodernsciencewouldinvolvealsolarge-scale play”. Wehaveshownthatadestructionofthecapitaliststatewouldmakeproduc- represent knowledgeasentirelydivorcedfrompractice.…thesuperstructureisnot“child’s practice, eveninmen’sminds;itstillservesbutthemindsofclosetedspecialists tical withtherole,significance,ofhislaborfor loves himself,withoutregardtoitspracticalphases.But…man’sviewofhislaborisnotiden- of examplesprovethatatruescholar,orartist,theoreticaljurist,loveshisvocationashe in ch.6,Sectiong.‘TheSignificanceoftheSuperstructure’,Bukharinallowedthat‘Thousands strongly expressedthanthosetakentenyearsearlierinhisbook ogy remainedunchanged. new technologyimplicitlyconfirmsthatthepresumptionofprimacysciencefortechnol- brought anewemphasisupontheapplicationofsciencetoindustryandcreation Masses: TheBolshevikState ogy couldbeotherthanconsensualintheSovietUnion.Likewise,Andrews, discussion doesGrahamsuggestthatBukharin’sviewsontheprimacyofsciencefortechnol- strong disagreementwithStalinonpoliciesforSovieteconomicdevelopment,nowhereinhis Ibid Ibid Ibid ., endofpt.2. ., endofpt.2.Bukharin’spositionsherein1931arenotessentiallydifferent,butmore . . YetIthinkitisnotimpossibletoseeanimplicitattributionofprimacyscience The OriginofDewey’sInstrumentalism Reconstruction Stalin’s GreatScience , 12(inDewey, , 154–6,inarguingthattheGreatBreakatendof1920s Philosophical Tools . The MiddleWorks The SovietAcademy . . society , 12:86).Similarly,butratherstron- . …Knowledgeformerlyserved History andTechnology . ForallthatBukharinwasin Historical Materialism. The LaterWorks Science forthe The Lysenko , 15:88:

There, 87 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 12 Dewey, [132] 132 Dewey,‘Needed—ANewPolitics’,asreprinted in [131] 131 See,Dewey, [130] 130 So,withincreasing pejorativeness,‘theprivilegedpecuniaryclasses’,Dewey, [129] 129 [128] 128 Dewey, [127] 127 ‘Philosophers insettingexperiencedownasinherentlyinferiortorationalscienceweretruth- [126] 126 Dewey, [125] 125 Theoppositeiscommonlyassertedtoday.So,Depew,‘Pragmatists’,11:‘Deweyassigns [124] 124 Dewey, [123] 123 Dewey,‘ScienceandSociety’,herequotedfrom [122] 122 Dewey, [121] 121 Dewey, [120] 120 Dewey, [119] 119 88 P. Forman deprecation ofindividualisticmotivations wasproblematic. Dewey’s vehemencehereshows hisawarenessthatreconcilinginstrumentalismand the seventhchapter.] [I havecorrectedsomesmallinaccuraciesinDewey’squotationfromthefourthparagraphof advance ininstrumentaldesign.…Theseinstrumentshaveputthoughtontoanewlevel’. the ments. Inscience,themostimportantthingthathashappenedinlastfortyyearsis today [inscience]isnotthatwehavefinerimagination,butbecausebetterinstru- theory, oftheimportancethispoint:‘Thereasonwhyweareonahigherimaginativelevel worth citationasoneofthecomparativelyfewinstancesrecognition,fromside of course,technologyscience. science’, thusmakingsciencenot‘amodeoftechnology’,buttautologouslytechnology—and, science tooisart.Deweythenproposestousetheword‘technology’for‘theartwhich external stimuli(88).Fromthisdefinitionofartitfollowsnecessarily,butvacuously,that cultural anthropologists,namelyasincludingtheresponsesofeven‘low-gradeorganisms’to other handonanextremelybroaddefinitionofart,broadereventhanthatemployedby the onehandonhistoricalfactofscienceoriginatinginartisanalknowledge,and Clarence E.Ayreswithbeingthefirstexplicitlytosaythis.Deweyfoundsthiscontentionon technology’ isin‘ByNatureandbyArt’,where(89,note3)hecreditstheVeblenisteconomist seen, Dewey’sstrongestandmostfullytheorizedassertionthatmodernscienceis‘amodeof the dominantpecuniarygroup’,Dewey, Works ful’, constancy ofthisprejudice. introduction thatDeweywrotein1948fortherepublication ofthatbook,i.e.notethe first quotationisfromwhatDeweywrotein1920,whilethesecondlong techne added afootnote:‘Thefollowingpassage[fromWhitehead, tive, alistofinstrumentaladvancesinastronomyduringtheprecedinghalf-century,and Dewey, is thefruitofmodernapplicationscience’. commerce, communication,transportationandalltheappliances oflight,heatandelectricity, 177–8). natural processes’. natural sciencetobeamethodologicalmovemadeintheinterestofgainingcontrolover ered sciencetobe,aboveall,practicalreason,andheregardedtheabstractionofmodern Westbrook, ‘LewisMumford’,311:‘Deweyidiosyncratically(forhistimeifnotours)consid- theoretical scientisttotheengineersandsocialworkers’.Inasomewhatsofterformby quoted byNevo,‘RichardRorty’s’,285:‘pragmatistssuchasDeweyturnawayfromthe Ibid . ThepassagecontinueswithDeweyinsistingthat‘thetechnique ofmodernindustry,in Quest forCertainty

, 10:253;‘ourpecuniaryoligarchy’,Dewey, primacy over The LaterWorks Quest forCertainty The QuestforCertainty Reconstruction Reconstruction Logic Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction , asreprintedDewey, praxis , 42,126(inDewey, , 12–13,110–11,170–1(inDewey, , 168–9,xl(inDewey, , 42,145–8,156(quotation;in Dewey, , 82(inDewey, , 6:57); , 84–5(inDewey, , 41(inDewey, , and , 84(inDewey, The LaterWorks praxis The LaterWorks The LaterWorks

The LaterWorks over The MiddleWorks The MiddleWorks The LaterWorks The MiddleWorks theoria The LaterWorks , 11:143,311–12. The LaterWorks The LaterWorks ’; Rorty,‘PhilosophyasScience’,13, , 12:388.Deweytheregave,asillustra- , 4:66). The LaterWorks , 8:63. The MiddleWorks , 12:102);‘Philosophy’,323–4(in , 12:103,152). , 4:68). Science intheModernWorld , 4:68). , 12:176,276).Notethatthe The MiddleWorks , 11:274–81,on279. , 5:67;‘publicityagentsof , 6:57.SofarasIhave , 12:86–7,142–4, The Middle , 12:170). ] is Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 14 AndthisrequiresDeweytowalkarathernarrowline—thoughinfactherarely noticesthe [134] 134 ThepointismadequitebrieflybyHabermasinopeninghis1965inaugurallecture at [133] 133 13 Dewey,‘Philosophy’,asreprintedin [143] 143 Dewey,‘Authority andSocialChange’,188(inRatner, [142] 142 Dewey, [141] 141 Dewey,‘ThePragmaticAcquiescence’(1927),concludinglines.Dewey’stitleisthatofch.4 [140] 140 Howharditisforanintellectualhistoriantoday—especiallytoday—torecognizeandallow [139] 139 Dewey,‘Introduction:Reconstruction’,xxviii(in [138] 138 Anearlyinstanceofthesamepresuppositionincompatibilitypecuniaryinterestwith [137] 137 Dewey,‘AuthorityandSocialChange’,188(inRatner, [136] 136 Dewey,‘ScienceandSociety’,herequotedfrom [135] 135 inquiry’; butJordaniswrong,bothaboutDewey’sidealandconsistency. investigation asanendinitself.…hisversionofsciencemirroredengineering,notmerely for ‘Asapragmatist,Deweyembracedscientificidealatoddswiththepurityofexperimental conception remainsnotablyconsistentthroughoutDewey’swritingsofthe1920sand1930s’, the riseofexperimentalscienceand itstechnologicalapplication’. course, theproductofscientificdiscovery’; ‘thecauseofthereleaseproductiveenergieswas and distributionofgoodsisthedirect productofscience’;‘thesemechanicalinventionsare, goods andservicesareproducts of thenewphysicalscience’;‘modernindustryinproduction 267, 311,364:‘allthephysicalfeatures ofthepresentregimeproductionanddistribution pragmatism. zine thatlikewisecarriedthereputationthen,andamonghistorians since,asinspiredby and inDewey, Works than itdoesinmathematics,andphysics’.Dewey, conceived, knowledgeexistsinengineering,medicineandthesocialartsmoreadequately ing modificationsofexistenceinbehalfconclusionsthatarereflectivelypreferred.…Thus it isdirectlyconcernedwithnotjustinstrumentalities,butinstrumentalitiesatworkineffect- science, maythenbemoretrulysciencethaniswhatconventionallycalledpurescience.For necessity—for itfollowsfromhisprinciplesthat‘Whatissometimestermed“applied” Frankfurt University(Habermas,‘ErkenntnisundInteresse’). Mumford werebothregularcontributorsinthefollowingyearsto tism-inspired theorizingofsocialreconstructionfollowingThe GreatWar.Deweyand this newjournal,withDeweyattheheadofitseditorialboard,was atthecenterofpragma- tional aswellintellectual:Mumfordhadbeenajunioreditor on view ofthescience–technologyrelation.ThetraitorousnessMumford’s attackwasinstitu- ments ofpragmatism—tobeconsideredbelow,atnotes230–34,inexaminingMumford’s of Mumford’s science. ThereandonlytherehedeclaresDeweywrongMumfordright. side inhisclashwithMumford1927,isunabletoacceptDewey’shighlyaffirmativeviewof biographer todoso:Westbrook,‘LewisMumford’,321,311,otherwiseentirelyonDewey’s the primacythatDeweyascribedtoscienceisshownbyunwillingnessofDewey’sbest Dewey, behaving scientifically(andmorally):Dewey,‘LogicalConditions’(1903),asreprintedin note 58,above,forRorty’santitheticpositionas Dewey, ‘ScienceasSubject-Matter’,127.Deweyis,Isuppose,influencedbyVeblenhere.See marvelous techniqueisdisplayedaresurvivalsofapre-scientificage,thatis,barbarism’. technique ofitsconstructionandmanagement.Buttheaims,idealsinwhoseservicethis not existwereitforscience:mathematics,mechanics,chemistry,electricitysupplythe same moreconcretelyandlessconciselytwodecadesearlier:‘Themodernwarship…could The LaterWorks Dewey’s. , 1:128;Jordan, The MiddleWorks Reconstruction inPhilosophy The GoldenDay The LaterWorks , 11:143).Andelsewhereataboutthistime,Dewey, Machine-Age Ideology , 3:19. , whichwork,thenrecentlypublished,containedharshindict- , 11:142–3). , 41(in , 228,exhibitsthisquotationandassertsthat‘This The LaterWorks The MiddleWorks postmodern Experience The LaterWorks Intelligence intheModernWorld Dewey’s Philosophy The MiddleWorks pragmatist. , asreprintedinDewey, , 3:115–32,on118. History andTechnology , 12:102).Theemphasisis The NewRepublic , 6:57–8.Deweysaidthe The LaterWorks The Dial , 12:269). , 360andDewey,

in 1919when The Later , amaga- , 11:182, , 359, 89 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 10 Kline,‘Construing“Technology”’.AsRose,‘Science asanIdiom’(1987),4,hadnoted,‘the [150] 150 Kojevnikov, [149] 149 Asquotedby TessaMorrisSuzuki,asquotedbyWalterGrundeninWalker, [148] 148 Pestre [147] 147 Adas, [146] 146 This‘inconsequence’ofDeweyasinstrumentalististhemorenoteworthyhe wasinother [145] 145 Dewey, [144] 144 90 P. Forman Western, didsoalso—thathenotfinditnecessaryeventoraisethequestion. for granted—presumablybecausehisnon-Westernsubjectsandsources,nolessthan Certainty ‘evidence ofitsexistenceasan artifactofcultureamongeducatedAmericans’.In1975, tical withscienceappearedroutinely intheassertionsofopinionleaders’,itshouldbetakenas within corporateandpoliticalarenas’. Thus,since‘thepropositionthattechnologywasiden- recent monographicliterature suggests thatscientistsexercisedonlyamodestinfluence this what generatesprogress’.Valkenier,‘DevelopmentIssues’,497–8. However,aswehaveseen, tific–technological revolution’,orSTR)hasunderminedthetraditional Sovietconceptsof exaggerated respectforscienceasthemotiveforceofchange(capsuled inthephrase‘thescien- large-scale developmentoftheoreticalnaturalscience’.By1980it waspossibletosaythat‘An time: ‘Theprimaryprerequisitefortheconversionofscienceinto adirectproductiveforceis ‘Technology andtheLawsofItsDevelopment’(1962),stated officialSovietlineatthat containing morethan1500entrieshasnonefor‘technology’ or ‘engineering’.Zvorikine, tic abouttheinfluenceofindustrialinterests. and itwas,Shinnindicates,toaconsiderableextent—thatFrenchscientistswereunenthusias- or, onthecontrary,shouldbetakenassupportingthatview,i.e.ittoextent— French scientistmadetheidealoffor-its-own-sakescience‘veryspeciallyhisown’(Guerlac), whether thisaltogethersurprisingcircumstanceisevidenceagainstthecommonviewthat in thelate19thandearly20thcenturies.Hisexpositionleavesopen,however,question ests inprovidingthefundingandsettingprogramsofFrenchuniversitysciencefaculties tant studyShinn,‘TheFrenchScience’,322–5,showedthestronginfluenceofindustrialinter- consequences. (Howard, mere knowledge—i.e.thoughtastheactofknowing—notonlycan,butmust,havephysical More pertinenttothepresentissue,Deweywassoconsistentanaturalistasaffirmthat positivist/empiricists whorefusedsciencearoleintheconstructionorselectionofends. note 38,haspointedoutthatDeweywasamoreconsistentnaturalistthanwerethelogical respects remarkablyconsequentinhisinstrumentalism.ThusHoward,‘TwoLeftTurns’,at tific purityisofferedbyVucinich, Ideology science’ asthemaintopicofhisGiffordLectures. was ‘Thepracticalreasonforselectingsuchatechnicalmatterasthemethodofphysical technology. imposed bymodernityforhimtoapplythoseprinciplestherelationbetweenscienceand regard tothismatterofnaturalism,asinhisinstrumentalism,itremainedbeyondthelimits science fromnon-science.Cf.,note42.Yet,impressivelyconsistentthoughDeweywasin issue hadtobeimportantforPopper,whoseconstantconcernwasthedemarcationof more commonlynoted,betweenscienceandmysticism—itiseasytounderstandwhythis the possibilityofanydistinctioninprinciplebetweenscienceandtechnology—asalso,as one bearsinmindthattoinsistmereknowinghasphysicalconsequencesisnegate issue thatvirtuallyobsessedPopper[was]doeshumanknowledgehavephysicaleffects?’If axiom, andsoalsodidKarlPopper.Indeed,aspointedoutbyShields,‘KarlPopper’s’,‘the ics, BohrhavingbeenstronglyinfluencedbyDewey.Einstein,asiswellknown,opposedthis became thenthemetaphysicalbaseforCopenhageninterpretationofquantummechan- was , Physique Machines thetraditionalSovietconceptof whatgeneratesprogress. , 49. The QuestforCertainty , 211(in Stalin’s GreatScience

, 285,quotingandendorsingGuerlac,‘ScienceFrench’,491.Inanimpor- … The LaterWorks and IdeologiesofWesternDominance ibid. , 2ndpara.beforenote31,citingDewey, , 80(in , 2–5.AnimplicitindicationoftheRussiantraditionscien- , 4:195).)Thisaxiomthatknowledgealterstherealworld Science inRussianCulture The LaterWorks , tooktheprimacyofsciencesomuch , 4:64).Thisfact,Deweyexplained,

(1970), which,withanindex The Questfor Science and Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 16 Invocationsof thepoemanditslaudationofsubserviencehavebynomeansdisappeared:In [166] 166 Oldenziel, [165] 165 [164] 164 Kipling,‘Sons ofMartha’. [163] 163 [162] 162 [161] 161 [160] 160 Kline,‘Construing“Technology”’,212. [159] 159 Kline, [158] 158 Kline, [157] 157 JewettasquotedbyKline, [156] 156 [155] 155 Carty,‘TheRelationofPureScience’,514. [154] 154 Carty,‘TheRelationofPureScience’,514.Conant, [153] 153 [152] 152 Kline,‘Construing“Technology”’,203–4. [151] 151 in theUSA,Kevles, pure becoming thecommonself-conceptionofscientists.Forman,‘SocialNicheandSelfImage’. advocates aconceptionofthe(true)scientistasvirtuoso,whichwastheninfact explorer, whichwasaversionoftheconceptionscientistas‘virtuous’,Conantthere analogy betweenamapandscientifictheoryiswithoutbasis’.Inlieuofthescientistas scientific constructsassuccessivelybetterapproximationstoreality—‘Inshort,thewhole scientists andexplorers.ItisinthisconnectionthatConantrepudiatestheconceptionof in thefollowingdecade—givesmuchspacetoacritiqueofthiscommonplacesimilelikening 54–8—lectures containingthekernelofviewsdevelopedbyhisprotégéThomasS.Kuhn Hughes, engineer speakingdowntohim. and-file engineerdidnotexaltscienceandscientistssogreatlyabovehimselfastheelite and respectforscience.NoteworthyisthebitofevidencethatPursellbringsrank- as allowingthemselvestobebilkedbyscientistswhoexploitedtheirinordinateadmiration of affairsandwiththeclosestconnectionswealthiestmostpowerfulinAmerica, support: heportraysDunn,Carty,andtheirpeers,menofthewidestexperienceworld umbrage atit.Pursell,‘EngineeringOrganization’(2006),providesunintendedandunwilling the poem’:http://www.ie.ncsu.edu/jwilson/gradf95.html (accessed25June2006).Itisan front ofyourgraduationbulletin alongwithaBiblicalquotationthatexplainsthecontextof in theEnglishlanguagethatso honors anyotherprofession.Thispoemisreprintedinthe North CarolinaStateUniversity could stillsay:‘Iamunawareofanycomparableliterarywork 2006). In1995thecommencement speakeratthegraduationofindustrialengineersfrom www.peo.on.ca/events/awards/OPEA/OPEA_piperarticle_celebrating.htm (accessed25June recognize outstandingcontributionstotheprofessionthrough theassociation’:http:// 1964 theProfessionalEngineersOntario(Canada)created‘the SonsofMarthaMedal,to himself quotedacouplestanzasin Mead’, 336,hademphasizedhowstronglytheimageappealed toMargaretMead.Veblen shown howstronglytheimageappealedtowomenengineers. Similarly, Dillon,‘Margaret though Oldenziel’spresentation.Rossiter,‘TheMatthewMatilda Effect’,334–5,hadalready what engineerswereaffirmingasself-imageintheirquotations ofit,isscarcelydiscernible neering’s subserviencetoscience]oftenechoedGanoDunn’.Cf.,however,note64,above. ideal iswithoutfoundationinhisexpositionorelsewhere. National AcademyofSciencesin1916.)Kline’seffortsotorestricttheculturalholdthat ideal’. (‘NRC’=NationalResearchCouncil,theactivistinstrumentcreatedforUS 1919 addresses. Luke Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid ., 210;andagain,212,‘Engineeringleaderswhotookamoremoderateposition[onengi- ., .214,where,again,Klinewrote‘theNRC’spure-scienceideal’. ., 203. ., 518.Kline,‘Construing“Technology”’,210,pointstoG.E.HaleasquotingCartyintwo ., 212.TheparenthesisisKline’s.

, 10:38–42,fortheincident,and science—as highcultureinlate19thcenturyBritain:White,‘MinistersofCulture’;and ibid ibid Changing Attitudes ., 194.T.H.Huxley,‘ScienceandCulture’,26.Onthehighstandingofscience— ., 211,whereherepresents‘the…pure-scienceideal’asNRC Making TechnologyMasculine The Physicists ibid , 6,couldstillpresentevidenceofthisartifactwithouttaking ., 217. , 17. Absentee Ownership John , 125–31,180.What,however,thepoemsays,and , 11:1–2,fortherelationwithLazarus. Modern ScienceandMan , 255. History andTechnology

(1952), 91 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 17 England, [177] 177 Forman,‘SocialNiche’. [176] 176 Forman,‘Social Niche’.Kevles, [175] 175 Kline,‘Construing “Technology”’,212. [174] 174 NationalAssociationofManufacturers, [173] 173 Note155,above.EarlierinhisaddressCartyhaddeclared,‘Iconsiderthatitisthehigh [172] 172 ThurstonquotedfromASME, [171] 171 QuotingLecuyer,‘TheMakingofaScienceBasedTechnologicalUniversity’,180.Kline, [170] 170 Sinclair,‘InventingaGenteel’,11,16.See,e.g.Maclaurin’sinauguraladdressaspresident [169] 169 Seely,‘Research,Engineering,andScience’. [168] 168 Oldenziel, [167] 167 92 P. Forman drafting committee,chairedbythe veryconservativeIsaiahBowman,addressingthequestion Bush’. Kevles,‘TheNationalScience Foundation’,9–10,17–19,26,showedhowlargelythe that hiscontemporaries‘consciously ornot…werechoosingadifferentfuturethanVannevar England’s point,discussinginsome detail‘Bush’sratheridiosyncraticposition’andthefact of Martha’. the entirerunof poem sustainedwiththeself-conceptionofAmericanengineersthatanelectronicsearch indication oftheunwillingnesshistorianstechnologytoreportresonancethatthis relationship betweenpureandappliedscience’. nor thenewterminologyof1930sseriouslychallenged establishedepistemological ‘neither thegospelofindustrialresearch,norincreasingrespect forengineeringresearch, Chemistry inAmerica the early20thcentury.Forgrowthofindustrialresearchgenerally, seeThackray Business’, 301–2,emphasizedtheriseofindustrialphysiciststo numerical predominancein science ideologyasarticulatedbylate19thcenturyAmericanphysicists. Weart,‘ThePhysics came inworkingthroughtheScienceServicerecordsSmithsonian InstitutionArchives. indebted toMarcelLafollettefordrawingmyattentionthis document, uponwhichshe H.A. Barton(DirectoroftheAmericanInstitutePhysics),JuliusWeinberger(RCA).Iam ton—all pure,academicscientists—plusE.R.Weidlein(DirectoroftheMellonInstitute), committee were:K.T.Compton,G.B.Pegram,R.A.Millikan,RossG.Harrison,F.R.Moul- ‘The RelationofPureScience’,512. improvement intheirproductswhichareopenedupbythediscoveriesscience’.Carty, of theUnitedStateswonderfulpossibilitieseconomiesintheirprocessesand all otherengineeringandscientificbodiesinAmerica,toimpressuponthemanufacturers duty ofourinstituteandeverymembercomposingit,thatasimilarrestsupon change much,giventherhetoricalobeisancetoscienceofhisindustrialistsupporters. changed. However,onhisownevidenceitchangedverylittle.Norshouldweexpectto ‘Construing “Technology”’,213,saysthatfollowinghisappointmentCompton’srhetoric 12 October2006). available athttp://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/inaugurations/maclaurin.html(accessed would inmodernity. those whichmostmanagerswouldadvanceasjustifyingtheirelitestatus’.Or,rather,sothey of Martha”canbereadasastraightforwardtributetoengineers,butthevaluesitendorsesare sons ofMarthawithmanuallaborers.Harviehimselfmorerightlyconsideredthat‘“TheSons unions—which isevidenceonlyifoneacceptsOldenziel’sunfoundedidentificationofthe ‘“The SonsofMartha”’,276,regardingKipling’sincreasinglyunsympatheticviewlabor only evidenceforKipling’sallegedreconsiderationisastatementbyChristopherHarvie, not denyingthehighergoodnessofthosewhomsonsMarthaservedandOldenziel’s who didnotgettheirhandsdirty—GodandMary’ssonsalike’.However,Kiplingwasclearly alleged that‘Kiplingrealizedonlylater,theexplicit,irreverenttreatmentinhispoemofthose its celebrationandvalidationofthethankless,subjugatingnaturehardphysicallabor’, A PatronforPureScience Making TechnologyMasculine Technology andCulture . Klineobservedinconcluding‘Construing“Technology”’,220, that Transactions The Physicists , 14.Reingold,‘VannevarBush’s’, 301(1991,287)extended , 128,consideringthat‘Theimportofthepoemlayin

News Letter turns upnotonearticlecontainingthephrase‘Sons , 1 (1880)byMulthauf,‘TheScientist’,47,note7. , chsII–IV,gaveagoodaccountofthepure . Therepresentativesofresearchonthe et al ., Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 15 That‘practicalaspect’wastheconflictinvalues betweenthetruth-seekingscientistand [185] 185 Baker,‘Response’. [184] 184 Snow,‘The MoralUnneutrality’,includinganintroductionbyWarrenWeaverand [183] 183 ThatintheUnited Statesinthe1950sand1960sbothmilitaryindustrybelieved [182] 182 [181] 181 Hounshell,‘TheEvolution’,44–46.KnowlesandLeslie,‘“IndustrialVersailles”’.Thematteris [180] 180 Bush, [179] 179 Kline,‘Construing“Technology”’,219. [178] 178 technology sense ofgrievancethatthoseinvoking‘apure-scienceideal’were‘subjugating which basicscienceisviewedasthefountofallnewtechnology’,againmakingevidenthis question ofthepersistenceintoearly1960s‘adherencetoideal“purescience”,in ‘Cybernetics…The Emergenceof“InformationTechnology”’,527–9,hastouchedonthe united frontwiththescientists’,buthepresentednoevidenceforthismotive.Recently,Kline, engineering ‘deferredtoanNRCidealofpurescience…probablyineffortpresenta only throughbasicscientificresearch’. tions toknowledgeofthelawsnature….Thisessential,newcanbeobtained first paragraph,that‘Newproducts,newindustries,andmorejobsrequirecontinuousaddi- ical innovation. between BowmanandKilgoreoverbasicscientificresearchastheultimatesourceoftechnog- Kilgore. ButKevlessawnoneedeventoraisethequestionofagreementordisagreement postwar era’,aweapondirectedspecificallyagainstthepopulisticproposalsofSenatorHarley 1950 overtheshape,purpose,andchoiceoffederalpolicyforresearchdevelopmentin tions?”’, wascrafting‘apoliticaldocument,atextualweaponforthebattlesof1945to ‘“What mightthegovernmentdotoaidresearchgenerallyinpublicandprivateinstitu- pragmatic orientationoftheworld ofaffairs,withBakerinsistingontheimpossibility several places. lessons ofscience’lecturesatabout thistime,toodrewwidenoticeandwasreprintedin vice presidentforresearch,Bell Telephone Laboratories.LikeseveralotherofSnow’s‘moral responses byFatherT.M.Hesburgh,presidentofNotreDameUniversity, andW.O.Baker, DuPont, rebuttedEdgerton.See,further,note422,below. Hounshell, ‘IndustrialResearch’,who,drawinguponhisknowledge ofresearchpolicyat symposium volumebyEdgerton’s‘“TheLinearModel”DidNot Exist’,andEdgerton’sby for industrialproduction:Asner,‘TheLinearModel’(2004).Asner’s paperisfollowedinthe policy andpracticeoftheUSDoDinfundingresearch conjunctionwithcontracts advances inbasicscience’,istheconclusionthatAsnerdrewfrom hiscloseexaminationof linear model,i.e.‘thenotionthatradicaltechnologicalinnovation restsexclusivelyon Science’, 185. President whowouldbewillingtotellthemthat’whenquotingthisinForman,‘Recent of Kennedythat‘thefirstPresidentwhowaspreparedtotellthemalsothelast abstract investigationscanleadtothemostconcreteresults’.ThusIwashalfwronginsaying We realizenowthatprogressintechnologydependsontheory;themost would certainlybethewholeheartedunderstandingtodayofimportancepurescience. points upthedifferencethiscenturyhadmadeinAmericanattitudetowardscience,it quoted byGreenberg, Eisenhower, ‘Science’,137.FouryearslaterPresidentKennedysaidmuchthesame,as the apparently visionaryresearcherislikelytoproduceunexpectedlypracticalresults.’ terms towhatwecalledthe“impracticalscholar”.Fortunately,…havelearnedthat young, vigorous,andrapidlygrowingsociety,theuninformedoftenreferredinslurring presidential speechwriter’sstock.Inthespringof1959PresidentEisenhowersaid:‘inour GE’s Schenectadyresearchlaboratory.Bytheendofthatdecadethisthemewaspartany stated brieflyandvividlybyMirowski,‘CaveatEmptor’,atnote32. New YorkTimes, Science, TheEndlessFrontier to information science

‘Research Milestone’,recognizingthefiftiethanniversaryoffounding The PoliticsofPureScience ’. , 13–14.Similarly,the‘SummaryofReport’states,inits ibid , 254:‘IfIweretonameasinglethingwhich ., 213,suggestedthatthespokespersonsfor History andTechnology information 93 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 19 http://www.bell-labs.com/about/history/presidents.html hasaportraitofeachBell [189] 189 Oncethatfaithhadfaileditbecameconventionaltoattributegreatimportancetheresults [188] 188 Baker,‘Response’,262.Bakerwasnotexceptional:thethrustof‘theGrinterReport’, [187] 187 Snow,‘TheMoralUnneutrality’,257.Snowhadalreadysaidinhis1959Rede Lecture,‘The [186] 186 94 P. Forman half truth’. the scientistmakinganycompromise:‘Nevercandealwith[i.e.out]a Nobel prizeisstated;andthat of Baker(1973–9),wherethesummarybeginswith,andis Jewett (1925–40),whereattheend ofthesummaryfactlaboratorywinningitsfirst their tenure.Onlytwoofthesesummaries mentionNobelprizes:thatofthefirstpresident, Laboratories’ presidentsand75-word summaryofthelaboratory’saccomplishmentsduring et al commonly citedasempiricaldisproofsofthedependenceinvention uponscience,Jewkes maintained intheprevioustwodecades.Theauthorsof twootherinvestigations ditures tosuchundirectedresearch—ineffectdoublethepercentage thatagencyhad cated thattheU.S.DepartmentofDefensedevote10%itsscience andtechnologyexpen- time scale,undirectedsciencehasbeenofimmensevalue’,the authors ofthatreportadvo- the faceofevidencepresented.Declaringthat‘Itisclearthat, onthe50-yearormore results werefirstpublishedtheyaccompaniedbystrongreaffirmationsofthatfaithin of ‘ProjectHindsight’:SherwinandIsenson,Hindsight’(1967).Yetwhenthose education tomoveinthisdirection.’ teaching programs.ItisonepurposeofthisReporttoencourageallfieldsengineering engineering havebeenreasonablyalertinassimilatingnewscientificadvancesintotheir enlarged thefoundationsunderlyingmanyofexistingengineeringfields.Somefields of ourknowledgebasicsciencehasopenedvastnewareastoengineeringendeavorand tion ofthatreportin that standard.Wisnioski,‘EngineersandtheIntellectual’,102–4,quotesfromrepublica- neering atitsbestwasappliedscience,andthatnotallfieldsofengineeringweredoingwellby major self-evaluationofengineeringeducationcarriedoutintheearly1950s,wasthatengi- acknowledged hisobviousdebttoAshby, one’s workappearedtobefrom‘anypracticaluse…themoresuperioronefelt’.Snowthere that appliedsciencewasanoccupationforsecond-rateminds’,andthemoredistant young researchersatCambridgeinthe1930s,andheamongthem,‘wastotakeitforgranted Two CulturesandtheScientificRevolution’,thatit‘wasnottoourcredit’attitudeof ble, roleininventionpriortothe endofthe19thcentury. then conventionalviewthatscienceandscientificknowledgeplayed aminor,evennegligi- 19th century.Jewkes,himselfaPolanyi-admiringconservative, was evenopposedtotheby variance withthepresumedprimacyofsciencefortechnological developmentsincethelate (1966), 8–9,weresimilarlydisinclinedtodrawfromtheirresearches generalconclusionsat as thoughheweresettingupanexperimentinparticlephysics’.Snow, an aircraft,youfindhimgoingthroughthesameexperience—aesthetic,intellectual,moral— work, themoreuntenabledistinctionhascometolook.Ifyouactuallyseesomeonedesign pure scienceandtechnology’,Snowavowedthat‘ThemoreIhaveseenoftechnologistsat Repudiating anyattempt,includinghisownearlierattempts,‘todrawaclearlinebetween eth-century humanism’.Snow,taking‘ASecondLook’fiveyearslater,wentevenfarther. have notyetreachedequilibrium’,i.e.takentechnologyas‘thecoreofanewtwenti- but inadaptationtotechnology—whichisoneoftheconsequencesthatrevolution—they argued that‘Universitieshaveadaptedthemselvesconsiderablytothescientificrevolution, were expressedshortlyafterbyMedawar,‘TwoConceptions’. of comparisonkeepsitfrombeingsuch.Similarlystrongrepudiationstheprioritypurity very nearlypostmodernposition;onlytheretentionofpurescienceasstandardandbasis all reservationssuchasAuerbachhadusedtoelevatescienceabovetechnology,advanceda 3, 67.ThusSnow,thegovernmentaladministratorofscientificandtechnicalaffairs,dropping ., The SourcesofInvention Journal ofEngineeringEducation (1958; 1969),38,60–2,224,andSchmookler, Technology andtheAcademics , January1994:‘Thecontinuedgrowth The TwoCultures , 88,85,whohad Invention , 32– Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 22 Füssl,‘KonstruktiontechnischerKultur’,41–2: ‘InihrerzeitgenössischenWirkungwerdensie [202] 202 Füssl,‘KonstruktiontechnischerKultur’,41–2. RiedlerfigurescontinuallyinGispen, [201] 201 Manegold, [200] 200 Hashagen, [199] 199 [198] 198 Hashagen [197] 197 Forexample, Harwit, [196] 196 Füssl, [195] 195 ‘DieverschiedenenZweigederTechnik,welchemitWissenschaftinengerBeziehung [194] 194 Hashagen [193] 193 ‘EsistnichtMeineAufgabehiereinelangeRedezuhalten,abereswirdmirgestattetsein,die [192] 192 Osietzki,‘DieGründungsgeschichte’,49–50. [191] 191 ‘DiedeutscheIndustriescheintmitihrergrossenWertschätzungvonwissenschaftlicher [190] 190 that thefailureoffaithinsciencewasscarcelymorereasonablethanitself. promise ofscience-basedinvention’—i.e.hesawnoreasonableexplanation.Whichsuggests outspoken executivesormanagementconsultants’asonanempiricallyrealizedfailureof‘the constructed. ‘Whatwasthesourceofthisdiscontent?’Smithasreadytopiniton‘afew began tolosepatiencewiththedenizensoftheseivorytowers’thatmanagementhaditself participation ingovernment-fundedresearch,eachataboutthesametime‘management trial researchpowerhouseswere.Quiteindependentlyofsuchfactorsastheextenttheir trial research,foundit‘remarkablehowsimilarthepostwarexperiences’ofseveralindus- Jr, ‘ReviewEssay’,129–30,reviewingthethenrecenthistoricalresearchonAmericanindus- but thesummariescontaincarefullistingsofNationalMedalsTechnologywon.J.K.Smith, won NobelPrizesinphysics.Thereafter,prizesarenolongerconsiderednoteworthy, largely filledwith,arecitationoftheresearchfieldsinwhichBellLaboratories’researchers schen Kollegen,geschweigedenn dieMehrheitderTechnikerundIngenieure,trugseine in der[historical]Forschungjedoch meistüberschätzt.KaumeinervonRiedlersakademi- Profession, OldOrder Sprache—Mathematik plinary driveofmathematicstowardincreasingabstraction, seeMehrtens, Ausschuss byFüssl,‘KonstruktiontechnischerKultur’,37. wurden’. Asquotedfromtheprotocolof11May1903,meeting oftheWissenschaftlicher die wissenschaftlichenBestrebungeninihrerspaterenEntwicklung hervorragendbeeinflusst die ihrenAnfangdurchwiseenschaftlicheForschungennahmen,als auchsolche,welche,durch Darstellung gebrachtwerden,dabeisollensowohlIndustriezweigeBerücksichtigungfinden, typische undhervorragendeMeisterstücke,sowiedurchZeichnungenUrkundenzur stehen, solleninihrerEntwicklungdurchhistorischeApparate,Modelle,sonstige Naturwissenschaften’. DeutschesMuseum, und dieTechnischeHochschuleisnichtsanderesalsderangewandten Prince Ludwigcarriedthisthoughtastepfarther:‘TechnikistangewandteNaturwissenschaft, Verwaltungs-Bericht ‘Die TechnikistnichtsanderesalsangewandteNaturwissenschaft’.DeutschesMuseum, ously, andthusmoreconciselyclearly,atthe3rdAusschusssitzung,12November1906: Ludwig—born 1845;1913–18KönigLudwigIIIvonBayern—restatedthisviewlesspomp- Technik dieVerwendungpraktischausführt’.DeutschesMuseum, die PhysikunstheoretischKräftederNaturundVerwendungderselbenlehrt Physik undnichtsanderesalsNaturwissenschaft.DerUnterschiedbestehtdarin,dass grosse BedeutungderTechnikaufmerksamzumachen.Dieistnichtsanderesals not ona‘Sonderweg’butthemainrouteofmodernity. quite generally.Mycontention,however,isthattheGermanindustrialistswere,inthisregard, Hashagen Forschung einenmehrideologischalsrationalbegründetenSonderweggegangenzusein’: Ibid ., referringtothechapterbyHartl,‘Protuberanzenspektroskopie’, 280–306. ibid ., 42;Osietzki, et al et al et al Universität, TechnischeHochschule Walther vonDyck ., ‘Artefakte ., ‘Artefakte ., ‘Artefakte , 3:26.Andtwoyearslater,atthe5thAusschusssitzung,1October1908, , whereGispeniswhollyonRiedler’s side. Cosmic Discovery . Technikgeschichte circa circa circa , 214–25;Hensel,‘DieAuseinandersetzungen’.Forthedisci- 1903’,22. 1903’,22. 1903’,21,speakingof‘Germanindustry’andthepastcentury . , 54,58. Verwaltungs-Bericht ; Dietzetal., Technische Intelligenz History andTechnology , 5:19. Chronik . , 3.Prince Moderne— New 95 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 28 Althoughthe oppositehasbeenassertedofVictorianBritainbydistinguishedscholars,I [208] 208 Especiallyaviating engineers,e.g.Siegmund-Schultze,‘ANon-Conformist’. [207] 207 Reingold,‘Joseph Henry’.Kevles, [206] 206 HadPerryMillerlivedtocomplete [205] 205 Gillispie, [204] 204 ‘Asto[NationalSocialist]ideologyandrhetoric,threecentralelementshave benoted:the [203] 203 96 P. Forman dimension ofSoviet‘sciencepolicy’.WithreferencetotheUSA,seenextnote. Lysenko Affair artisans andtheartistsbasedonacommonromanticconfidenceingenius.Joravsky, he foundevenhintsoftheimportancethroughouthistory‘dieTechnikalsKulturfaktor’. Technik alsKulturmacht how aloneRiedlerwasinhis neers therewassignificantoppositiontoRiedler’santi-theoreticalstance.Itisanindicationof geschichte’, 62–4.Hensel,‘DieAuseinandersetzungen’,99–100,notesthatalsoamongengi- Kritik mit’.FurtherdetailsontherepliesofvonMiller’sadvisersinOsietzki,‘DieGründungs- science asanelementintheadvanceofmoderncivilization’. having occurredinthepreviousquartercenturypublic’s ‘appreciationofabstract in 1874HenryexpressedhimselftheSmithsonian’s in 1832,Henrystillsawaseriousproblemthepublic’sregard of ‘abstractscience’butthat Sussman’s thesisasideasideological ratherthanempiricalisstrengthenedbyfindingitquoted supported by‘SignsoftheTimes’, onwhichSussmanchieflyrelies.Mydispositiontoset ism’. ACarlyleanmove‘toaccept technologywhilerejectingscientists’issimplynot technology whilerejectingscientists, hebringstheinventorintocontextofCarlyleanhero- enabled Carlyletowelcomethe machine whileexcludingintellectualmechanism.Toaccept contention, greater lengthinSectionIIIregardtoearly19thcenturyAmerica. NotablehereisSussman’s incline toregardsuchclaimsasmoreideologicallythanempirically founded,asIargueat the question:Doel would bringussuccessfullytoourgoals’,butby1938suchastatementwasevidentlyoutof Volksaufklärung undPropagandacouldstillwritethat‘workingundertheflagofscience utilitarian move’:Mehrtens,‘MathematicsandWar’,101.In1934theReichsministerfür ideal ofaheroicwilltemperedbysoldier-likecharacter;thepraise not citeitinhisnotes. of theFranklinInstitute,1824-1865 American Science,1846-1876 by Greene, against scienceisnotengagedbyDaniels, day, judgingbytheevidencesofaruncovered’(p.139).ThematterofthisJacksonianrevolt practical menwereself-evidentcausesfortechnicalimprovementstomostAmericansofthat ‘viewpoint likeHenry’swasonlyconsideredseriouslybyaminority.Thepracticallaborsof unknown mechanicsisadifficultandintricatetask’(note26).Stilltheywereconfidentthat observation that‘Actuallydocumentingtheviewpointsandallegedprejudicesofthesestill against whichHenryremonstrated.Theirfailuretofindmoreevidencetheyexcusedwiththe encountered ineditinghispapers.Theycited(intheirnote41)onlyonestatementoftheview mechanical philosophyfromJosephHenry’spolemicalcounter-assertions,whichthey his evidence,inferredarefusalbyAmericanmechanicstocreditmechanicalinventionsthe Reingold, ‘TheoristsandIngeniousMechanics’(1973;1991),withoutreferringtoHindleor or otherwise suggestaconnectionwithmoregeneralfeaturesofthatperiod.Molellaand such worksasAmosEaton, Technology inEarlyAmerica period. Tomyknowledge,nosuchaccounthasbeenprovidedeventothisday.Hindle, have awell-documentedaccountofthechallengetohigh-culturevaluesinJacksonian Science andPolityinFrance American ScienceintheAgeofJefferson Victorians andtheMachine , asdiscussedinnote108,above,drewattentiontothepopulistic,anti-intellectual et al ., ‘NationalStates’,53–8. , 2,couldsaythatRoscherandEngelsweretheonlywritersinwhich , 87–8,notedan‘anti-intellectualandanti-scientificimpulse’in ; norbySinclair, Art withoutScience Technik alsKultur The Physicists , whohasPerryMiller’sbookinhisbibliography,butdoes The LifeoftheMindinAmerica , 195–209,drawingattentiontothealliancebetween , 6,that‘Seeingthemachineas symbol ofthespirit Philadelphia’s Philosopher-Mechanics:AHistory American ScienceintheAgeofJackson , 6,emphasizedratherthefactthatin1850,as

stance, thatUlrichWendt,thenwriting

(1830), butdidnotinvokeJacksonianism , norbyBruce, Annual Report The LaunchingofModern

(1965), 321–4,wewould as seeinga‘greatchange’ Anschauung ; andthe , nor The Die Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 24 AsquotedbyKevles, [214] 214 Kevles, [213] 213 Kevles, [212] 212 Lafollette, [211] 211 Lafollette, [210] 210 The1930sand1940ssawpublicationofaconsiderablenumberbooksdeprecatingthe [209] 209 philosophy waslargelyanelaborationofthisconviction. knowledge. knowledge’, butthereverse:thattechnologywasviewedasmerelyanappendageofscientific that sciencewasviewedinBritainattimeas‘merelyanappendageoftechnological wished toemphasize,‘amythicalone’(145),‘wasrhetoricalonly’(177),thatis then commonnotionthatsciencestoodatthecenteroftechnologicalprogresswas,asBergso movement’ constitutedinthatplaceandperiod‘afar-reachingculturalsphere’(151).Ifthe nation ofsciencetotechnologyisantithetichermainthesis,whichwasthat‘thescientific create. AswithSussman,butevenmoreso,Berg’squotedcontentionregardingthesubordi- centrality ofscienceintheconceptionnewsortartisanthatsuchinstituteswould logical knowledge’.However,herevidencepointsintheoppositedirection,namelyto mechanics institutes‘fosteredtheviews…thatsciencewasmerelyanappendageoftechno- Berg, modes ofthought…isthetruesubjectVictorianwritingonmachine’.Similarly the deeperconflictbetweenrationalismandintuitionism,scientificorganic then, theVictorianliteraryimaginationsawincarnatedpowerofscientificintellect… Machine is forusthemainissue,Sussmanreversedhimselfinlatterhalfof support ofthatthesis:Miller,‘“PuffingJamie”’.Onthisissuetheprimacyscience,which approvingly, butvacuously,inarecentpaperthat,onmyreading,contributesnoevidence with science’. cans’—i.e. ‘leadersinpolitics,industry,andtheprofessions’—‘routinely confusedtechnology As anIdiom’,3,thoughthefactdispleasedhim,stressedthat‘By1880s,articulateAmeri- Temple ofScience,constitutedthearchitecturalfocalpointfair’.LikewiseRose‘Science includes aphotographofthetowering‘HallScience’,whichbuilding,‘initiallycalled Guide BookoftheFairthat‘invirtuallyeverythingwedoenjoyagiftfromScience’.He conceived oftheentirefairasatestimonytopowerscience’,andquotesOfficial 1933 ‘CenturyofProgress’exhibitionpointsoutthatthe‘organizersinChicagohad leaning overbackwardtoignorehissources’emphasisonscience,indescribingtheChicago Machine-Age Ideology that theengineerisanappliedscientist—whatIstressbecauseitoverlookedbyJordan, Statesman vs.TheEngineer’,pp.219–231,itisonlybecausehetakesasamatterofcourse extent thatMorgenthaudirectshimselfagainsttheengineer,asinhisconcludingsection‘The polemicizes againstscience’sculturalprimacy,testifiestoit.So,e.g.pp.136–9,144–5.Tothe Chicago, amongthemMorgenthau, primacy thatsciencehadcometohaveinmodernity,afairfractionfromtheUniversityof was duetoscienceunderlyingit. ing attentiontoBeard’stakingitasagiventhatwhatevereffectiveness engineeringachieved ing thecoincidencewithBeard’stakinghisson,anMITengineer, ascollaborator,nordraw- hopes forsocialsalvationintheapplicationofengineeringmethods, without,however,notic- Ideology social purpose,ifcivilizationisto endure’. another worldandcivilization thatsimplymustbemotivatedbysomeconscious writing in Concept’, vii,quotedasindicative Roosevelt’sSecretaryofAgriculture,HenryA.Wallace, responsible isnotBix’sthesis, but isevidentinherevidence.Meier,‘TheTechnological The MachineryQuestion The Physicists The Physicists , 214–21,whobringsoutBeard’sheroizingoftheengineerin early1930s,andhis , statingcorrectly,asIthink,inhisconcludingparagraph(233)that‘Inthemachine, Making ScienceOurOwn Mechanical Engineering Making ScienceOurOwn , 237,239;Bix, The Physicists , 180–4,quotingCharlesBeard,1930.OnJordan, , 9,inquotingMorgenthau. , 149,155,statedthattheassumptionsunderlyingBritish

, 399–400. in March1934:‘Yetscienceallthis timehasbeencreating ; Jordan, Inventing Ourselves Scientific Man , 9.Norwasthisjustmiddle-browthinking:Dewey’s Machine-Age Ideology . Thisbook,likesomanysuch,forallthatit , ch.6, et passim History andTechnology , 185–92,thoughingeneral . Thatsciencewasheld Victorians andthe Machine-Age not

evidence 97 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 26 Miller, [226] 226 Hutchins inPreece,‘IdeasofTechnology’,471.Also1962Hutchins’Centersponsoreda [225] 225 Ellul,La [224] 224 Carson,‘NuclearEnergyDevelopment’,234. [223] 223 CarsonandGubser,‘ScienceAdvising’,152;Osietzki,‘DiePhysik’,65–6. [222] 222 Dickson, [221] 221 Needell, [220] 220 Jordan, [219] 219 NationalAssociationofManufacturers, [218] 218 Kevles, [217] 217 TheBishopofRipon’sbriefremarksfromaLeedspulpit,andspecimensthe hugeuproarin [216] 216 PaulGoodman, [215] 215 98 P. Forman quotations Tugwellspeaksofscience. New Deal,JordanspeaksalwaysofTaylorismandsocialengineering,whileinhisexhibited Rexford Tugwell(247–51),hisleadingexampleofaconvincedtechnocratempoweredbythe primacy ofscienceforhissubjectskeepspoppingoutexposition.Thusinpageson as wellprofessionalappliedscientists’.ButthoughJordangivesprimacytotechnology,the spirit ofpostmodernity:‘Theterm doing sohalfinthescientisticspiritoferathathedescribes,andtechnologistic above. (Ellul sentthiscontribution;hewasnotphysicallypresent.) (Vol. 3,No.4)tomaterialsfromthatconference,includingEllul,‘TheTechnologicalOrder’. Academy ofSciences appointees ayearlater— whelmingly ‘pure’sciencemembership.Thatinitialcohortwassupplementedbyadditional the compositionofPresident’sScienceAdvisoryCommittee25yearslater,isitsover- Lewis MumfordandAmericanModernism by Wojtowicz,‘TheLewisMumford Decades’,andofabookheextractedfromit:Wojtowicz, by Miller,namelyMumford’ssteady concernwitharchitecture,isthesubjectofadissertation Forman, ‘HowLewisMumfordSawScience’.Thesideof mostseriouslyneglected having manydeficiencies,amongthemthewantofa‘theory’ Mumford—forwhichsee of published itsreport, ‘Conference ontheRoleandResponsibilitiesofScienceExecutives intheFederalService’and Aaserud, ‘Sputnikandthe“PrincetonThree”’. ‘American Science’.OnthecreationofJASONconsultativegroupelitephysicists: the presstheyoccasioned,arequotedin Hewlett andAnderson, nologists, asexperiencesinnuclearreactordesignandconstructionoughttohaveshown: engineers—but toremedytherelativeabsenceof such generalconcern. quotation inillustrationandexplanationofwhy Goodman speaksnotof‘technology’but‘science’.Nonetheless,Winnerputsforwardthe 293. Wojtowicz hasalsobeenresponsiblefortherevision andtheupdatingsof century’, andthatjudgement is affirmedbyMallgrave, ‘the mostimportantarchitectural criticproducedbytheUnitedStatesintwentieth were thenbeinglookedtoasphilosopher-kings. ruled byscientist-kings’,butthatverypremiseofGreenberg’spiece isevidencethatscientists Greenberg’s intentwaslikewisetoridiculethenotionthat‘weshould permitourselvestobe [morally] thanotherpeople,andthatscientistsaresomewhatworse thanotherprofessors’. ‘Occasional Paper’ofhisCenter,developingthethesisthat‘professors aresomewhatworse Attitudes Science Lewis Mumford The Physicists Machine-Age Ideology Science, ColdWar , 217–21. Technique The NewPolitics , Greenberg,‘ReactiontoSnow’quotedHutchins,atsomelength, fromarecent New Reformation . Kranzbergaseditorof , 652–5. , ch.XVII.StrikingherewithRoosevelt’sScienceAdvisoryBoard,as Science andDemocraticGovernment , istheauthorizedbiographyandaconsiderableachievement,though The NewWorld not . Sometimes,ofcourse,physicistsprovedtobelessthangoodtech- , 28,quotingEisenhower’sScienceAdvisor,JamesKillian;Wang,

in ordertoremedytheabsenceof , 9,217,219,unreflectivelyconflatesscienceandtechnology, , p.21,asquotedbyWinner, engineer , 305–8;Needell,‘NuclearReactors’. The LiteraryDigest . Wojtowicz, News Letter

could genericallyconnoteinventorsandscientists Technology andCulture technology life

(19 November1938).Seenote173, Sidewalk Critic

(1963). Inthe4October1963,issue scientists: Cochrane, , asreprintedinHughes,

was thenbecomingamatterof Modern ArchitecturalTheory applied Autonomous Technology

devoted anentireissue , 11,judgedMumford

scientists—let alone The National Changing , 4. , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 24 Westbrook,‘LewisMumford,JohnDewey’,301–2, foundMumford’scriticismsofDewey [234] 234 Mumford, [233] 233 Mumford,‘ThePragmaticAcquiescence:AReply’.ThephrasethatMumfordquotesisfrom [232] 232 Forman,‘HowLewisMumford’.Seealsonotes139and140,above. [231] 231 Mumford,‘ThePragmaticAcquiescence:AReply’(1927). [230] 230 May, [229] 229 Hughes, [228] 228 Mendelsohn,‘ProphetofOurDiscontent’,355,357:‘thescientificcommunity,andespecially [227] 227 tradition aspertinentcontextforMumford’sthought:Molesworth,‘InnerandOuter’,252. Survival towards Deweyin1938,onethat hesucceededinmaking1946:Mumford, Dewey’. (Itshouldbenoted,however, thatMumforddidseektomakeagenerousgesture to theearly1940siscloselyand broadlyconsideredbyWestbrook,‘LewisMumford,John two orthreeyears.ThecontinuingantagonismbetweenMumford andDeweyfromthatdate tic orthodoxyoftheartisticcirclesintowhichMumfordhadthrown himselfintheprevious views servesMumford’sendeavortodistinguishhimselffromDewey byaffirmingtheroman- Mumford, Morse seemtohimashighinthescaleofhumandevelopment aWhitmanandTolstoi’. up withacertaindemocraticindiscriminatenessinhispersonal standards: aGoodyearand ranking oftechnologyonthescaleculturalvalues:‘MrDewey’s instrumentalismisbound to disdainDewey’sinstrumentalismasBabbittry,Mumfordhad tomisrepresentDewey’s coloration’ wasduetoMumford’sadmiredoldercontemporary, RandolphBourne.Inorder in themiddle-classAmerican.ThecharacterizationofDewey’smental habitusas‘protective the perfectexpressionofphilistinismthatMumford’sgeneration foundmostantipathetic the titlecharacterofSinclairLewis’s only onerecognizes Mumford Starnberg schools.AmongtheseventeencontributorstoHughesandHughes, highly regardedAmericanStudiesscholaratworktoday—produced780webpages. Googling ‘AmericanStudies’+‘AlanTrachtenberg’—hebeingperhapsthemostwidelyand 2005, Googling‘AmericanStudies’+‘LewisMumford’produced842webpages,while himself inopeninghis‘Introductiontothe1957Edition’of provided belowinSectionIII.AsregardsAmericanStudies,Mumfordmakesacasefor 454, 458.)FurtherevidenceofMumford’shighimportanceforthehistorianstechnologyis many pageslistedintheindexofthatbook,Mumfordappearsalsoonpp.354–60,369,453, historical actorandasrepeatedlyaffirmedhistorical–culturalinterpreter.(Inadditiontothe proponent. MumfordisallthroughHughes, unequaled inAmericanletters’(191),figuresimportantly. intellectual’, Jacoby, of hiswritings.BothMarxandtheeditorsthatvolumeacknowledgeforterm‘public unequaled duration,productivity,visibility,andbreadthrecognizedscholarlyimportance mumford/index.html. bibliography ofMumford’spublications:http://www.library.upenn.edu/collections/rbm/ ‘often wideofthemark’,andthat thetwo‘werekindredspiritstoagreaterdegreethaneither Civilization Mumford’s; hehaduseditinMumford,‘Viavitae’,andwoulduseagain Dewey, ‘ThePragmaticAcquiescence’.TheHumpty-Dumptysimilewasafavoriteof Power its leaders,sawhimasposingadirectchallengetothem’;Mumford, Regarding As regardsthehistoryoftechnology,HugheshasbeenMumford’slongestandsteadiest Marx, ‘LewisMumford,164–5,underscorestheuniquenessofMumford’scareer The EndofAmericanInnocence ‘asanattackontheverycoreoftheirpracticeandthought’. , 3,9.) American Genesis , manypointtothecentralityoforganicand‘life’inMumford’sthought,but The GoldenDay The GoldenDay Lebensphilosophie , 447. The LastIntellectuals Lebensphilosophie , 359,placedhimselfsquarelywithMumfordonthesideof‘life’. , 134.ThismisrepresentationofwhatwehaveseentobeDewey’s , 94,131,135–6.Thereferenceto‘MrBabbitt’was,ofcourse, , seethenotestosub-sectionbelowonErlangenand . Babbitt

as theappropriateterm,andGermanintellectual , whereMumford,withhis‘singularoeuvre,almost (1922)whohadbeenseizeduponimmediatelyas American Genesis The GoldenDay History andTechnology , wherehefiguresbothas . Asof24October The Pentagonof Technics and Values for Lewis 99 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 [241] 241 Mumford, [240] 240 Mumford, ‘DramaoftheMachines’,227–28. [239] 239 Mumford, [238] 238 Mumford,‘TheProudPageantryofMan’(1922),andmorefullyataboutthissametimein [237] 237 Ahegemonywonaboveallthrough‘theverysuccessofthephysicalsciencesin theirapplica- [236] 236 Thusinhismanoflettersphase,runningfromthemid1920stolate1930s, Mumford [235] 235 100 P. Forman Mumford reinserts‘theGeneral Staff’tomakeitallwork:‘Oncethesekeyinventionswere making thewoodmanreal sourceofmoderntechnologyandsciencetoo, Mumford justcannotbelievewhat hefindshimselfsaying.So,inthemidstofthatpassage results auniversallanguage:thelanguage ofexactscience’. Mumford evensaysthatthemachine ‘hascreatedfortheaccomplishmentofcertainphysical medicines andpoisonsthatcomefromthedestructivedistillation ofcoal,’etc.There not bemade.…Fromthewoodman’sprimitivedistillationoftar tothethousanddyesand of allmachinetools,forwithoutitaccuratemachinesandinstruments ofmeasurementcould the precisearts:…inhiscreationofenginelathehehanded onthemostusefulperhaps has acoupleparagraphsdevelopingthethesisthat‘Thewoodman wasthechiefcontributorto couple pagesafterdevelopinghis‘generalstaff’metaphorforthe roleofscientists,Mumford primacy ofpractice,andmoreespeciallyfromthatversionthem avowedbyVeblen.Thusa phy ofhisearlyyears, more toDeweythanheusuallyacknowledged’.isabsentfromMumford’sautobiogra- 307, 308,310,311,312).Likewise,Blake,‘ThePerilsofPersonality’,287:‘Mumfordowed (pp. of Dewey indicativeofthesimilaritywithMumfordinsocialphilosophyandviewart was willingtoadmit’.RepeatedlythroughthatessayWestbrookexhibitedquotations corresponding pagesin 61, above. knowledge, anditwouldspeedilystarvetodeathifthehostwereannihilated’.See,also,note actual worldofmachineryisatpresent,itseemsfairtosay,aparasiteuponthisbody which havebeencrudellylabeledthe“industrialrevolution”werecarriedthrough….The became availableinmathematics,physics,mechanics,andchemistrythestartlingchanges The StoryofUtopias tions totechnics’:Mumford, A Reply’. than causallywiththescientistwhosays“Itmust”’.Mumford,‘ThePragmaticAcquiescence: channels forlifetorunin,theabilitythinkcreativelywithartistwhosays“Iwill”rather insisted thatcontemporaryman’sgreatestneedisfor‘theabilitytoconceivenewformsand Yet thesestatementsaresoinconsistent withhismostfundamentalpreconceptionsthat opposite causation,aswouldbeexpectedfromromantic- essay (inMumford, on p.137. human beings’. ‘with theintroductionofscientificmethod,menbegantothinkconsciouslyaswhole nal languageconcepts.’In analytic science.Thiscontributionwaspossiblysecondonlytothedevelopmentofourorigi- Mumford judged‘creatinganeutralworld…thegreatgeneralcontributionofmodern tistic placeashighestculturalvalue.So,forexample,in Mumford vacillatedonthequestionwhethertodenyphysical–mathematicalscienceitsscien- pragmatic applications’.Eveninthesemiddleyearsofprimaryidentificationwiththeartist, and Days heading ‘TheSciencesandPhilosophy’,in Grain ofThings’(1930),thepertinentparagraphswhichMumfordreprinted,under science soconfidentlypre-emptedonthebasisofitspragmaticapplications’:Mumford,‘The Ibid. , 57.Itmustbeallowedthatthereareacoupleofpassagesinthe1930 (1978),190,whereMumford,notinsignificantly,modifieditto‘itsmanysuccessful Technics andCivilization The GoldenDay , 271:‘Onthebasisofpreciseknowledgephysicalrelationswhich Interpretations andForecasts Sketches FromLife The GoldenDay The GoldenDay Values forSurvival , ch.1,asreprintedinMumford, , 46. .

are 6–8.Thesameisrestatedtheremoreconcisely Findings andKeepings , 132,Mumfordhadevengonesofarastosaythat , 83.‘Philosophyisreclaimingtheplacewhich , 229,231)inwhichMumfordassertsthe lebensphilosophisch Technics andCivilization , 193,andagainin Interpretations Scribner’s Magazine

principles ofthe , 7–8.The My Works , 361, Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 28 Mumford, [248] 248 Mumfordwrote tohisfriendBentonMacKayein1964that‘theprimacyofmind’wasthe [247] 247 AmonginnumerableinstancestestifyingtoMumfordsharingthecommonperceptionofa [246] 246 Mumford, [245] 245 Mumford, [244] 244 [243] 243 Mumford, [242] 242 1970 book(65–73,120–1). technologies isemphasizedrepeatedlyinthisearlierpaper(159,161,163–6)asitthe Technology’. Theprimary,leading,nearlyexclusive,roleofscienceinthecreationnew as Technology’, ingreatpartapaperthathehadpublished1961:‘Bacon:Scienceas (1930), 50:‘thepecuniaryinterestsandpreoccupationsofthebusinessman’. in Mumford’sfrequentpejorativeuseof‘pecuniary’,asMumford,‘TowardCivilization?’ to scientistsandhisdisparagementofengineers. gories’ (239).Long,‘LewisMumford’,171–2,pointsouttheprimacythatMumfordascribed austerity ofform’inconsequence‘itsbackgroundscientificconceptsandabstractcate- and mathematicstheirspecialtechnologies’(235);‘themachinehasgivenusanoble Crystal Palace,theBrooklynBridge,andEiffelTower,were‘createdwithaidofphysics physical sciences’(234);‘thethreegreatestmonuments’of19thcenturyengineering,the that comestoexpression:‘Hithertothesoleinfluenceuponmachinedesignhadbeen last thederivativeproductsofindustrialismcouldspawnandmultiply’. suggestions, thetimehadcomeformachinetotakepossessionofWesterncivilization:at planted, oncetheGeneralStaffwasreadytosupplyabroadstreamofabstractideasand See Mayer,‘SettingUpaDiscipline’. the generalshifttomentalismthat appearsstrikinglyinthehistoryofscience. Mumford’s reassertionoftheprimacy ofmindpost-SecondWorldWarwasquiteinlinewith and instrumentssocietyhasdeveloped throughhistory—words,symbols,grammar,logic’. Technics andCivilization word’: machines, buttwosubjectiveinstrumentsfarolderthananyof these:thedreamand ‘the chiefsourceofthis[i.e.man’s]particularformcreativity was notfire,tools,weapons, crudest tools.Alreadyin1951Mumford,arguingagainstBergson’s that man’sdiscoveryofthecapabilitieshisbigbrainlongpreceded developmentofeventhe concept underlying result oftheimpactmathematicalandphysicalsciencesupon technology’. realize, haswitnessedaradicaltransformationintheentirehumanenvironment,largelyas heightened primacyofscience, Works andDays Mumford’s ‘TheHumanHeritage’,firstpublishedin1972andrepublished inMumford, Mumford Importance ofScience’. Mumford statedthisantitheticfactonlyasarhetoricalfoilforanexpositionof‘The reconciling itwithhispresupppositionoftheprimacysciencefortechnolgy.Asaresult ogy knewthistobeso,butasmodernwasincapableofassimilatingthestatedfactand scientific workoftheperiod’.Mumford,asreaderandwriterabouthistorytechnol- the textilemill,ironship,couldbewrittenwithoutmorethanpassingreferenceto Science’—has asopeningsentence:‘Thedetailedhistoryofthesteamengine,railroad, Otherwise, throughthisessayitis,overandover,theprimacyofsciencetofortechnology lems, andlaidthebasisforathousandpracticalapplications’. movers—the physicalscientistswhoopenednewfieldsofexploration,formulatedprob- dropped it:butinsteadofdealingwithderivativemotorsindustry,hedealstheprime the Cloister’)Mumfordwrote:‘MrCrowtherpicksupthreadatpointwhereSmiles Ibid ., 217–18.Twoyearslater,inreviewingJ.G.Crowther’s The ConductofLife , 510;seealso456.‘ThePrimacyofMind’isthetitle opening sectionof Technics andCivilization The ConditionofMan The PentagonofPower Technics andCivilization , 468–84.Mumford’sargumentthereis,again,against The MythoftheMachine , 370,itappearednotasathesis, butasinadvertentlapse:‘thetools , 40.ThiswasofcourseMumford’sleaningfromearlyon,but in The MythoftheMachineI , 5. , 122–3.Mumfordincorporateshereinchapter5,‘Science , 218–19.TheaffinitywithVeblenandDeweyistobeseen , 216.True,thissubsection—titled‘TheImportanceof , histwo-volumeworktheninprogress.Miller, , 3,opens:‘Thelastcentury,weall Men ofScience History andTechnology homo faber homo faber

(‘Science Outof , assertedthat , insisting 101 My Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 24 Priortotheearly1930sMumfordhaddeclined toaccepthismentorPatrickGeddes’concep- [254] 254 Thisisstriking inMumford’ssurveyof‘TheArts’(1928),whereforallthatheelevatesengi- [253] 253 Hughes, [252] 252 Upuntil1927thedifferencebetweenMumford’streatmentofscientistsandengineersis [251] 251 Mumford, [250] 250 Mumford, [249] 249 102 P. Forman industrial …’.Mumford, omy andcelestialmechanicslaidthefoundationforamoreabsoluteorder,political order, lackedthefaintestpremonitionsofpossibleconsequences.Inallinnocence,astron- whose mathematicalmeasurementshadfirstdisclosedandutilizedthissourceofcosmic volume of hand-axes’. ‘Lewis Mumford’,170–1,underscoresMumford’sdisdainfor‘thechippingofamountain completing tion ofanemergentneotechnic era, andhewouldbegintoturnagainstitagainshortlyafter sense ofthe 1930s, forheuseditnotonlyto refertoaestheticendeavorsbutalsoattimesinthearchaic context toconstruethemeaningofword‘art’inMumford’s writingspriortothelate neering, hepresentsscienceasthemainmotor,forfinearts well.(Onemustrelyupon right intheargumentofthispaper, that ofRuskin,themaininfluenceonhisaestheticformation. More generallystill,ifIam Mumford as onward ‘experiencedthetechnologicalenthusiasmofinterwar years’.Hughespresented transience ofMumford’spost-1927philotechnicphase,representedhimashavingfrom1921 Mitarbeiter”’, 134. Samson, ‘German–Americandialogues’,372,384–89,407–8;‘“UnserNewyorker predominant attitudeuntilabout1928:Wojtowicz,‘TheLewisMumfordDecades’,293–301; refusal toseetheresultsofengineeringfunctionalismasaestheticremainedMumford’s the lasthundredandfiftyyears’.Mumford,‘TheArts’,303,305,312.Forevidencethata change, andcouldsaythat‘engineeringshareswithmusicthesupremacyinartsduring itly deniedWhitmanandThoreausuchsympathies.In1927/28Mumfordunderwentasea from havingpreviouslystatedanythingofthesort,Mumfordhadearlierinthatbookexplic- in thepineneedles,listenedwithequalpleasuretomusicoftelegraphwires?’Sofar Whitman wroteanapostrophetothelocomotive…thatThoreau,wholovedhearwind writers—or, rather,doessouptohisantepenultimatepagewherehesays:‘NeedIrecallthat porary VanWyckBrooks,simplyignorestheaffirmationsofitby19thcenturyAmerican Mumford, whoinhishandlingoftechnologyhereisheavilyindebtedtoadmiredcontem- 144, andoftechnologyengineers,negatively,on49,87–8,118,132,134–7,141. Day engineers generallyinsulted,andtheiractionsalmostalwaysinjurious.Thusin drastic: thescientistsgenerallyconsideredadmirableandtheiractivitiesall-important; over sized byMumfordin1959asthepointswhichhisthoughtdepartedfromandadvanced important technicsinearlycivilizationswereorganizedbodiesofhumanbeings,empha- mizing theroleoftoolandmachine.Thisfeature,aswellhisdiscoverythatmost Science’. the creativeagentsgivingbirthtonewtechnologies. most emphatically—anenthusiasmforscienceandscientists, theynotmerelybutalsoas of InventionandTechnologicalEnthusiasm,1870–1970 enthusiasm’ asbeingsimplyorevenprimarilyanenthusiasmfor technologists.That were inventionsofthemind:mathematicsandastronomicalobservation…’. 155–56: ‘Mumfordarguesthatthecriticaltoolsledtoassemblyofmegamachine , Mumfordspeaksofscience,affirmatively,on7–9,14,50,54,93,98,113,115,132,141, Technics andCivilization American Genesis The MythoftheMachineI The MythoftheMachineI The MythoftheMachine Technics andCivilization industrial avant garde arts,technics.) , whereinfacthisaestheticsensibilitywasveryconservative—close to The MythoftheMachineII , 297,300,446,ignoringthelateness,anomalousness,and : Mumford,‘AnAppraisalofLewisMumford’s’,529–30.Long, American Genesis , Mumfordemphasizedthat‘thepriesthoodofscience, , 11–12.Recapitulatingthisargumentearlyinthesecond . OnthispointseeForman,‘How LewisMumfordSaw , 7,withthevolumeasawholebeingdevotedtomini- ismisconceivedintaking‘technological , 30.Miller,‘ , wasmuchrather—andforMumford, The MythoftheMachine The Golden Century ’, Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 26 Mumford, [256] 256 Mumford, [255] 255 22 Tomyknowledge,theclosesttocomesuch anelevationoftechnologywasFriedrich [262] 262 Althoughevidence ofthisromantictraditiondisparagementtechnologyandexperimen- [261] 261 Schnädelbach, [260] 260 SeeSectionI, notes25,33–40,particularly,and260–70,below. [259] 259 Mumford,‘ProloguetoOurTime’; [258] 258 Mumford, [257] 257 ing iscapableofflourishing.’Ergo,letusignoreit. important butsubordinateart:whilethemediumexists,scarcelyanyotherartthanengineer- ing hasgerminatedandspread….Withoutthisspecificmedium,engineeringwouldbean this mixtureofmining,warfareandfinancehasbeenthespecificmediuminwhichengineer- has asitssocialfoundationthedestructiveoccupationsofminingandwarfare?…that of aFaraday….Isthereanynotion,amongthesedistinguishedcontributors,thattheirart would knowbetter?—combinethechivalryofaBayardwithintellectualresourcefulness tude oftheengineer,aclassilluminedmindswho,accordingtoauthors—andwho ‘interspersed withinnumerablereferencestothewisdom,integrity,fairnessandgeneralapti- contempt forengineers(whileusingascientistasavatarofthevirtuetheywouldfainpossess): (1930), authoredbythatgroup.Reviewingit,Mumford,‘TowardCivilization?’,showedonly tion tohumanprogress,withtheupshotthatBeardeditedasequel, included Mumford’s‘TheArts’,agroupofengineersprotestedtheneglecttheircontribu- bearer. Uponpublicationof he translateditas‘navalarchitect’Mumfordwouldhavefounddifficulttomakefunofits Dessauer, whoindeedwasatrue original.(See,e.g.WolfgangPohlit,‘FriedrichDessauer, tal scienceisplentiful,noscholarlyaccountofitknowntome.Herf, on thetwenty-firstcentury— it isfromthestimulusoftheirideasthat‘myownfaithblithelyflourishes. Letthecurtainrise cists whichIattendedatM.I.T.…Theastrophysicistsaredaringly open-mindedfellows,’and with Mumfordexhilaratedbythediscussionofblackholes‘atalivelyluncheonastrophysi- The NewYorker tists last:Mumford,‘AnAppraisalofLewisMumford’s’,535. Mumford regardingtheactorstowhomtechnicsareduethatplacesengineersfirstandscien- took muchthesamepro-invention,anti-engineeringstance.Ihaveseenonestatementby has kindlyallowedmetoreadin draft. extended hercloseattentionfrom HeisenbergtoHeideggerandHabermasinapaperthatshe Technology’, and‘Physicsthe Ideology’.Carson,‘ScienceasInstrumentalReason’,has appraisal oftechnologyinrelation tosciencearebeingundertakenbyBeyler,‘TheDemonof explorations ofthepost-SecondWorldWarintellectual–political scenefocusingonthe who, givenhistopic,oughttohaveinvestigatedtheromantictradition, didnot.Promising the tions ofactivelegislationandmassivesanitaryengineeringhavefinallybroughtabout’(462). diation isdealtwithbyawaveofthehandtoward‘thoseimprovementswhichthreegenera- towns inthemid19thcenturyareportrayedovermanypagesgraphicdetail,buttheirreme- position’, Mumfordwillnotgothere.ThegrosslyunsanitaryconditionsinEnglishcitiesand involved ashiftinemphasis‘fromestheticdesigntomaterialcalculationsofweight,number, to engineering’,andthatthiswasa‘preludethewidertechnicsofmachine’(360).As ‘The developmentoftheartfortificationshiftedemphasisinbuildingfromarchitecture is contemptuousofits‘flatulence’.‘Engineers,fortificationsneedfor’leadstotheassertionthat entry intheindexunder‘Engineering’,viz.‘inadequacyofRomanandAmerican’—Mumford of citydwellers—thathasscarcelyadozenpagesoncivilengineering!Indicativeisthefirst century—the cityespeciallyinitsphysicalaspects,includingprovisionfortheneeds has yetbeendoneintotherootsinsocialandideologicalhistory of thisbasicmood’. lebensphilosophisch Technics andCivilization Technics andCivilization The CityinHistory Philosophy inGermany,1831

in 1975;ithadbeendraftedmorethan10yearsearlier.Theessayconcludes

unanimity, righttoleft,butacknowledged(142)that‘norealresearch Whither Mankind? and After , a600-pagetomeonthecityfromantiquityto20th , 219–20.TheGermantermis , 216–20;quotationon218.Hughes, !’ – 1933 My WorksandDays , thevolumeeditedbyCharlesA.Beardthat

(1984), ch.5,particularly142–7,asserted History andTechnology Schiffsbauingenieur , ch.1.Firstpublishedin Reactionary Modernism Toward Civilization American Genesis , buthad 103 , , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 26 Lorenzen,‘MethodischesDenken’,36–7.The capitalizationof‘Life’,asalsotheinclusion [266] 266 Kamlahand Lorenzen, [265] 265 Mösgen, ‘Wilhelm Kamlah’;Roberts,‘Lorenzen,Paul’.Acoupleessaysbyeachofsome [264] 264 TheWestGermanConstitutionincludesaguaranteeofthefreedomscience—whichfree- [263] 263 104 P. Forman 12 October 2006].)Dessauer’s 1881–1963’, availableathttp://www.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/paf/paf84.html[accessed German versionisreprinted as titleessayinLorenzen, the originalGermanofquotation ofDilthey,isasitappearsintheEnglishversion.The Constructivism andScience eight membersoftheErlangenschoolaretranslatedandpublished inButtsandBrown, even morecharacteristicofGermanculturehasbeenthe found strongerculturalsupportinGermanythananyothercountry.Yet,paradoxically, ily disengagedfromthehurly-burlyofordinarylife,andmoreespeciallypoliticalhad guarantee reflectsthefactthatpre-postmodernself-conceptionofscholarasnecessar- any constraintonthecourseofscientificworkduetopoliticalinterests.Thatconstitutional dom iscommonlyunderstoodasguaranteeingtheproductionoftruththroughabsence 1983 giveninLorenzen’sprefacetohis sible andundesirable. creating adeepconviction,ontherightasleft,thatvalue-freesciencewasbothimpos- ‘life’ isthefundamentalbasisofknowledge—theonlylegitimateknowledge—thus Dessauer’s manyadditionsandreformulationsin der Naturgesetze…habenWirklichkeitimhöchstenGrade’(35).Moreover,theresultof gewisser Ideenhandelt,jenernämlich,diemitNaturgesetzenerfüllbarsind’(viii);‘DieInhalte by science:‘DieUntersuchungdesGegenstandes“Technik”ergibt,daßessichumRealisation forward asthehighestformof‘realization’,priorityremainedwithlawsnaturerevealed ogy. Rather,asoneexpectsfromaphysicist,forallthatDessauerputthetechnicalobject technical (3).Nowhere,however,didDessauerexplicitlyassertthatscienceassuchistechnol- hineinkommt’ (61).Heevenpresentedsuchscientificachievementsasweighingtheplanets along, butthrough‘Erfindung…neueQualitätindieErfahrungsweltzumerstenMale (what wepostmodernssimplyassume):thediscoveredphenomenonorlawwasoutthereall ment thereforaninventionbeingsomethingmorewonderfulthanascientificdiscovery and ontology,ontoreligion(‘approachthethroneofGod’).Dessauermadeanargu- value oftechnologyineverydimensionculture,fromeconomicsandethicstoepistemology in science beinganendinitself. believed that‘dieTechnik’formedErgänzungderNaturwissenschaft’,ratherthan upon naturalscience.Onthecontrary,asMarxiansocialistWendtbelievedinit,butalso Naturwissenschaft’. However,Wendtdidnot sen Absichtlichkeitdaraufhingewiesen,daßdiemoderneTechnikabhängigseivonder Riedler, wasannoyedthat‘InvolkswirtschaftlichenWerkenwirdzuweilenmiteinergewis- reverse’, butIamnotabletofindthatargumentinthebook.True,Wendt(8–10,315),like (1906), hadargued‘thattechnologynowdeterminedthescienceoftimeratherthan his claimsfortheepistemicprimacyoftechnology. that openletterwashisfirstpublished attackonHeidegger.) academic careerbytheNationalSocialist regime.Hehadoptedforclarityinthemid1930s,but ‘Martin Heidegger’;Kamlahhad studiedwithHeidegger Heidegger’s ‘DieFragenachderTechnik’.(SeeKamlah, Ihnen vollendseigentümlichenBegriffsmythologie’—in1954in an openletterinresponseto had takenHeideggertotaskforhisuseofinsupportableetymologies—‘zur ErdichtungIhrer one, thecentralofHeidegger’smanycockamamieetymologies issheerinvention.Kamlah section (pp.111–12intheEnglishtranslation),wherethey—or, rather,Kamlah—showthat McCormmach, ‘OnAcademicScientists’,162,saidthatWendt, Logische Propädeutik

Logische Propädeutik is largelyimplicit;theycriticizeHeideggerdirectlyinonlyoneshort . Philosophie derTechnik Normative LogicandEthics . Mysalesfigureisuppedslightlyfromthatasof deny Streit umdieTechnik

that dependenceofmoderntechnology

(1927) isuniqueinitsclaimsforthe ca Von derSprache lebensphilosophisch

1930, butwasexcludedfroman Methodisches Denken , 3.ThecriticismofHeidegger Die TechnikalsKulturmacht

(1958) wastoweaken , 119,atKamlah,

consensus that , 24–59 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 25 So,forexample, Tetens—whomWeiss, [275] 275 Auerbach, [274] 274 Janich,‘Physics’, 13.Janichrecognizesthatthiscontentionrequiresphysicallawsbe [273] 273 Janich,‘Physics’, 11.MyattentionwasdrawntoJanich,andthustheErlangenschool, [272] 272 Janich, [271] 271 Dingler, [270] 270 Lorenzen,‘WieistdieObjektivität’.Thefullestexpositionofthe‘protophysics’programin [269] 269 TranscendentalpragmatismwaswhatHabermasadvocatedin [268] 268 RegardingHeideggeras [267] 267 perhaps becauseEdge,forallhis interest ininstruments,remainedquitemodernhisviewof Journal ofSociology Dynamics ofScienceandTechnology ment istechnological,buthejust cannotbringhimselftoassertit.WhenEdgereviewed Weltmaschine”’ thatphysicsisfrom theoutsettechnology,thatverymethodofexperi- der Physikeralseinzige Ideologie vomNaurforscher,derdieWeltenträtselt,auchund gerade imSelbstverständnis i.e. studentofastudent—obviously reduction ofscienceto provided inJanich, Lorenzen’s 75thbirthday.Anexpositionenteringrathermoreintosubstantiveissuesis Janich, late 1920s:Misch, Misch issuggestedbythetitleofarecentpublicationMisch’slecturesatGöttingenin Truth andMethod method. GrapplingwiththisissuefromapositionmuchclosertoHeidegger,wasGadamer, tic tendencyofmost program (seenote270)andwhatdistinguishedLorenzen’sfromthesheerlyroman- Philosophy (quotation fromp.26),andretranslatedsomewhatmorefreelyinLorenzen, he doessoentirelywithoutargumentorexample. regarded asthecodificationoftechnicalexperience,andheasserts thistobethecase(24),but through thequotationofthispassagebyHansRadder,‘Technology andTheory’,155. English isJanich, (90, n.2). ences inittocontemporarythinkersthereisahighlycomplimentaryoneLorenzen’swork book HabermasquotedDiltheymoreoftenthananyotherwriter.Amongtheveryfewrefer- [“Erlebnisse”] wasfromtheoutsetakeyforhistheoryofGeisteswissenschaften’.Inthat Erkenntnisse undInteresse emphatically inthetraditionandspiritof ought tohavebeenHabermas’sman,butwasdisqualifiedbyhisnaturalism.)Habermas, it isthatwhichmadePeircesoattractivetohim.(Dewey,consideredaspoliticalthinker, lebensphilosophisch Dingler wasapassionate werkliches Metierbetrachtetwordenwar’,Dingler, because experimentalphysics‘bisheralseinunerklärliches,halbkünstlerisches,hand- dated experimentalphysics(overagainsttheoreticalphysics),whatDinglerthoughtnecessary to reducephysicstechnics.Onthecontrary,Dinglertookprideinhavingelevatedandvali- pleased withthisreconstructionofhisprogram.NomorethanAuerbachdidDinglerintend school (withthenotableexceptionofJürgenMittelstraß).Dinglerwouldnothavebeen Philosophie ‘Zur Diskussion’.Arecitationofthemaininstitutionallociandpublications Kamlah’s sonAndreasinthe Zweck undMethode Entwicklungen Aufbau . ThetitleofLorenzen’sessayandbooksignalsbothacontinuationDingler’s Entwicklungsgeschichte = konstruktive Philosophie . HereLorenzen,‘Vorwort’,11,beginsthatreadingbackintoDinglerofa [originalGermanedition,1960],especially214-35onDilthey. Der AufbauderLogikaufdemBodenPhilosophiedesLebens declarationsinWeiss, Protophysics ofTime Konstruktivismus undNaturerkenntnis , largelyunfavorably,hemade no mentionofJanich’scontribution— , thatvolumebeingcomposedofpaperspresentedatthe Lebensphilosophie die AufgabederTechnikermöglichung Technik Lebensphilosoph Lebensphilosoph: , 185,that‘ForDiltheythecategory“subjectiveexperience” , 17:‘MeinVorschlagbedeutet,dassandieStellederverstaubten Festschrift

which willbecomecharacteristicoftheErlangen/Konstanz , 4.Seenotes24–6,above,andthediscussionintext. wants , thevolumecarryingJanich’s ‘Physics’ in =‘ Hugo Dinglers . AcritiqueoftheprogramwasmadebyWilhelm Erlanger Schule

, namelyhisaffirmationratherthanrejectionof , seenote38,above.WhatinterestedLorenzenin Hugo Dinglers for Lorenzen’ssixtiethbirthday:AndreasKamlah, tosayinhis1984essayTetens,‘“Der Glaubeandie

see thebouquetofbriefquotationsDingler’s Lebensphilosophie Das Experiment , 1,identifiesas‘grandson’ofLorenzen, , 356. ’ isgivenbyJanichinhis‘Vorwort’to , 106–9,123–8. tritt’. History andTechnology Erkenntnisse undInteresse , observedapprovinglyin , 253.Asistobeexpected, . Constructive methodische Festspiel The British , and

The 105 for Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 24 Böhme [284] 284 Böhme,‘Ist dieProtophysik’,concludinglines:‘DieProtophysikerbehauptennun,daß [283] 283 Forexample, Böhme, [282] 282 Weizsäcker,‘Erforschung derlebensbedingungen’,471;Drieschner,‘DieVerantwortung [281] 281 Drieschner,‘Die VerantwortungderWissenschaft’.Weizsäcker,‘ErforschungLebensbe- [280] 280 Quotation fromBöhme [279] 279 Janich,‘DieStrukturtechnischerInnovationen’(1998). [278] 278 InJanich, [277] 277 InLorenzen’slengthy‘TheoriedestechnischenWissens’(1976),noformoftheword [276] 276 106 P. Forman is ‘WiderdenDingler-Komplex’.Afurtherdisparagingreference toDinglerisBöhme Experimentelle Philosophie Festschrift: Lorenz, takes Janich’spoint. Theorists’, 510,note10:‘Ontheinstrumentaldependenceofscience,see…’.Thusneither anthropic principleincosmology,Brushconcluded‘Cf.…’,andJamison,‘Technology’s in Brush,‘TheChimericalCat’,446,note148,where,aftercitingaseriesofpapersonthe from Knorr’sreview,theonlyreferencestoJanich’spaperturnedupinasearchofJSTORare shows herreadiness—greaterthanJanich’sown—tocarryforwardinthatdirection.Apart tice ratherthanasrepresentationofnature’.Knorr’sprécisreproducesJanich’sillogic,and nical effectsthanasearchfortruesentences,andtheoriesareseenasnormstechnicalprac- structured byinstruments.Doingexperimentsisheldtobemoreanactivityproducetech- icists andphilosophersalikeremindsusthattheexperienceofmodernnaturalscienceis paper, whichstartsoffthebook,criticizes‘objectified’conceptionofnatureheldbyphys- must notbeconsideredatechnologyratherthantraditionallyconceivednaturalscience.The fundamental initsimplications,isPeterJanich’sanswertothequestionwhetherphysicsitself featured Janich’sessay:‘Mostremovedfromahistoricalinvestigation,butneverthelessquite them asmerelyinstrumental.Knorr(‘ReviewofKrohn’),however,reviewingitin1981 vorwissenschaftlich-technischen Ursprüngenab’. the virtueofbeing‘wertfrei’). construed aspaedagogicaltechnology,tojustifyeverythingthatiscommonlyjustifiedby Lorenzen woulddefinesowidely,throughtheMachianconceptofmentaleconomy of lotsasprehistoricrealization)and‘der“technischeNutzen”’research(whichlogician very differentsenses,namelythe‘Technik’ofgeneratingrandomsequences(withdrawing word appearsonlyinthefirstofthosefour,andthereontwopages(62,74) published intheprevioussevenyears.Fouraregroupedasectionheaded‘Technik’.The Idealen herkritisierbarundkorrigierbar werden’. Verhältnisse desHandwerksauf Idealehinüberschrittenwerdenundsoselbstvondiesen Verhalten verbindlichgestalten, besteht alsodarin,daßdiemaßgebendenGegenständeoder Die Hochstilisierung,dieHandwerksregeln inRegulativeüberführt,diedaswissenschaftliche Handwerksregeln inderNaturwissenschaftgewissermaßen“hochstilisiert” vorkommen.… Wissenschaft’, 1957’ (‘GöttingerErklärung’)isreprintedinWeizsäcker, dingungen’, writteninJune1979.The‘Erklärungder18Atomwissenschaftler vom12.April Konstruktivismus undNaturerkenntnis domain ofmethods’.Thescience-as-technologythesisisthenentirelyabsentfromJanich, i.e. tocharacterizephysicsnotbymeansofthesubjectsinvestigated,butrathera appears moresuitabletodaytospeakofan not thatphysicsistechnology,orevenitatechnicalscience,butmerely‘Itthus positions, boththatin1973and1978,butsignificantlyJanichcomestotheconclusion Wissens’). Similarly,Lorenzen, appears inthetext(and over theprecedingeightyears. et al Protophysics ofTime ., Experimentelle Philosophie passim Konstruktionen versusPositionen . Protophysik: Fürundwider et al , 201.BothvonWeizsäckerandHabermascontributedtoLorenzen’s a fortiori ., ‘FinalizationinScience,’307.

(1985), 62–6,therearestillsomefaintechosofhisprevious Grundbegriffe technischer…Kultur

no explanationisgivenoftheconcept‘technischen

(1996), acollectionofessaysthathehadpublished , 9:‘lösendiewissenschaftlicheErfahrung vonihren experimental science , inwhichthefirstessay,byJürgenMittelstraß, (1979). Der bedrohteFriede , insteadofasciencenature,

(1985), reprints12essays , 29–30. Technik et al Isis ., , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 25 Böhme [285] 285 27 BellandGraubard, [297] 297 Bell, [296] 296 Waters, [295] 295 Withthisdate,asinmypresentationoftheStarnberginstitutegenerally,IrefertoAbteilung [294] 294 [293] 293 KrohnandvandenDaele,‘ScienceasanAgent’,192. [292] 292 KrohnandvandenDaele,‘ScienceasanAgent’(1998).Thisarticleconcludesaseriesdevoted [291] 291 ‘Theterm [290] 290 Böhme [289] 289 [288] 288 Böhme [287] 287 Böhme [286] 286 his conceptbyfriendvonWeizsäcker’smen. völlig sichereAussageüberdieWeltderErfahrung’,couldnothavebeenpleasedbythisuseof Heisenberg, whohadthereimmediatelyaddedthat‘DieabeschlosseneTheorieenthältkeine in dermodernenNaturwissenschaft’,93:‘DieabgeschlosseneTheoriegiltfüralleZeiten’. J. R.Pierce. collective effortatsocialforecasting, herecruitedscadsofscientistsbutonlyonetechnologist, world wasgoing.Indicativeof the primacythatBellattributedtoscienceisintothis making ‘post-industrialsociety’ thesinglemostwidelyemployedconceptionofwhere time Bell, 2000 took‘itasagiventhatweare movingintoapostindustrialsociety’(pp.325–6).Bythe Habermas incapableofunderstandingnaturalscientists,howthey thinkandwork. cher StrengeniemalszuKompromissenbereitgewesenist’,clearly, andrightly,thought Gewaltfreiheit, undToleranzwiehinsichtlichderunnachsichtigen Forderungwissenschaftli- 464, whileacknowledgingthatHabermas‘sowohlhinsichtlich derRechtsstaatlichkeit, Mapping Habermas is anylikely-lookingtitletobefoundinDouramanis’sHabermas bibliography(Douramanis, ‘The FinalizationDebate’,intendedtobecomplete,containsnopublicationbyHabermas,nor Überzeugung eintreten’—thebibliographyrelatingtothatcontroversycompiledbySchäfer, Weizsäcker indieBreschegesprungen;damalskonnteichfürumstrittenenProjektemit gegen diesogenannteFinalisierungderWissenschaftbinich…fürMitarbeitervonHerrnv. tion ofthefinalizationtheorists—‘BeidervonneokonservativerSeiteangezettletenPolemik ‘Warum ichdieMax-Planck-Gesellschaftverlasse’.AlthoughHabermasheremakesanexcep- the closingofAbteilungvonWeizsäckeruponhisretirementon30June1980:Habermas, important factorinthedebaclethatbroughtentireinstitutetoanabruptendshortlyafter the wissenschaftlichcharacterofvonWeizsäcker’sresearchers.Thislackconfidencewasan social–scientific andphilosophicalprojectsinAbteilungvonWeizsäckerwerepursued,orfor Weizsäcker personally,Habermashadlittlerespectforthewayinwhichfundamentally existence twoyearslater,intheautumnof1971.HowevermuchrespectHabermashadforvon von Weizsäckeronly.AbteilungHabermas,notpartoftheoriginalconception,cameinto and 37. to ‘RevisitingtheTheoryof“FinalizationinScience”’, Thyssen Stiftung. tion thesis,byagroupofacademicsassociatedwithandsupportedtheconservativeFritz campaign inspring1976,directedagainsttheStarnberginstituteandspecificallyfinaliza- with WolfSchäfer,‘TheFinalizationDebate’,anaccountandbibliographyofthemedia (accessed 23July2005). Lebenslauf in Science’,326. tions thenarethegoalsorpurposesofsciencenotendscience’.Böhme Ibid Ibid. . , 10,beingtheconcludingparagraphof‘Authors’Introduction’.Thebookconcludes The ComingofPost-IndustrialSociety et al et al. et al et al Daniel Bell

Finalisierung The ComingofPost-IndustrialSociety ., ‘The“Scientification”’,225. ., ‘FinalizationRevisited’,131. ., ‘FinalizationRevisited’,132.Heisenberg,‘DerBegriff“abgeschlosseneTheorie” is availableathttp://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/sozwww/agsoe/lexikon/pdfs/bell.pdf , ‘FinalizationinScience’,314. , 11–12,16,165. ). Ontheotherside,Weizsäcker,‘ErforschungderLebensbedingungen’, Toward theYear2000

… isderivedfromthetraditionalcategoryof . Bell’sAmericanAcademyCommissionontheYear , ciii,civ,36.Waters,

came outBellhadalreadysucceeded in Social ScienceInformation, History andTechnology Daniel Bell causa finalis , 14–16.Ahelpful et al ., ‘Finalization , itsconnota-

Vols 36 107 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 34 ‘…theexpansion ofscienceandscientificallybasedtechnologyiscreatingtheframeworkfor [304] 304 Bell, [303] 303 Gilman, [302] 302 ArevealingindicationofwhomBellwaslisteningtoisthelastandmostfulsomeacknowl- [301] 301 Bell, [300] 300 Bell, [299] 299 Waters, [298] 298 108 P. Forman a newrulingclass’. ety as“oneinwhichtheintellectualispredominant”…hemeant …thatintellectualsbecame Brick, ‘OptimismoftheMind’,353,simplydeniedthatwhenBell ‘definedpostindustrialsoci- mandarinism, wasoffendedthathumanisticscholarswereexcluded fromhisrulingclass; ern lifeworld,wecanonlyshakeourheadsinwonderatsuchpreposterousconceits. society.’ Regardingsuchexpectationsfromwherewestandtodayintheunfoldingpostmod- science, theuniversitiesandresearchinstitutesiscentralprobleminpost-industrial science isthemostimportantsourceofinformation,organizationinstitutions as Waterswrites,p.109,‘Giventhatthegenerationofinformationiskeyproblemand displaces theinventor;econometricianpoliticaleconomist’.Consequently, into abstractsymbolicsystemsthatcanbeappliedinawidevarietyofsituations.Thescientist cal, ratherthantraditionalorpractical,incharacter.Itinvolvesthecodificationofknowledge industrial society….Bellstressesthatinapost-industrialthisknowledgeistheoreti- ‘ tegic resourceofpost-industrialsociety”’.Waters, science asthatwhichwouldrealizeBell’s‘forecast“theoreticalknowledgewillbethestra- For thescientistthisbasehasbeen theuniversity’.Bell, for anynewclassistohaveanindependent institutionalbaseoutsidetheolddominantorder. policy isnot,inthefirstinstance,responsivetobusinessdemand. Thenecessaryfoundation of theactivitiesscienceareoutsidebusinesssystemand theorganizationofscience geois outsidethelandedeconomyunderminedfeudalism,… significantfactisthatmost a newsocialorderthatwillerodecapitalism,astheactivitiesof merchantsandthebour- 30). Similarly,Waters, nology isitsefforttodefinerationalactionandidentifythemeans ofachievingit’( understood, butrathersocialengineers:‘Whatisdistinctiveaboutthenewintellectualtech- cratic policyscience;thusthe‘engineers’referredtoarenotengineersasconventionally not meanmaterialtechnologyinformedordirectedbytheory,butratherasortoftechno- and economicpolicyaswell’. the basisforinnovationnotonlyinscience,whichHoltondemonstrated,buttechnology theoretical knowledgeinitschangingrelationtotechnology,andthecodificationoftheoryas (Holton, ‘ScientificResearchandScholarship’),inilluminatingformethesignificanceof ences, Iwouldsingleoutanessaybythephysicistandhistorianofscience,GeraldHolton edgement inhisbigbook’s‘inventoryofinfluences’:‘Andfinally,thisinventoryinflu- modern-to-postmodern transition. connotations oftheword‘meritocracy’,anditsfallfromgraceasideal,indicative concept andidealofmeritocracy.Forman,‘IntheEraEarmark’,pointstochanging modernist, technocraticideology,exceptthatheoverlookedthecentralimportanceof reissue, equating ‘thislimitlessmechanicalprogress’withhumanprogress. giant mindswhoseprivatedreamsalltooquicklyturnedintopublicnightmares’—asstill Mumford, ‘Prologuetoourtime’,7,lumpedBellwithMcLuhanandArthurClarke—‘those generally, thethesisofNoble, They wouldbepointedout,soon after,byDicksonandNoble,‘ByForceofReason’.More culture, economy,andpolitythat wouldrenderthisobviouslysheerfantasywereunderway. 232. EvenasBellwaswritingthis, andcertainlyashereaffirmeditin1976,thechanges The primacyoftheoreticalknowledge The ComingofPost-IndustrialSociety The ComingofPost-IndustrialSociety The ComingofPost-IndustrialSociety ibid Mandarins oftheFuture Daniel Bell ., xciv.Böhme , 148–55.Waters(150)characterizedBellasa‘technologyfreek’. Daniel Bell et al America byDesign ., , 8,etpassim,capturedverywellthefeelandcontentofthat Finalization inScience , 111.Veysey,‘APostmortem’,51,recognizingBell’s . Thisisthedefining“axialprinciple”ofpost- , 344–5.By‘thenewintellectualtechnology’Belldid , 26. , 14;andreaffirmedinBell’sforewordtothe1976

(1977), istheantithesisofBell’s, and thusthe Daniel Bell The ComingofPost-IndustrialSociety , 9,sawtheirconceptionoffinalized , 110,summarizingBell’stheses: ibid ., , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 35 Similarly,KennethJ.Arrowwroteinhisblurbforthisreissue,‘DanielBellintroduced the [305] 305 37 Mehrtens,‘GiltdasTrennungsaxiom?ZumVerhältnis vonWissenschafts-undTechnikge- [317] 317 So,forexample, Segal,inhisintroductiontoEzrahi [316] 316 Staudenmaier, ‘RecentTrends’,715. [315] 315 Lyotard, [314] 314 OnHeidegger’sinfluenceamongFrenchphilosophersofLyotard’sgenerationseenote37, [313] 313 Lyotard, [312] 312 JamesonintheforewordtoLyotard, [311] 311 Browning, [310] 310 AlthoughsomeofwhatLyotardfoundinBell, [309] 309 Lyotard, [308] 308 Bell, [307] 307 Bell, [306] 306 Idea of“Technology”’inSmithandMarx, ing cultureofpostmodernism’—whereinfactjusttheopposite isthecase.Reprinting‘The with thesituationin1979,‘technologicalpessimismhasbecomean integralpartoftheemerg- modernism withtechnologicalpessimism.Segalfoundonlooking aroundthat,incontrast that volume,weremisledbytheirownantipathytotechnological optimismintolinkingpost- Postmodernism persons’ (116). ently postmodern,specificallyBell’sideathatapost-industrialsocietyis‘gamebetween the primacyofsciencefortechnology—onwhichtheyhadnodisagreementwithBell. more prescientwork,byfar.Cf.however,note15,above,re:DicksonandNoble ‘Les Immatériaux’,aspublishedinCentredeCréationIndustrielle, this timeinLyotard’spreparatorynotesforthemammothart-and-technologyexhibition Bell’s. ItispossibletoseehowcentralBell’spost-industrialwasLyotard’sthinkingabout report onknowledgewasanexception,withmanyfootnotescitingworks,including debts wasoneofthosemodernconventionsthatLyotardconsistentlyflouted,butthis (420)—much ofit,tobesure,resultingfromreadingonlythetitleandnotbook. (410–11) aswellevidenceoftheenormouscontroversyandliteraturethatitgenerated indication oftheFrenchpostwarintellectualsceneasamainpointreferenceforwork technology buttheoreticalscientificknowledge’. Bell ‘setsouttoproposethatthe“axialprinciple”ofpost-industrialsocietywillnotbe universal’. However,Rose, concept ofpost-industrialtechnologyinthefirsteditionthiswork,andithasnowbecome Geschichte, dienochzuschreiben ist’.Ihavenotthatwideknowledgeofthewritingsand und Technikistunsinnig.Aber dieTrennungistnichtzuleugnen.Siehatihreeigene schichte’ (1995),251,observedthat ‘DashistoriographischeTrennungsaxiomfürWissenschaft above. Lyotarddoesnot,however,referdirectlytoHeideggerin rules forscience’,istheprinciplesubjectof‘thepresentstudy’. ibid outstanding claimtothatdistinction [viz.drivinghistory],itprobablyistechnologicalpower’. writings ofhistorianstechnology—that ‘ifanyparticularformofhumanpowernowhasan Marx andSmithwentsofarastoallow—andIhavenotseenthe likeanywhereelseinthe determinism’, ‘theincreasinglystrongholdofthatclaimonthe public imagination’.Indeed, R. Smith,‘thegrowingcredencegiven[in‘populardiscourse’] to theideaoftechnological no contradictiontohispessimismthesisbutdidacknowledgein briefintroductionwithM. aesthetic ofthatexhibit‘apersistence Interestingly, Crowther,‘ nology, initselfadistinctlypostmodernphenomenon. thus ofscience,theexhibitassuchreflectedmuchrathernewallianceartwithtech- unifying conceptionforthisexhibitreflectedthecontinuedprimacyofconceptualand ., xxiii–xxv,immediatelymakesclearthatscience,andmoreparticularlythe‘alteredgame Vers lasociétépost-industrielle The EndofIdeology La conditionpostmoderne La conditionpostmoderne The PostmodernCondition Lyotard andtheEndofGrandNarratives

(1995) 2–3,andMarx,‘TheIdeaof“Technology”’,252–7,hiscontribution to . Inan‘Afterword’tothe1988reissueofbook,Bellgaveclear The Post-ModernandthePost-Industrial Les Immatériaux , 77;Lyotard, , 74–7; . , xxv;Rose, The PostmodernCondition The PostmodernCondition Does TechnologyDriveHistory? modernist ’, 196,foundinLyotard’srationaleforthe The ComingofPost-IndustrialSociety The Post-Modern The PostmodernCondition , 28–31.

attitudes’. YethowevermuchLyotard’s et al History andTechnology ., , xx.Lyotard’s‘Introduction’, The PostmodernCondition . Acknowledgingintellectual Technology, Pessimism , 29,wasrightthatin1973 , 45–7. , Marxacknowledged , 47. Les Immatériaux

is inher- , and 109 . . Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 31 Mumford,‘ToolsandtheMan’;‘History:Neglected Clue’;‘AuthoritarianandDemocratic [321] 321 ByBurlingame(‘TheHardwareofCulture’,17) andAllen(‘TechnologySocialChange’, [320] 320 Kranzberg co-optedMumfordtohis‘AdvisoryCommitteeforTechnologyandSociety’, [319] 319 SoalsohavetheSHOT-alliedEuropeanhistoriansoftechnology.So,e.g.Jamisonin [318] 318 110 P. Forman Oskar BlumtrittfordrawingmyattentiontoMehrtens’spaper.) of separationasitwaseasytofindhistorianstechnologywhoaffirmedit.(Iamindebted countries: by1995itwasashardtofindAmericanhistoriansofsciencewhoacceptedthisaxiom ent thingswhichoneshouldkeepseparated’(p.229),suggestssomedifferencebetweenthetwo technology whosaythathistoryofscienceandaretwoessentiallydiffer- science, however,Mehrtens’observationthat‘Therearehistoriansofsciencelike technology inWestGermanylargelyparalleltothattheUS.Inregardhistoryof in 1972,givesevidence,andisitselfofanideologicaldevelopmentthehistory paper (‘HistoriansandModernTechnology’,171,173,186–7),originallypublishedinGerman next note,therehasbeensomeanimositybetweentheBritishandUSdivisions.Rürup’s orthodoxies, andinwhattempi,Iamevenlesswellequippedtoaddress.Asindicatedthe national divisionsofthehistorytechnologydisciplinedevelopedsameideologiesand only intheUS,butalsoEastandWestGermany,FranceBritain.Howfartheseother of researchandtheformationinstitutionswasoccurringfrommid1950sonwardnot pointed outbyRürup,‘HistoriansandModernTechnology’(1974),170–1,theefflorescence argument relatealmostsolelytotheUSdivisionofhistorytechnologydiscipline.As as analyticreflectionandmylimitedknowledgeofthosewritingspermit.Myexposition quences forthehistoriographyoftechnology,buttodosofroma‘genetic’perspective,far to aninterconnectedsetoforthodoxiesprevailinginthedisciplinetoday,andtheirconse- the disciplineandits(unilateral)divorcefromscience.Rather,myintentistodrawattention relations ofhistorianstechnologyaswouldberequiredtowritethatintellectualhistory original researchinthehistoryof technology—all,thatis,exceptKranzberghimself. ‘Leonardo daVinciMedal’,q.v.Thesevenpreviousrecipientswere alldistinguishedbytheir Council oftheSociety,andin1969Mumfordwasawarded Society’shighesthonor,the ‘Authoritarian andDemocratic Technics’and‘TechnicstheNatureofMan’inhis Technics’; ‘MantheFinder’; ‘Technics andtheNatureofMan’.Kranzbergincluded 50) intheirtexts,andbyMulthauf (‘TheScientistandthe“Improver”’,46)inhisnotes. Technology andCulture created tocreatesupportforthecreationofSociety HistoryofTechnologyand Technology andCulture tions betweentechnologyandsociety’(87). technology, shouldnowbelargelyabandonedinfavorofaMumfordian studyofinter-rela- (to thebestoftheirpowers)bymanywriterswhohaveconsidered themselveshistoriansof sioned by[thegreatFrenchhistorianLucien]Febvre,discussed M.Daumasandpracticed expressed hisindignation‘thattheprosecutionoftechnicalhistory oftechnologyasenvi- presumably, wasLayton’sattackonHallin1974referredto innote352,below.)Hall years hadbeenbelittlingthe5-volumeOxford first volumeoftheBritishannual, nology’ (1969),95.Daumas’essaywastranslatedbyA.R.Hallandpublishedin1976the history oftechnology,thatwhichseekstooverrulethefacts’.Daumas,‘TheHistoryTech- an originalwork’,sothatthebroadpublichasacquaintanceonly‘withacertainkindof arts advancedasthehumaneweakenedandreceded”)historicalerrorshaspassedfor and Civilization nology forwhom‘Itisamelancholythoughtthatfarfromsinkingunderridicule’, below. Therehasbeen,however,anumberofmorediscerningEuropeanhistorianstech- Mumford’s work‘gaveriseto’historyoftechnology.See,likewise,note226,above,and323, ogy asadistincthistoricalspecialty’;andagain,in‘AmericanAnxieties’,78,Jamisonsaysthat opus …which,morethananyothersinglebook,wouldservetodefinethehistoryoftechnol- , ‘thishotch-potchofcommonplaces,uncheckedassertions(“themechanical . Kranzberg,‘AttheStart’,10.MumfordthenservedonExecutive

(1989), 518,has History ofTechnology Technics andCivilization History ofTechnology , asashotattheSHOTites,whofor20

as Mumford’s‘magnum . (Especiallyprovoking, Technics Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 32 HughesandHughes, [322] 322 35 Williams,‘LewisMumfordasaHistorianofTechnologyin [325] 325 Mindell, [324] 324 ForcomparisonconsiderLynnWhite,Jr.ThethirdLeonardodaVincimedalist, Whitewas [323] 323 and Davenport, Seamless Web’,291.See,also,notes228and252,above. White, Jr.,andPeterF.Drucker. selection of21articlesfromthefirst10years early chapters[of 63, isquotingMumford,‘AnAppraisalofLewisMumford’s’,530–1:‘Themainvaluethese 1989–98, withthenumberofarticlespublishedby articles andfivebookreviewsreferringtoMumford.Thirtyyearson,duringthedecade Culture president oftheAmericanHistoricalAssociation.Infirst10years ogy, WhiteistheonlypersonevertohaveservedbothaspresidentofSHOTand decades. Advancingsweepingthesesonthebasisofhisownresearchmedievaltechnol- the scholarlyhistorianoftechnologygreatestprominenceinAmericapostwar that thebook[ Culture culture isalsothatofBurlingameinthefirstarticlenumber treatment oftechnologyas‘untraditional’initselevationtechnicsintothespherehigher technics anintegralpartofhighercivilization’.Williams’scharacterizationMumford’s Heidegger andEllul,inthatorder. under therubric‘humanitiesphilosophyoftechnology’:Mumford,OrtegayGasset, engaged inthisfield,hissurvey of thephilosophytechnology,Mitcham,certainlymostbroadlylearnedamongthose study: historyoftechnology.’AsameasuretheimportanceMumfordholdsforfield in thefieldofscienceandtechnologystudies,….Thebookitselfcreatedanew Civilization ‘science andtechnologystudies’:Jamison,‘TheMakingofLewisMumford’s (I haveexcludedthecontributorsself-citations.)Goingabitbeyondhistoriansto American Technology references astherearetoMumford(8)intheindexBlackwell 28 bookreviewsreferredtoMumford.Theonlyscholarshavingtodayasmanyormore cles and12bookreviewsin them, andlikewiseagreatincreaseinthenumberofbookreviewspublished,only16arti- roughly constant,butwithagreatincreaseinthemediannumberofworksreferenced tary glimpsesIhavehadoftheworkings ofphysicallawinthedeviceslaterinventors,I layman mustdointhecommon terms withwhichIamfamiliar.Withtheadditionalmomen- with anuntechnicalmindandso havepresentedthebriefdescriptionsofinventionsasa have’, hewrote,‘ofcourse,had to meettheincreaseddifficultiesoftechnicsthemselves science anylesshighly,nor fundamentaltomoderntechnology,thandidMumford:‘I histories, andlatterlyhistoryofAmerican technologyashistoryofinvention,didnotaccount trained orprofessionalscholar,butratheraprolificwriterofnovels, biographies,institutional Clue’; Mumford,‘History:NeglectedClue’.Itbearsmentioning thatBurlingame,nota conjunction withtheAmericanHistoricalAssociation:Burlingame, ‘Technology:Neglected clearly in1960apaperpresentedoppositiontoBurlingame’s atSHOT’sfirstmeetingin however, quitetheoppositeofMumford’sownconceptionand intention,ashelaidout Hardware ofCulture’,17;seealsop.15.Thiselevationhardware intohigherculturewas, three volumes,butitreformedmyentireattitudetowardcultural history’.Burlingame,‘The firm agriponhistorians.Tomeitnotonlygavetheinspirationthat stretchedmyprojectinto pattern—in breakingthetraditionaboutwhichMacaulaycomplained andwhichhadheldso , 1959–68,therewere23articlesandfourbookreviewsreferringtoWhite,20 : ‘Whetherornotoneagreeswithhisepochalclassification,there canbelittlequestion Between HumanandMachine ’ (1995),ratedthebook‘asperhapssinglemostvaluableworkeverwritten Technics andCivilization Technology andCulture Technics andCivilization , editedbyPursell,areThomasHughes,LeoMarxandPurcellhimself. Lewis Mumford Technology andCulture Thinking ThroughTechnology , 1. , vii;Hughes,‘Machines,Megamachines’,107;‘The ] isapioneer—perhapsthefirstincompletenessof , wherehealsoincludedtwoarticleseachbyLynn ] wasashiftinthewholepointofview,whichmake Technology andCulture

referred toWhite,while22articlesand Technology andCulture Technics andCivilization History andTechnology

discussed fourwriters

to formKranzberg Technology and Technology and Companion to Technics and

remaining ’ (1990), 111 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 33 Althoughthe words‘science’and‘scientific’appearnowhere,theword‘scientists’does [333] 333 Molella,‘MumfordinHistoriographicalContext’,41.In‘TheFirstGeneration:Usher…’, [332] 332 AsFores,‘ [331] 331 QuotationsfromMumford,‘History:NeglectedCluetoTechnologicalChange’(1961),232. [330] 330 Seenotes251–7,above.Ihaveinpreparationapaperconsideringmorecloselythedevelop- [329] 329 Molella,‘MumfordinHistoriographicalContext’(1990),41–2;‘TheFirstGeneration: [328] 328 In2002,Williamsimplicitlyadmitedthis(139):‘Writingreviewhasbeenaneffort [327] 327 Williams,‘ClassicsRevisited’,140.WilliamstherefashionsaclaimforMumford’s achieve- [326] 326 112 P. Forman Engines ofDemocracy am morethaneverhumblebeforethegreatmysterywhichiscalledScience’.Burlingame, of thehistorymechanicalinvention’(1954edn:57). ‘The moreimportantaspectsofthehistorysciencemustbeincluded inanyseriousanalysis position oftheprimacyscience,he,likeMumfordandmodernsgenerally,insistedthat and methodsoftheeconomichistorianshouldhaverenderedUsherimmunetopresup- of thePureandAppliedMechanicalSciences’.Althoughitmightseemtousthatinterests producing deplorableresultsinsociety. have personalitydeterminingtechnology,itisthedeplorableofengineer conditions associatedwiththeirwork’.Similarly,inthosefewplaceswhereMumforddoes (miners, monks,soldiers,financiers)were“mechanized”bytheirtoolsandother“external” down tospecifics,observingthatMumfordalleged‘membersofcertainoccupations tion ofpersonalitybytechnology.ThisWilliamsineffectsaysherself(143–4)whenshegets all toshowthedeterminationoftechnologybypersonality,but(deplorable)determina- argued in high culturestatus.Still,Williams’s2002claimcorrespondspoorlytowhatMumfordinfact mental thandoesher1990echoofMumford’s1959and1970claimelevationtechnicsto corresponds morecloselytoMumford’scommittedsubordinationofthematerial influenced bytheacclaimofhistorianstechnology.Certainly,Williams’s2002claim and Personality’—ratherthanacceptingMumford’slaterclaims,themselvesalreadymuch ‘Review ofJoelMokyr, view thatourcontemporary‘technologicalworld’iscreatedby ‘scientists andengineers’.In and Civilization once (147)—notasanintentionalrecognitionofscientistsfiguring importantlyin of MechanicalInventions science fortechnologicaladvancethroughouthistory.AnentirechapterofUsher’s Molella similarlymadenomentionofthefactthatUshertoopresupposedprimacy ment ofMumford’sonlybrieflypositivevaluationtechnologyandengineers. Usher, Mumford,andGiedion’(1989),91,99. Historian to recover ausableMumford’.Williamsishere,assheexplicitlyinWilliams, ment byfollowingMumford’sprogram— effectively assomeofhisadmirersmaybelieve’. understatement, ‘Mumfordturnsoutnottohaveseparated“science”from“technics”as bution ofthisimportantbook’ got inWilliams’slongreview.In future inquiry’.Thatuninformativeconcessionisalltheattention that‘primarycontri- out—intellectual path,whichMokyrreworkstomakeitinto a morepromisingroutefor between scienceandtechnology’,addingthat‘Thisisawell-worn—some wouldsayworn- primary contributionofthisimportantbookistoreframethe problem oftherelationship recent ideology theengineershaderased thisboundarymorethanacenturyago,andthusthe pearance oftheboundarybetween scienceandtechnology.Shedidnotcaretoseethatintheir on torepresentthecultureand identity oftheengineerasbeingdisintegratedbydisap- began withanostalgiatriptothe farmonwhichherengineergrandfathergrewup,andwent de facto , grapplingwiththefactofmaleprimacy(inmodernity). Technics andCivilization Technik erasureisoffarlesssignificance for engineeringthanitisscience,which,by , butasaninadvertentrevelationofWilliams’acceptancethe conventional : orMumfordReconsidered’(1981),121–2,observedwithuncharacteristic , viii.

(in boththe1929and1954editions)isdevotedto‘TheEarlyHistory The GiftsofAthena , where,intypicalromanticfashion,hisconcernwasnotat Technics andCivilization ’, Williamsopenedbyacknowledgingthat‘A Retooling

having begunas‘Form

(2002), Williams Retooling: A A History Technics Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 34 Williams,‘ClassicsRevisited’,143–4.Cf.note239,above.Thereferenceto‘financiers’—so [334] 334 39 Layton,inhis ‘Eloge’forKranzbergin [339] 339 Seely,‘SHOT,theHistory’.Sinclair,‘TheRoadtoMadison’,S8–9,showedanindicativeindif- [338] 338 Staudenmaier, [337] 337 Staudenmaier, [336] 336 Williams,‘LewisMumford’,48.Inamilderformonecanseethesameanimus inthewritings [335] 335 continuing tensionsbetweenthetwofields.’ fact leadtothefoundingofSHOT.Apocryphalornot,thistale anditsretellingsignalthe Forman, ‘TheDiscoveryoftheDiffractionX-rays’. completed underHughesin1979.Regardinginversiondisciplinarycreationmythssee such aboundary. contrast, hadinsistedthroughoutmodernityonthefact,andessentialityof Roland, ‘WhatHathKranzberg Wrought?’,698–9.AlthoughStaudenmaier,‘WhatSHOT ‘The RoanokeConference:Critical IssuesintheHistoryofTechnology’(1978)arereportedby ‘careerism’ asunderlyingthisinstitutionalizing, DavidF.Noble’sstrongviewsexpressedat the “Humanistic-SocialDivision” from1955untilthefoundingofSHOTin1958’.Regarding ing educatorsintheAmericanSociety forEngineeringEducation,whereMelwasSecretaryof SHOT, Melhadhelpedbringtogether acriticalmassofhistorianstechnologyandengineer- with technologyhadbeeninthecardsforsometime.Threeyears beforetheformationof then-president oftheHistoryScienceSociety,HenryGuerlac. A separatesocietyconcerned has beenplacedontheconfrontationofMelandagrouphistorians oftechnologywiththe Technics andCivilization financiers andscientistsrepresentedessentiallythesameapprehensionofworld.So,in commuted referencetoscientists,forinMumford’saccountthemechanisticmentalitéof oddly assortingwiththeselowlyoccupations—shouldbeunderstoodasWilliams’s 1957 when and forsomethinglikethesamereason:‘somehistoriansoftechnology claimthatitwas… ing inherreviewofthetwovolumesproceedingsfromthat1991 conferenceinMadison, that ‘thedisputesofanearliergenerationarenottheirown’,thought themythworthrepeat- she maintainedthat‘youngerscholarsaresometimesbaffledby thisapparenttension’and entirely true.But,asmythsaresupposedtodo,itworkedonus.’Fitzgerald,‘Review’,even editor BobPostbelievesthatstorymaybeamyth,whichistosay,evocativethoughnot directly ledhistoriansoftechnologytofoundaseparateorganization. cally rejectedtheideathat SHOT’s mythology,1957isakeydatepreciselybecauseinthatyearHenryGuerlaccategori- ference tothefactofitsbeingamythanddelightinrepeatingallegedgrievance:‘in Guerlac asrepresentinganalreadyexistingSocietyfortheHistoryofTechnology. 715, implicitlycastthematterinquiteadifferentlightbypresentinggroupcallingupon the storyin1990hisownwordsStaudenmaier,‘RecentTrendsHistoryofTechnology’, in theformofKranzberg’srecollection,ascommunicatedalettertohim.Whenrepeating his compilation toward sciencewasnotyetpresent,however,whenHugheswritingthe‘Introduction’to pendent inventorswhomhetherecelebrates.See,likewise,note360,below.Thisantagonism antagonistic anddismissiveattitudestowardscienceashewasabletofindamongtheinde- tion totechnology.Onthefewpageswherescienceappears(48–52)Hughesdweltuponsuch technology wasaccompaniedbyanearlyuniversalattributionofprimacytoscienceinrela- 1870–1970 isalmostpreciselytheperiodinwhichAmericanenthusiasmforinventionand American Genesis teenth-century physicistslikeMichaelFaradayandbiologistssuchasLouisPasteur’(8).In finding inhim‘anunexpectednaïveté’,iswhennotingthatMumford‘hadidealizednine- to their1990volumeofessayswheretheyshowannoyanceandimpatiencewithMumford, of Williams’smentor,Hughes.TheonepointinHughesandHughes,‘GeneralIntroduction’ Isis

Technology’s Storytellers banished fromitspagesarticlesonthehistoryoftechnology,which actdidin Technology’s Storytellers Changing AttitudesTowardAmericanTechnology , Hugheshasalmostnothingtosayaboutscience—notwithstandingthat , 25,whereMumfordquotedVeblenforthisthesis. Isis

publish articlesinthehistoryoftechnology—anactionthat Isis

(1985), 1.Staudenmaierpresentedthestoryasfact,but , 1.Thebookisanextensionofadissertation , observedireniclythat‘Perhapstoomuchemphasis History andTechnology (1975). Technology andCulture 113 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 [345] 345 Layton, [344] 344 NotinLayton’swritingsonly:Sinclair’searlyworksimilarlytookscienceasthehighergood [343] 343 Writingin [342] 342 Staudenmaier, [341] 341 Seely,‘SHOT,theHistoryofTechnology’,772.Thiswasstilldominantapproach among [340] 340 114 P. Forman technology withoutaffirmingthemember’sidentityashistorianoftechnology. society’s name,whichiscontrivedtocommititsmembersonlyadvocacy‘for’thehistoryof omission ofhistoryfromthetitlesociety’sjournal,andisreflectedmoreweaklyin the intent torecruitconstituencieswithprimarilypresentistinterests,whatisreflectedinthe history oftechnologywasthegroup’sfocus’,Kranzberg,‘AtStart’,hadmadeclear Hath Wrought’,707,thoughtthat‘littlecanbelearnedfromourformalnameexceptthe Mechanical Engineers,1880–1980 virtue ofherpoliticalsystem’.Inwriting experience …closelytiedtoademocraticideologyAmerica’stechnologywouldprovethe wished toemphasizescience.Itopens:‘TechnologyhasbeenacentralforceintheAmerican principles’. ButbythetimeSinclairhadcometowriteprefacethatbook,henolonger ning’—Sinclair himselfadded(2)that‘sciencealsoimpliedatechnologyinspiredbyscientific 863—‘science isathreadwovenintotheveryfabricofAmericancivilizationfrombegin- Setting thethemeofhisexpositionbyquotingDupree,‘TheHistoryAmericanScience’, in Sinclair remainedofthatviewinwritinghisfulleraccounttheorganization’searlyhistory plishment intheorganization’searlyhistory.Itinvolvedabrilliantgroupofyoungscientists.’ Institute’s boilerexplosioninvestigationwasclearlythemostoutstandingscientificaccom- the concludingparagraphofhis ‘Veblen andtheEngineers’(1962).ForesrecognizedLayton’s preface to guiding technology(andscientistsasthemoreperfectembodimentofit).ThusSinclair’s dichotomy betweenthetwo’.Hindle, year later,‘TheDisunityofScience–Technology’,32,hewasinsistingon‘thepersistencethe toward afutureinwhichscienceandtechnologyarefused—technoscience,asitwere—but physical sciences’.In1966/67Kranzberg,‘TheUnityofScience–Technology’wasstilllooking that technologyisconcernedonlywiththemakingofphysicalobjects,itliesinrealm European historiansoftechnologyaslatethemid1970s.Seenote318,above. the oppositewasalreadybeingmaintainedbysomehistoriansoftechnology. be cognizantofthestatescienceinperiodwhosetechnologieshestudies’—i.e.evidently surrounding therelationship’butalsoinsistedthathistorianoftechnology‘mustcertainly represents hisreorientationfromhistoryofsciencetotechnology,noted‘tensions one wayoranotherwiththattheme.Cf.Staudenmaier,‘WhatSHOTHathWrought’,714. sification ofthe272articlesin21years front matter(p.xxi):‘thescienceversustechnologytheme’.Appendix3,Staudenmaier’sclas- of rankandrolebetweenscience andtechnology.) toward scienceisnohelptoahistorian oftechnologyinrecognizingthepostmodernreversal complete victoryforthescientists, onethatpersiststothisday’(258).(Evidentlyantagonism the wareffortandhenceinindustrialresearchafterwar: ‘Theresultwasanalmost engineers inwhathepresentsasastruggleoverthe‘commanding position’incontributingto ‘Engineering OrganizationandtheScientistinWorldWarI’,Pursell isemphaticallywiththe means pro-scientist,buttheengineers’failureswereoftheirown making.Twentyyearson,in In ‘“WhattheSenateIs…”:ANationalAcademyofEngineers’ (1986),Pursellwasbyno of mobilizationandorganizationAmericanengineersinresponse totheFirstWorldWar. ing thatitheldgreatimportancefortheengineerswhosehistory he wrote. place forsciencein Ibid. A bitofthesamereorientationcanbeseenbetweentwopresentations byPursellofthematter Philadelphia’s PhilosopherMechanics:AHistoryoftheFranklinInstitute,1824–1865 , 58.Layton’soriginalsociological orientationremainsevidentthere;itisclearerstillin The RevoltoftheEngineers Early ResearchattheFranklinInstitute…1830–1837 Science Technology’s Storytellers

in 1962,Kranzberg,‘TheNewestHistory’,466,couldsaythat‘Tothedegree his

history oftechnology,andsoitsimplydoesnotappear,notwithstand-

, 1 (1980), Sinclairknewfromtheoutsetthattherewasno , 83.Or,asStaudenmaierputitmorepointedlyinhis Technology inEarlyAmerica Technology andCulture A CentennialHistoryoftheAmericanSociety

(1966) opened:‘TheFranklin , has109,40%,dealingin

(1966), 4–6,whichbook

(1974). Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 36 Layton,‘Mirror-ImageTwins’.ThecitationwiththeawardofSHOT’sLeonardo daVinci [346] 346 [350] 350 Layton,‘Mirror-ImageTwins’,562–3. [349] 349 Layton,‘Mirror-Image Twins’,562,567–8.LaytondidnotcitePrice,‘IsTechnology [348] 348 Laytonemphaticallydidnotintendequivalencewithhismetaphorof‘mirror-imagetwins’, [347] 347 heterodox enoughalmosttohavebeenrejectedby reassessment ofpreviousconventionalwisdom,butwhenwritten,“Mirror-ImageTwins”was between scienceandtechnology,arenowwidelyaccepted.Laytonwasnotaloneinthiscrucial applied science,andassertionoftheessentiallysymmetricalnaturerelationship Technology in19th-CenturyAmerica.”Hisrejectionofthenotionthattechnologywas most famouslyhis1971article“Mirror-ImageTwins:TheCommunitiesofScienceand on thenatureofengineeringknowledgeandrelationshipbetweensciencetechnology, Revolt oftheEngineers out thatLayton’sintellectualorientationderivedfromsociology. Invention’, openswithanindirectbuttellingcritiqueofLayton’sresponsetoFores,pointing in later,lesswell-considered,papers.McGee,‘MakingUpMind:TheEarlySociologyof underlying scientismandassailedit,bothin‘ testable form. Model’), containedthekernelof Layton’smirrorimagemetaphorinamoreimaginativeand was thenrightlydrawingmuch attention(e.g.,Fores,‘Price,Technology,andthePaper Medal toLaytonin1990,published Historically IndependentofScience?’ (1965),butthatessayin less desirablevaluesofengineering. encing theinverse:scienceisexchangingitsdistinctivevaluesfor those Laytonregardedasthe social problems’( between scienceandtechnologyfurtherreducedtheengineers’ability torespondeffectively those ofengineeringleft-handed,lessdesirable.So,Laytonexplained, ‘Thereversalof“parity” Layton hadnodoubtthatthevaluesofsciencewereright-handed, themoredesirablevalues; in valuesanalogoustochangeparity’(Layton,‘Mirror-Image Twins’,576).Moreover, as achangeinparity.Betweenthecommunitiesofscienceandtechnology therewasaswitch the caseofmirror-imagetwinsthereisasubtlebutirreconcilable differencethatisexpressed of somethingleft-handed,sinister.Laytonchosethismetaphor forthatreason:‘In to haverecognized.Mirrorsymmetryimpliesinvertedparity,andtherewiththeintroduction what onlyCowan,‘TechnologyIstoScience’,580,comingfromthehistoryofbiology,seems conference atwhichitwaspresented:Daniels, tant astowarrantdualpublication—foritwasalreadycommittedtheproceedingsof suggestion ofrejectionthepaperhavesimplyreflecteddoubtsthatwassoimpor- all mustconform’,toquoteLayton’sresponseasmedalist(585).Couldperhapsthealleged SHOT’s mostattractivecharacteristicsandgreateststrengths…thereisnopartylinetowhich Recall howgreatlytheSHOTitespridethemselvesuponfactthat‘opennessremainsoneof Ibid not ofhistoriansscience,ifonlybecause of scienceandtechnology.’Indeed,‘theofficialposturehistorianstechnology’,butsurely footnote sheadded:‘Toaquitesignificantextent,thisisstilltheofficialpostureofhistorians its owninstitutions,valuesandmethods,kindofknowledge.’Andina ogy wasnotmerelyappliedsciencebutitsmirrorimage.Separateequal,likeithad proposal ofaseparate-but-equal,ormirror-imagetwins,model.Accordingtothis,technol- enterprises’—i.e. technologyandscience—‘cameintheearly1970s,withEdwinLayton’s Alliance’ (1995),S19:‘Oneimportantsteptowardamoreequitabletreatmentofthetwo greater andmoresimple-mindedthanthatwhichLaytonintended.ThusLaudan,‘Natural always overlooked—ashere—soastoeffectanideologicalelevationoftechnologyboth and themoresoasessentialconceptualelementin‘mirrorimage’metaphorisnearly intellectual importancethathistoriansoftechnologyascribetothisessayisdisproportionate, ., p.563.Seetextatnote179for passage inBush, ibid ., 579–80).Seenote366,below.Today,inpostmodernity,weare experi-

and to‘TheothercelebratedareaofLayton’swork…aseriesarticles Technology andCulture they Technik haveno‘officialposture’.Cf.note50,above. Nineteenth CenturyAmericanScience Science, TheEndlessFrontier Technology andCulture : orMumfordReconsidered’,123,and History andTechnology Technology andCulture

32 (1991):579,581,pointsto ’. (Heterodoxy? . , which .) The 115 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 39 Athirdcourse,emphasizingneitherautonomy fromnorignorationofscience,butseeking [359] 359 Staudenmaier, ‘WhatSHOTHathWrought’,714;Staudenmaier,‘RecentTrendsinthe [358] 358 [357] 357 Staudenmaier, [356] 356 Forman,‘FromtheSocialtoMoral’.Rose,‘TheHistoriography’,34–5;Hounshell,‘On [355] 355 Layton,‘AmericanIdeologies’.Cf.Mumford’sstatement,morethan50yearsearlier,quoted [354] 354 Layton,‘AmericanIdeologies’,689,quotingBush, [353] 353 [352] 352 Layton,‘TechnologyasKnowledge’,34. [351] 351 116 P. Forman mechanical skill.’ industrial progressandweakinitscompetitivepositionworldtrade,regardlessof A nationwhichdependsuponothersforitsnewbasicscientificknowledgewillbeslowin of Europeanscientists,couldgreatlyadvancethetechnicalarts.Nowsituationisdifferent. nineteenth century,Yankeemechanicalingenuitybuildinglargelyuponthebasicdiscoveries Hindle, For example, nological innovationpriortothe19thcentury—even late 1950s,tooktheleadinexpressingskepticismregardingsignificanceofsciencefortech- among humanactivities—wasthat proposedbyHughes,centeringatthistimeonthe‘seamless nology andscience—and,moregenerally, denialofalldistinctions,andthushierarchies, liberation fromsubordinationto sciencethroughobliterationofthedistinctionbetweentech- small qualifications’.Layton,‘Through theLookingGlass’,600. knowledge’. Laytoncommented there:‘IagreewithStaudenmaier,althoughIhaveafew which theywereprimarilyinterested.Rather,theemphasislayin thenatureoftechnological But oncetheyweresuccessfulinthis,foundthatitwasnot reallytheinteractionwith than appliedscienceinordertoestablishthelegitimacyandautonomy oftheirowndiscipline. argument as‘Historiansoftechnologyhadtodemolishthemyth that technologywasnomore Nonetheless, inhis1986SHOTpresidentialaddress,Layton paraphrased Staudenmaier’s Layton, whoseendeavorwastoredefine,notignore,thetechnology–science relation. Not GetWroughtUp’,whosepolicywasnevertoexclude.Itpresented arealdifficultyfor of sciencefromthepurviewhistoriantechnologywas resisted byKranzberg,‘Let’s science inhisanalysisof‘theprocessesthatproducenewtechnologies’. Thissteptoexclusion History ofTechnology’(1990),718.Consistenttherewith,Staudenmaier, Discipline oftheHistory’. ing Huxley’sthesisre:‘appliedscience’.(Seenotes158–62,above.) American engineersthemselvesrepresentedtherelationshipinthatway,especiallyadopt- this bodyofknowledge’,i.e.uponthephysicalsciences.Norwoulditbeunfairtosaythat in note237:‘Theactualworldofmachineryisatpresent,itseemsfairtosay,aparasiteupon raised with‘usuallynoevidencewhatsoever’. voices denyingtheimportanceofsciencefortechnologicaladvanceinearliercenturiesasbeing above, note69,heandReingold,‘Theorists’(1973;1991),128,139,dismissedthis‘chorus’of historian ofscience,wasnotamongthoseshowingtheway.Oncontrary,aspointedout science wasatleastasclosewiththehistoryoftechnology.Mollela,althoughthenstilla listed wasahistorianoftechnology,apartfromMulthauf,whoseaffiliationwiththehistory Up aDiscipline’—butLaytonchosetomakeHallthevillainofpiece.)Nonescholars endeavor todecoupletechnologyfromscienceintheearlymodernperiod—seeMayer,‘Setting C. Johnson’.(LaytonshouldhaveincludedA.R.Hall,whohadbeenintheforefrontof Multhauf, CharlesC.Gillispie,ThomasS.Kuhn,DerekJ.deSollaPriceand‘M.Gibbons that haveinfluencedmeare…’.Followingwhich,LaytoncitedoneworkeachbyRobertP. relations hasbeenshownbyalargenumberofstudies,toomanytocitehere.Sometheones from historiansofscience:‘Theinsufficiencytheestablishedmodelscience–technology only implicitly,somepageslater,inafootnote(note29onp.39),thatthisargumentstemmed for thisnewskepticism,aboutwhichheremainednon-commital.Laytonacknowledged,but Ibid Ibid ., 83–5.Muchthesameisassertedon89–90,96–8. . Ironically,itwashistoriansof Technology’s Storytellers Technology inEarlyAmerica science , xxi,102,103. , nothistoriansoftechnology,who,beginninginthe

Science, TheEndlessFrontier (1966), 86,citedonlyhistoriansofscience late ibid

, 13–14:‘Inthe ., 717,ignored 19th century. Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 33 SeeLaudan’shandlingofthematter,quotedin note360,above.Animosityisfranklyadmitted, [363] 363 So,forinstance, Pursell, [362] 362 Claimingthat‘Laytonagainplayedapivotalrole’throughhispapersinthe1970sontech- [361] 361 Morethan10yearsagoLaudan,‘NaturalAllianceorForcedMarriage?’,S19,hadalready [360] 360 of but intheimplicitlypostmodernsensethatknowledgeisa the senseofLayton–Vincentiquestforaformknowledgedefinitionaltechnology, Hath KranzbergWrought?’,709–12,stressedtechnologyasknowledge,itwasnolongerin serious endeavoralongthatline.When,inhisSHOTpresidentialaddress,Roland,‘What Technological Enthusiasm,1870–1970 (Cambridge, 1988);andThomasP.Hughes, excused themwitha get morethanapassingreference’.Sidingasshedidwiththehistoriansoftechnology,Laudan et al foray bythosesociologistsintotechnology,a1984workshopandensuingpublication:Bijker the mid1980sforwhichLatour’sthinkingwasexemplary.Hughespartytofirstmajor the postmodernreversalofprimacyoccurringamongsociologistsscientificknowledgein opposite direction,denyingtheexistenceofanybordersandhierarchies,meshedeasilyinto history oftechnologytotechnology’scognitiveessence,Hughes’sprogram,proceedinginthe technology fromscience’sprimacybyaparochialprogramrestrictingthecompassof web’ ofhistory–society–reality.Thuswheretheautonomistssoughttoachieveliberation goal forhiswork. still advancinginhisconcludingsentencethedivorceoftechnology fromscienceasmotiveand ing thatblinkeredapproachtomoderntechnology.However,Schatzberg, ‘ publications—‘Beyond LinearModels’,and‘InventingEurope’—Misa appearstobeabandon- omitted entirelythematterofrelationbetweenscienceandtechnology. Inhismostrecent Technology’, mentionscience.Similarly,Misa,‘TheoriesofTechnological Change’(1992), nology’. NordoesMisa,inhisintroductorychapter,‘TheCompelling TangleofModernityand in itsindexunder‘science’,nordoes‘science’appearamongthe 21 separateentriesfor‘tech- on ‘scientificmanagement’serves asavehicleforputtingscience(notengineering)inquestion, telephone astheproductofspiritualism, andonradioasaproductofhobbyists.Thechapter Clancey, denying anddenigratingscience isthecollectionofreadingsputtogetherbySmithand nay, flaunted,bySinclair,‘TheRoad toMadison’(1995).Notableforitssubtextconsistently ness ofthatapproach.Tomyknowledge,Vincenti, Laudan’s characterizationoftechnologicalknowledgeratherunderscorestheunpromising- neither irremediablytacitnorsimplyappliedscience’.Thelackofanypositivecontentin accepted thatthereissomethingdistinctiveabouttechnologicalknowledgeandit nology asknowledge,Laudan,‘NaturalAlliance’,S22–3,judgedthat‘itisnowgenerally America: ABriefHistory technology, directingherreadersto‘See,e.g.,AlanMarcusandHowardSegal, drawn attentiontotheabsenceofsciencefromthenrecentsyntheticworksinhistory modern technology. science wereaslittlejustifiablefailingtodiscusssciences(anyatall)inconnectionwith As thoughfailingtodiscusstechnologies(exceptthemedical)inconnectionwithmedieval Institutional Context Beginnings ofWesternScience:TheEuropeanScientificTraditioninPhilosophical,Religious,and themselves thereexpressed. by Hughes,wherehefoisteduponBijkerandPinchamoreradicalviewthananythatthey technology andscienceistobefoundonlyinanunsigned‘Introduction’(11)obviouslywritten in itsindexfor‘science’.Similarly,Misa ous technologiesandaspectsoftechnology,hasnoneontechnology andscience,noentry every ., The SocialConstruction social–culturalactivity.. Major ProblemsintheHistoryofAmerican Technology

(Chicago, 1992)leavesalltechnologies,exceptthemedical,tooneside’. tu quoque A CompaniontoAmericanTechnology

(New York,1989);GeorgeBasalla, . Thatbook’sradicaldenialofadistinctioninprinciplebetween , pointingoutthat‘DavidLindberg’srecent,andmasterful,

(New York,1989).Innoneofthesetextsdoesscience et al ., Modernity andTechnology American Genesis:ACenturyofInventionand What EngineersKnow consequence

(2005), with21chaptersonvari- History andTechnology

(1998), withitschaptersonthe The EvolutionofTechnology

of technology,asitis

(2003), hasnoentry

Technik (1990), isthelast Technology in ’ (2006),is 117 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 31 MacKenzie,‘MarxandtheMachine’,486–7,reprinted inMacKenzie, [371] 371 [370] 370 [369] 369 [368] 368 Wise,‘ScienceandTechnology’,229. [367] 367 Wise,‘ScienceandTechnology’,229,quotingPrice,‘OfSealingWaxString’(1984),49. [366] 366 Postmodernis,ofcourse,notnecessarilypostmodernist,butpostmodernist atleasttothat [365] 365 Sinclair,‘TheRoadtoMadison’,S3,S10:‘Forthesakeofourinstitutionalmemory, themost [364] 364 118 P. Forman absent fromthechapteron‘themilitary–industrial–universitycomplex’. as doesitsonechapteronscience-basedtechnology,devotedtoinsecticides.Happilyscienceis did indeedrankscienceabovetechnology. with thefact,pointedoutabove,note347,andbelow,395,thatLayton,earlylate, of technologyhavemadeoutLayton,hisreportedresistanceispuzzling.Itfits,however, T. Layton,president-electoftheSocietyforHistoryTechnology.’Givenwhathistorians role ofmerehandmaidens.[Notethereversal!]“Derekwentwayoverboard,”saidEdwin example ofthosewho‘haveviolentlyopposedDrPrice’srelegatingtheherosscienceto ies, arethemselvesthecauseofscientificdiscoveries.BroadpointedtoLaytonashissole school’ arguingthatnewtechnologies,farfromfollowingnecessarilyscientificdiscover- Times, 40.) Broad,‘DoesGeniusorTechnologyRuleScience’,writingin1984for ment byMertonintheposthumouscollectionofPrice’sessays, (The pertinentparagraphsofthisessayareincludedinthemoregracefullywordedabridge- not mentionattentiontoscience. institutional appropriationsoftechnology,and/orforitselisionpowerrelations’,hedid attention toculture,markets,gender,thelaborprocess,ordiversityofindividualand cal determinism‘wouldberejectedbyscoresofhistoriansinotherfieldsforitsinsufficient Indicatively, there(S35)whereScrantonallowedthathisanalysisofthenotiontechnologi- ‘Theory andNarrative’(1991),386,390;‘DeterminismIndeterminacy’(1995),S47. his persuasionofpostmodernism.ThoseattitudeshavebeenclearlyexpressedinScranton, whether hisanti-scienceattitudesstemmainlyfromidentityashistorianoftechnologyor who isavowedlypostmodernist:PhilipScranton.ItthereforeinScranton’scaseuncertain extent, postmodern.Iamawareofonlyoneundeniablycontributivehistoriantechnology distinguish oursessionsfromtheirs.AsIthinkofit,course,that History ofScienceSocietyoncriticalproblems.‘ThoseustheSHOTside…intendedto important questionis:WhydidwegotoMadisonatall?’,i.e.agreeajointmeetingwiththe is theonly‘older’paperMacKenzie includedthere—andreprintedinothercollectionsand Research Scientists inIndustry’(1980),or in Wise, arose, isentirelyuncleartome. I haveseennonesuchinWise,‘ANewRoleforProfessional aimed atsupportingEinsteinsonly’(231). of everyonefromEinsteintotheWrightbrothersgavewayaNational ScienceFoundation dream ofaNationalResearchFoundationsupportingthework of modern-daycounterparts science. Thissenseofgrievanceisexpressedalmosthysterically in Wise’splaintthat‘Bush’s uct ofWise’sagitationovertheinjusticedonetechnologyby ascriptionofprimacyto above, isformallyincompatiblewithwhatfollows—anincoherence thatseemstobetheprod- leaders, mainlydrawnfromacademicsciencedepartmentsordeans’ offices’(231). this misconception;byhisaccount,theyneverheldit.Wisehasit heldonlyby‘asmalleliteof allows Wisetoevadethequestionwhen,why,howhistorianscame tofreethemselvesfrom edge isscience’.)Settinguptheoppositionasbetweenscience-policy wonksandhistorians Ibid Ibid Ibid history ofscience’. ing forourselvestheteachingandresearchagendaofourfield,separatedistinctfrom tive. Thecrucialpointforuswasownershipofthehistorytechnologyandthatmeantdefin- ., 230.HowWise’spassionoverthe wrongnessof‘technology-comes-from-basic-research’ ., 229–30.Behindtheellipsesisanassertionthat,like quotedimmediately ., 244,theopeningofhis‘Conclusion’.(Wisemeant,course,tosaythat‘Notallknowl-

represented Priceasbeing,untilhisdeathin1983,theleaderofa‘rebellion’,‘new (1985). Willis R.Whitney…andtheOrigins ofU.S.Industrial Little Science,BigScience was Knowing Machines

our principalobjec- The NewYork , 239– —it Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 32 MacKenzie,‘MarxandtheMachine’,486.Marx’sdiscussionoccupiesfirst pagesof [372] 372 38 Tobequitecompleteandaccurate,‘science’does appearinoneotherquotationofMarx [378] 378 Sherwood,‘Engels,Marx,Malthus’,851:‘Engels’s assumption’—andMarx’stoo,forherelied [377] 377 MacKenzie,‘Marx andtheMachine’,496:‘Marx’srelianceonsourcessuchaswritingsof [376] 376 MacKenzie,‘MarxandtheMachine’,488–9.MacKenzie’sreferenceis‘Ure, [375] 375 FarmorerelevantisthatMarxsaid,butMacKenzieomittedtosay,thesamedefinition, [374] 374 MacKenzie,‘MarxandtheMachine’,486.Thepassagefrom [373] 373 Directly engagingthequestionisBimber,‘ThreeFaces’. Society forHistoryofTechnology’(www.historyoftechnology.org/awards/usher.html). ‘best scholarlyworkpublishedduringtheprecedingthreeyearsunderauspicesof translated intootherlanguages,itwas,earlyon,awardedSHOT’sUsherPrizefor1986 mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_391.htm (accessed1December2005).Marx, der Maschinerie’),inMarx-Engels, Kapital the capitalist:“Thespecialskill ofeachindividualmachine-operator,whohasnowbeen given byMacKenzie,‘Marxand the Machine’,488:‘Themachine…embodiespowerof analysts ofmachineproductivity atthetime.Althoughtheirlogicwasclear,italsofalse.’ implicitly uponEngelshere—‘about theconsequencesofjenneyandmulewastypical after 1850“thebestorganizedandthebest-financedunioninall of Britain”.’ workers eliminatedbytheintroductionofautomaticmachinery, themalespinnersformed rather dramaticinLazonick:‘Farfromproviding,asMarxbelieved, theclassicexampleof such dramaticeffect’.However,Sherwood,‘Engels,Marx,Malthus’, 849,foundsomething restore orderamongtheindustriousclasses.”Lazonick’sworkshows thatthemulehadno what happened.MarxquotedUre’sjudgmentontheself-actingmule: “Acreationdestinedto achieve fromtheintroductionofmachine.Butwhattheyhoped forwasnotnecessarily Ure meantthathehadquiteplausibleevidenceforwhatclass-conscious capitalistshopedto and onp.460in ‘into’. Thequotationappearsatthebottomofp.368in stets dierebellischeHandderArbeitzurGelehrigkeitzwingt’,exceptthatUrehas‘in’not back-translation ofMarx’s‘dasKapital,indemesdieWissenschaftinseinenDienstpreßt, Manufactures economists’. unserviceable forMarx’spurposesbecauseahistorical,occurs‘repeatedlyamongEnglish quotes—he seemstoknowitonlyintranslation(Marx, htm#Z186 (accessed5October2006). nition ofthe‘MathematikerundMechaniker’,itisevidentthatherespectsintellectually. historische Element.’ThoughMarx,alwayspolemical,ishererejectingtheunserviceabledefi- Vom ökonomischenStandpunktjedochtaugtdieErklärungnichts,dennihrfehltdas besteht jedeMaschineausjeneneinfachenPotenzen,wieimmerverkleidetundkombiniert. mechanischen Potenzen,wieHebel,schiefeEbne,Schraube,Keilusw.,Maschinen.InderTat tes Werkzeug.SiesehnhierkeinenwesentlichenUnterschiedundnennensogardieeinfachen erklären dasWerkzeugfüreineeinfacheMaschineunddieeinzusammengesetz- und Mechaniker—undmanfindetdieshierdavonenglischenÖkonomenwiederholt— that hehashimselfitalicized‘ (Farther onin not hisbestthinkingbutrathertheromanticviewofmachineasmechanizingworker. Marx’s insistencethereuponaconceptionofthemachineasmechanizedhandtoolreflects Daniels, ‘TheBigQuestions’,20;likewiseMumford,citedinnote239,above. presented ascogent,was‘thegreatobstaclethat19th-centuryinventorshadtoovercome’: tool, whichMarxadoptedattheoutsetofhisdiscussionmechanizationandMacKenzie It haslongbeenacommonplacethattheconceptionofmachineasmechanizedhand tive characterofthemachinery‘grosseIndustrie’:seepassagequotedinnote74,above.) , DreizehntesKapitel(‘MaschinerieundgroßeIndustrie’),Abschnitt1.(‘Entwicklung

(London, 1835),p.370,asquotedinCapital1:564’.ThewordsareUre’s,nota Kapital Kapital,

Marx showedabetterappreciationoftheabstractratherthanreplica-

Band I(4thedn),http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_441. because thehistoricalelementismissingfromit’ Werke

(1968), 23:391–2,availableathttp://www. Capital, Philosophy ofManufactures History andTechnology

1: 492–3);heacknowledges Kapital —is: ‘Mathematiker

which MacKenzie Capital, The Philosophyof

1: 492–5.

(1835), 119 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 31 Marx, [381] 381 Marx, [380] 380 Dupree,‘TheHistoryofAmericanScience—AFieldFindsItself’(1966),isinlargemeasurea [379] 379 120 P. Forman Both arefrom statements unequivocallyelevatingtechnologyandtechnologistsoverscientists—andpoets. entirely—which plaintwouldbecomecanonicalalsoforthehistoryoftechnology. pellating theclause‘togetherwiththesethreeforces’.] that isingoodpartthefaultoftranslator,who,intendingtoclarify,hasconfusedbyinter- system ofmachinery—toMacKenzie’s‘Themachine…embodiesthepowercapitalist’, constituted bythesystemofmachinery finds difficultyinreducingMarx’sratherobscureassertion—thatthepowerofcapitalistis has chosentoexhibitoneoftheveryfewwhereitappearsasamalevolentforce.[Ifreader remains silentaboutit.Onceagain,amongallthereferencestoscienceinMarx,MacKenzie machine technologyispermittedtoappearinMacKenzie’spaper,whileMacKenziehimself manner inwhichthegreatimportancethatMarxattributedtoscienceforcreationof me/me23/me23_441.htm#Kap_13_4; accessed5December2006.)Thisistheonlyplaceand quoting Marx, which, togetherwiththesethreeforces,constitutesthepowerof‘master’.”’(MacKenzieis gigantic naturalforces,andthemassofsociallabourembodiedinsystemmachinery, deprived ofallsignificance,vanishesasaninfinitesimalquantityinthefacescience, neglect—in anoverviewof (1963). Skramstad,‘AmericanThings:ANeglectedMaterialCulture’,continuestheplaintof polemic againstJohnA.Kouwenhoven’spamphlet, specifies thecoverageofjournalas‘ advertisement atthetopoffirstpageissue,28August 1845(Vol.1,No.1), successor tothe confirmed bytheeditor’sstatementsofhisintentionswiththis‘scientific paper’conceivedas identification oftechnicalimprovementasderivativefromscience impliedbythistitleis Advocate ofIndustryandEnterprise,JournalMechanical OtherImprovements technology hadalreadysupersededtheJacksonianpopulistrevolt: the journalitselfmakesclearthatbydateaverydifferentvaluation ofsciencerelativeto journal, begunin1845,initiallyweekly,carriedmanyhundredsof itemsannually.Thetitleof Marx admitshas‘adefensivetone’.Thisissofarfrompersuasive whenonerecallsthatthis of suggest thattheauthorof the senseandvalueofaseparatedisciplinehistorytechnology—leadingKranzbergto was areviewoftheFestschriftforMelvinKranzberg,whichMarxusedasanoccasiontodeny twice in importance forSHOTthanhashadhim.OvertheyearsMarxpublishedonly Marx byhistoriansoftechnologyare,overwhelmingly,tothisbookonly.hashadfarmore word. ThebookwasanelaborationofMarx’sHarvardPhDdissertation,1950.citations the referencestohimin Policy oftheNationalAcademySciencesanddirectorresearchatGeneralElectric,but Council, alongwithsuchsuperpowersasthechairmanofCommitteeonScienceandPublic Wrought?’, 699–700.(Marxhadbeensingledoutin1969forelectiontoSHOT’seliteAdvisory notices oftheprogressMechanical andother Works wiki/Scientific_American#History [accessed6December2005].) Natural Philosophy’.(Thetext of theadvertisementisavailableathttp://en.wikipedia.org/ beauties ofNature,whichconsist inthelawsofMechanics,Chemistry,andotherbranches as ‘theintelligentandliberalworkingmen, andthosewhodelightinthedevelopmentof letter ‘TotheAmericanPublic’at thetopofsecondpagedescribesitsintendedreadership In Context ; andwillcontain,inadditiontothemostinterestingnewsofpassing events,general The MachineintheGarden The MachineintheGarden Technology andCulture ’, andKranzberg,‘Comment’(1992);alsoRoland,‘WhatHathKranzberg Scientific American Capital American Mechanic , 1:549=Kapital,446,asmadeavailableathttp://www.mlwerke.de/ Technology andCulture The MachineintheGarden American Studies:TopicsandSources , bothpublicationsbeingonlybookreviews.Thesecondofthose , repeatedlyreprinted,mostrecentlyin2000withanewafter- , 199–203,399,note40,putsinevidenceonlytwopublished

in 1850.Athird,likewisefrom

and threeotherjournalsintendedforworkingmen.The together with New Inventions,ScientificPrinciples becamefrequentonlyinthe1980s.) Scientific Improvements thethreeforcesthatareembodiedin

was asnakeinthegrass:Marx,‘Review American Studies:WordsorThings? Scientific American Scientific American:The

that excludesscience ’, whiletheeditor’s , and

in 1850, Curious . The Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 32 Forexample,Marx, [382] 382 31 IndeedtheerasureofscienceinMarx’srepresentation ofthetechnologicalenthusiasm [391] 391 [390] 390 [389] 389 Meikle,‘Classics Revisited’,155. [388] 388 So,forinstance, Marx,‘OnHeidegger’sConception’,648;‘Technology:TheEmergence’,969, [387] 387 Marx, [386] 386 Marx, [385] 385 Mitcham, [384] 384 Marx, [383] 383 historiography oftechnology—or inaliketraditionAmericanstudies—tobeabletosee human achievementtodate’.IsMeikle himselftoomuchwithintheturn-the-back-on-science was that‘theintellectualprogress ofinventorsandengineersindicatedthehighestpoint supportive pointsofamillennial ideologyoftechnology’isolatedandschematizedbyMarx For example,Smith,‘TechnologicalDeterminism’,19,27–8. discussing theirdisplayedquotationstoignorethereferences scienceinthosequotations. absence oftheoreticalscience’. the relationshipoftechnologyanddemocracyin science, butcomplained,somuchthemoreunfairly,that‘WhenHugoMeierwritesabout reference toMarx, their discussionofearly19thcenturypopularattitudestowardscienceinAmerica,madeno World’ (1958).MolellaandReingold,‘TheoristsIngeniousMechanics’(1973),140,in emphasis ismaintainedinMeier,‘AmericanTechnologyandtheNineteenth-Century (1957), where‘science’appearsmorethanfortytimesinthetext.Thatorientationand technology wasappliedscience.LikewiseinMeier,‘TechnologyandDemocracy,1800–1860’ American SocialHistory,1750–1860’(1950),150–1,334–56,Meiertookforgrantedthat too early tobeanti-science.Inhisdoctoraldissertation,‘TheTechnological Conceptin equally anti-scientifichistoryofAmericantechnologytradition,wasperhapssimply emerging AmericanStudiestraditionandtheotherinwhatwouldeventuallybecomean mechanical ingenuity’(8).Ontheotherhand,HugoA.Meier,althoughwithonefootin that ‘menmadelittleornodistinctioninthisperiodbetweentheoreticalscienceand technology, alsoignoresscienceafterdismissingthematterwithoff-handobservation the creditforshowingthatMarxgotitwrongwithEmerson’sandHawthorne’sviewof Technology andRepublicanValuesinAmerica,1776–1900 alone establishsuchremoteandtranscendentaltruths.”’Kasson, says: “How wonderfultheprocessbywhichhumanbrain,initscasketofbone,can mate structuralprinciplesoftheuniverse.In1850awriterinspiredbynewtelescope popular discussionsoftechnologicalprogressassumethatinventorsareuncoveringtheulti- ante-bellum eraisreproducedin Meikle’sstatement( 974, 977–8. not ‘correlate’,iswhatWalkerhadinmind. its correlate,technology,itmakesdemocraticallyavailable…freedom’, but‘consequence’, true meansforemancipatingthehumanmindinboththoughtandpractice,thatthrough Mechanical Philosophy”makesthecharacteristicargumentthatmechanicalphilosophyis with having‘contributedtotheblurringofhistoricalperspective’. phy’ acanonicaltextinAmericanStudiesandthehistoryoftechnology,butalso (1974), notes34and36,creditsMarxwithmakingWalker’s‘DefenseofMechanicalPhiloso- American Review George BancroftandjuristJosephStory,presumablytheirmouthpiecethereinthe modern civilization.WalkerhimselfwasthenarecentHarvardgraduate,acolyteofhistorian life andthoughtfatefullyintroducedtheconceptofmechanizationascharacteristic provoked byCarlyle,‘SignsoftheTimes’(1829),whichdeprecatoryanalysiscontemporary Ibid. Ibid. , 149–50,151,157,158. , 156. Machine intheGarden The MachineintheGarden Machine intheGarden Thinking ThroughTechnology , thatorganofthenortheastculturalelite.Higham,‘DivergentUnities’ The MachineintheGarden The MachineintheGarden , 209–15;quotation,214–15. , 185.Ithasbecometypicalforhistoriansoftechnologyin , 174ff,181ff,191.AsMarxexplained,Walker’sessaywas , 20,hasitmorenearlyright:‘Walker’s“Defenseof , andthusalsononetoMarx’signorationof , 198:‘Intheperiodbetween1830and1860 antebellum ibid.

(1977), towhomisduemostof , 152)thatoneofthe‘mutually History andTechnology

America, thereisacomplete Civilizing theMachine: North 121 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 [394] 394 Kline,‘Construing“Technology”as“AppliedScience”:PublicRhetoricofScientistsand [393] 393 TheworkofHounshellandthatS.W.Leslieoffergenuineexceptions.Likewise, Carlson, [392] 392 122 P. Forman order toconjureupaninstitutionalpowerwhichKlinehastheengineersbow. labeled byKlinewiththenameofanorganization,NationalResearchCouncil(NRC),in exhibited inthispaperbutmerelyimputed;thewidely-employedrhetoricofpurescienceis of technology,orhasMeiklesimplytakenthisbiastooasunderstoodbyhisreaders. Marx’s ignorationofscienceabasisfortheappeal ‘public’, withitsimplicationofsomeinsincerity.Further,therhetoric for Kline’scharacterizationoftherhetoricthathedisplayedanddiscussedasbeingspecifically Engineers intheUnitedStates,1880–1945’(1995).Itshouldbenotedthatthereisnowarrant entirely withoutpriorexperienceinindustry. decade ofthe1880smostthoseappointedtochairselectricalengineeringwerephysicists try, notintheacademy,Könighadtoignorestatedfact(p.81)thatcrucialfounding engineering. Andeventhen,toarguehisthesisthatelectricalengineeringoriginatesinindus- which concernedhimisnotascienceatall,butthat‘engineeringscience’electrical course König’sargumentcouldsucceedonlybyasleightofhand,namelythatthe‘science’ that inthecaseofindustry,itwouldbemoreapttorefer“industry-basedscience.”’Of get thescience–technologyrelationshipwrongbyalmostprecisely180degrees.Iwillargue that atleastfor‘theelectricalindustryinGermanypriortoWorldWarI,thetermappears entirely consistentwiththatoftheStaudenmaierpolicyignoration,forhiscontentionwas Culture not usetheterm,andcontributorsto this paperin Industry orIndustry-BasedScience?’(1996).Könignoted(pp.71–2)withapparentsurprisein Innovation asaSocialProcess absence ofevidence). that amajorreasonwasstatus’ (220–1;conclusion,perhapsimplicitlyacknowledging construe theirfieldassubordinate to“purescience”?Thediscoursesexaminedheresuggest engineers andindustrialresearchers fromthetimeofThurston[1880s]tothatBush an efforttopresentaunitedfront withthescientists’(219;noevidencecited);‘Whydid science espousedbyCompton,Langmuir, andotherswhotestifiedbeforethem,probablyin place atthefederaltrough.Buttheydidsoinawaythatdeferred toanNRCidealofpure attempted toinstructCongressonthevirtuesof“engineering science” inordertogaina sional debatesabouttheestablishmentofwhatbecame NSF, engineeringeducators without thefertilizingprincipleofscience”’(215;noevidence cited); ‘Duringthecongres- the hierarchyofassociationbysayingthat“technology, however, canscarcelyexist that sciencewas“immenselyenriched”byaunionwith“technology.” Buthethenbowedto president oftheengineeringsectionAAASin1938,he [WilliamWickenden]said public imageandtoattractretainfirst-ratescientists(211; noevidencecited);‘Asvice science idealmorestronglythan[BellLabshead]Jewett,in order toimprovethelab’s ment’ (203);‘leadersofindustrialresearchatGeneralElectric advocated theNRC’spure- 1920 inordertomaintainitsprofessionalstatusaneraofincreasing corporateemploy- ies typicallycalledengineeringanappliedscienceintheirannualaddressesfrom1895to relating themselvestoscience:‘AsshownbyEdwinLayton,presidentsofengineeringsociet- previous adductionsofthisstatus/image/politicsexplanationtheengineers’statements views ofchemistsandphysicistsfigurealmostnotatallinKline’sevidence,orhisseveral physicists, chemists,engineers,andindustrialresearchers’.However,assaidabove,the not of‘engineersandindustrialresearchers’only,but‘alargenumberprominent place tocallthese“science-basedindustries”….Staudenmaier( connections toscienceandscientificinstitutions’,although‘Ithasbecomecommon- century newindustries(chemical,electrical,optical,andrefrigeration)developedwithcloser Ibid ., 221.ThequotationisfromKline’s‘Conclusion’,andwhatitassertsthereasserted ’s comprehensiveindex…doesnotcontaintheterm’.Nonetheless,König’sintentwas Technology andCulture , 4,344–9.DefinitelynotanexceptionisKönig,‘Science-Based

that although‘Itiscommonlyagreedinthelate19th Technology andCulture The MachineintheGarden Technology’s Storytellers

rarely do. scientists Technology and

to historians

is not ) does Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 35 Kline,‘Construing“Technology”’,203,citespages56–8,66–7,ofLayton, [395] 395 37 Hughes,in‘Machines, Megamachines,andSystems’(1989),averyopenstatementofhis [397] 397 Althoughnotordinarilysocited,Calvert, [396] 396 beginning ofthe20thcentury. parallels totheagitationandliteraturegeneratedinGermany at theendof19thand implausibility ofthatsameinterpretationintheAmerican:therearescarcelyanyAmerican argument orevidence.SuchevidenceascanbebroughtfortheGermancaseargues tion’ (66),andinhisconstantreiterationofthenothing-but-statusclaimwithoutoffering insistance thatacademicengineeringeducationprovidedonly‘technologicallyuselesserudi- “Kulturhebel”’, 39,43.Gispen, geschichte’, 50;Dietz self-evidently so:Manegold,‘TechnologyAcademicised’,146–51;Osietzki,‘DieGründungs- the tendencyamonghistoriansoftechnologyissimplytoassumethisbeso,takeitas in Germany,whereindeedonewouldexpectittohavegreatervalidity.Nevertheless,theretoo has beenbroughtfora‘socialstatus’explanationofthe institutions wouldbecontributingtothemaintenanceofanengineeringelite.Betterevidence neers whenitbecameclearthatbyinsistingonarigorousscience-basedcurriculumthose ing eliteinAmericaabandonedthelate1880stheiroppositiontocollegiatetrainingofengi- (1967), doesprovidesomeevidenceintheformofanargumentthatmechanicalengineer- ing anautonomouscognitivecommunity. tion—in part,atleast,becauseitdisservedhisrepresentationofthoseengineersasconstitut- century engineersattachingtheirpracticetoscience,butLaytonwasresistingthatinterpreta- There onefindsHughespushingLaytontowardsocialstatusasmotiveforthelate19th paper alsocontainsatranscriptofthediscussionfollowingitsoralpresentation(701–2). any otherexplanationtooffer.More:theissueof endorsing whatappearstobethescientificideology’,andforthishehadneitherKline’snor (1976), 690,Laytondeclared‘Whatissurprising,however,tofindAmericanengineers not thinkingalongKline’slines.Thusin‘AmericanIdeologiesofScienceandEngineering’ deeply feltaspirationsforfreedomandresponsibility’.(61)Evenfiveyearslater,Laytonwas their discourse:‘inaccurateasliteraldescriptions,theengineers’self-portrayalsexpressed selves asappliedscientists,whileontheinterveningpagesLaytonemphasizedsincerityof nology onsociety.Heisprobably correctindescribingthedangeritposes’,forwhich ‘Lewis Mumfordremainsoneof themostknowledgeableauthoritiesonimpactoftech- in reviewingit Mumford, andnotwithstanding that hewasgreatlyputoffbyMumford’s issue of Committee forTechnologyand Society’tocreateSHOT,andacontributortheopening technologies, wasamember,alongwithMumfordandHughes, ofKranzberg’s‘Advisory ogy andscienceattheSmithsoniandeeplyimmersedin elucidation ofearlychemical Layton wasalreadystrivingto science butintheengineer’sassumptionofsocialresponsibility.OnpagesKlinecites, p. 62—wasthatthepotentialforimprovedsocialstatuslaynotinappropriatingmantleof argument inthisbook—notablyonthepageslyingbetweenthoseKlinecites,mostespecially however, tobefoundthere.Norshouldtherebe.For,asLayton’ssubtitlemakesclear,his his ‘AsshownbyEdwinLayton’attributionquotedinthepreviousnote.Nosupportis, Engineers: SocialResponsibilityandtheAmericanEngineeringProfession Attitudes TowardAmericanTechnology Responsibility ofMindinaCivilizationMachines’(1962), in hiscollection: headlong downthechute”’.Hughesincludedessaycontaining thisimage,Miller,‘The ing themselves‘“intothetechnologicaltorrent…theyshouted withglee…astheywent with PerryMiller’s‘marvellousimageofnineteenth-centuryAmericans’, namelythatinfling- fundamentally ideologicalcommitmentsinwritinghistoryoftechnology, associatedhimself Technology andCulture Technology andCulture et al de ., ‘Der“KulturwertderTechnik”’;Braun,‘Technikas New Profession,OldOrder . LikeKranzbergandHughes,Multhauf wasanadmirerof emphasize theextenttowhichhisengineersregardedthem-

(1975). Multhauf,inchargeofthehistorytechnol-

Multhauf couldnotsaythatMumford waswrong: The MechanicalEngineerinAmerica,1830–1910 Technology andCulture Verwissenschaftlichung , isanextremeexample,bothinhis History andTechnology

(1971), assourcefor Pentagon ofPower

carrying Layton’s

of engineering Revolt ofthe Changing 123 , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 42 Wise,‘ScienceandTechnology’,244.Similarly, onp.230,afterlistingthemetaphors [402] 402 Inhisconcluding remarksatthe1978‘RoanokeConference—CriticalProblemsinHistory [401] 401 Inthemidandlate1980s,Hughesassociatedhimselfcloselywithsocialconstructionof [400] 400 Staudenmaier,‘RationalityversusContingency’,269.Re‘officialposture’,seeLaudanas [399] 399 Misa,‘BeyondLinearModels’(2004),263,ridiculingtheabjurationofeveryform oftechno- [398] 398 124 P. Forman playing upononeoranothertonoticethecontradictionsamongthem. entire spectrumofambivalentattitudescoexistedinKranzberg,whowasalwaystoobusy our energies,andunderminedcapacitytolivefullspirituallysatisfyinglives’.The of megatechnics,todealwiththecollectiveobsessionsandcompulsionsthathavemisdirected Multhauf quotedMumford’sdeclaration:‘Ihavebeendriven,bythewholesalemiscarriages agree withandsupportthisapproachtothehistoryoftechnology’. trajectory thathumanbeingsmustfollow’—andavowinghisownadherencetofaith:‘I counter tothenotionthattechnologyisanimpersonalforcewithitsowninternallogicanda nized theSocietyforHistoryofTechnologyinparttofosteraviewtechnologyrunning by remindinghisreadersofthefaiththeirfathers—‘MelKranzbergandcolleaguesorga- technological determinism’(590,593).But,thoughthatishisthesis,Ceruzziopensessay shows that‘rawtechnologicaldeterminismisatwork’,andthusevidenceof‘thereality years, ofdatastoragecapacity,perunitareasemiconductor‘chips’,indigitalcomputers— ‘Moore’s law’—theempiricalfactofafixedexponentialrateincrease,overthepastforty viewed asautonomouswithregard tooneanother,thoughfarfromautonomouswithregard key ideabehindallthemetaphors isautonomy’,Wisecontinued:‘Scienceandtechnologyare proposed todescribetherelation betweenscienceandtechnology,concludingthat‘The Technology, Technology’, 236–8,adducedMacKenzie,‘MarxandtheMachine’, andWinner, interfering withevaluatingworkonthebasisofscholarlymerit. Hindle,‘Historiansof Staudenmaier, expressedconcernthatStaudenmaier’santi-progress ‘theoryofhistory’was in the1980s:Rae,‘WhatDidWeExpect’,respondingasoneof thefoundersofSHOTto he andSivinwerecolleaguesatMIT.)Theresomeobjections tothisideologyas autonomous technology.(Winner’s upon historiansoftechnologythe‘usefulpublicservice’debunking theinfluentialmythof one tookissuewithOttoMayr’sdenialthattechnologywasautonomous’, andSivinurged of Technology’,Sivin,‘TheRoanokeConferenceII’,629,waspleased, butsurprised,that‘no Technology as welltoMumford,oneofhis‘mentors’—Ellul,againstwhomWinner’s Elsewhere atthesametime,‘Machines,Megamachines’,116–17,HugheswaspointingtoEllul, directed againstallandanytechnologicaldeterminism:Hughes, technology (SCOT)program—seenote359,above,and408,below—specificallyas quoted innote346,above. Technology andCulture Schatzberg, ‘UnderminingCommonSense’and‘ prominent historianoftechnologytodaywouldadmittobeliefintechnologicaldeterminism’: Schatzberg remainswhollywithinit:‘Likethedefinitionoftechnologyasappliedscience,no logical determinism.Inthisregard,MisahassteadilystoodoutsidetheSHOTistorthodoxy. ‘Technological Momentum’). returned tothedemi-determinismofhisearliestworkinhistorytechnology(Hughes, technological systems’.Inthemid1990sHughespubliclyrejectedsocialconstructionand ‘societal values’;rather,Hughesinsisted,thosevaluesthemselves‘areintegralpartsofthese ‘machines, megamachines,andsystems’.ThusdisasterssuchasChernobylare tive forcesat‘thedepthsofthetechnologicalsociety’are Machine side history’upontheyoungergeneration formedintherebellionsof1960s. technology amongthefounders of thedisciplineandputallonusfor‘pessimistic’,‘dark- wasnolessdeterministicthanEllul’s—andinsisting,asdidthey,thatthedetermina-

(1977) wassolargelydirected,andMumford,whosethesisin as suchideologicalhistory,butHindlerefusedtoseetheambivalence toward

published recentlyCeruzzi’s‘Moore’sLaw’.Ceruzziarguestherethat Autonomous Technology Technik

Comes toAmerica’.Itistruethat not

had appearedthepreviousyear;

‘politics andeconomics’but American Genesis The Mythofthe not Autonomous Autonomous

the resultof , 5,469–70. Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 43 RespondingtoDaniels,‘TheBigQuestionsintheHistoryofAmericanTechnology’ (1970), [403] 403 48 Onaverage,at leastonegenuflexiontoBijker [408] 408 That,andalmost alltherestofideologicaltenetsexploredhere,areprovidedasessential [407] 407 http://www.historyoftechnology.org/pubs/booklet.html(accessed27July2006).Thestate- [406] 406 Staudenmaier,‘RationalityversusContingency’,263.Staudenmaierhasbeenthelongest,most [405] 405 Daniels,‘TheBigQuestions’,2.(ForDanielsthiswasnotsomuchideologyas amethodologi- [404] 404 of helplessnessamongthepublic’ becauseit‘hadcometoviewtechnologyasautonomous ‘and manyofhiscolleaguesinEurope hadbecomealarmedbythegrowingapathyandsense observed, ‘hasforthelastseven to eightyearsbecometheleadingfashioninfield’:Bijker 1990 abouttheoriginsandmotivations forthatprogram‘which’,asHounshellthere History’ (1995),211–13,reports somerevealinginformationwhichBijkerprovidedinApril every issueof nology thatIhavereadhassoughttomakedistinction,willnoteither.) between ‘autonomoustechnology’and‘technologicaldeterminism’.Asnohistorianoftech- enterprises actoneachotherhasyetemerged’.(Ofcoursethereisadistinctiontobemade to economics,politics,andideologies.Butnonewmodelforthewaythesetwoautonomous agency intechnologicalchange.’ ical determinismandautonomy,historiansexploredtheroleof socialchoiceandhuman sionally inthe1950s,disputed“appliedscience”definition… .Alsorejectingtechnolog- closely alliedwith“pure”or“basic”science.…Historiansoftechnology, organizedprofes- meanwhile, theyembracedtheterm[“technology”]butdefined itas“appliedscience,” is onething;disavowalanother’. Heilbroner, ‘TechnologicalDeterminism’,78,aptlyremarkedinthisconnection,‘disapproval to whichIdrewattentioninnote365,above,ispertinentthisconnectionaswell.As discovery’. SeealsoMolellaonMumfordatnote332,above.Scranton’signorationofscience, deterministic discoursethatportraystechnologicalchangeastheinevitablefruitofscientific by whollydisconnectingtechnologyfromscienceisitpossibletothrottlethe‘mystifying, istic interpretationsof the meaningsofwordtechnologyas‘thestrugglebetweendeterministicandnondetermin- Indeterminacy’, S33,S42. (families, schools,firms,governments)orofculturalpractices’.Scranton,‘Determinismand at allowing‘anynotionthatshiftsintechnologygoverntherestructuringofsocialformations sectors, andperiodsinwhichatechnology-orientedlogicgoverns’.However,hedrewtheline and thequestforinnovationefficiencyarenotuniversallyregnant,theremaywellbesites, logical anindeterminism.Hehasadmitted‘localdetermination’:‘whereastechnicaladvances too seriouslyengagedwiththenutsandboltsoftechnologicalchangetoadoptsowhollyideo- unavowedly postmodern and omous, thatsocial,economic,orpoliticaldevelopmentsarenotdeterminedbytechnology, autonomy oftechnologyprogram. extreme anti-technological-determinismstance,recognizingthatitwasatvariancewithhis Layton, ‘Comment:TheInteractionofTechnologyandSociety’,tookissuewithDaniels’s Companion toUnitedStatesHistory information forthegeneralreaderinDunlavy’sarticle‘Technology’ for Historical Association’. produced bytheSocietyforHistoryofTechnologyincooperation withtheAmerican editors, ‘HistoricalPerspectivesonTechnology,Society,andCulture.Abookletseries ment appearsinthe‘SeriesIntroduction’,signedbyPamelaO.LongandRobertC.Postas Staudenmaier’s anti-modernbaggage,Schatzberg,‘ position (see‘WhatSHOTHathWrought’,716;‘DisciplinedImagination’,xi).Without consistent, andmostexplicitinthisposition,whathasbeenwithhimanessentiallyanti-modern cal postulate.)Nye,

that notechnologicalinnovationissociallydetermined.AlsoNye,‘Shaping’.Thatis,an Technology andCulture Technology Matters technology ist anti-determinism.Scranton,althoughavowedlypostmodern ’, proceedsfromthesamepremiseasStaudenmaier,viz.only

in the1990s.Inthisconnection Hounshell, ‘Hughesian (2001): ‘Asengineersstrovetoenhancetheirstatus, , teachesthattechnologicaldevelopmentisnotauton- et al ., Technik The SocialConstruction ’, 488,512,treatingthehistoryof History andTechnology

was tobeseenin The Oxford ist 125 , is Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 47 Subordinationofthesocialtoculturalis finding,thoughnotthehistoriographic [417] 417 Googling‘Theculturalturn’on9August2006 turnsup77,000webpages.Forindications, [416] 416 Thatwouldremain trueevenifKlinehadinfactprovidedtheexplanationsheclaimedto [415] 415 As‘notableexceptions’ tothisgeneralizationthat‘littleattentionhasbeenpaidthehistory [414] 414 Kline,‘Construing“Technology”’,194,quotingMayr,‘TheScience–TechnologyRelationship’, [413] 413 WhatScranton,‘DeterminismandIndeterminacy’,S35–6,pointedoutforcefully,seemingly [412] 412 Staudenmaier,‘RecentTrends’,715;‘DisciplinedImagination’,x;Hounshell, [411] 411 Sinclair,‘AnAgendaforSHOT’,598,andagain,‘TheRoadtoMadison’,S11:‘the [410] 410 Sinclair,‘TheRoadtoMadison’,S10.Historyandliteratureoffernoparallel:Novick, [409] 409 126 P. Forman social constructionoftechnologymettherequirementsradicalversion. conceded, ineffect,thatveryfew(ifany)ofthehistoricalcasestudiesallegedlyconfirming social constructivism…isopposedtoanyconceptionoftechnologicaldeterminism’, imperative’. Pinch,‘TheSocialConstruction’,20,whileinsistingthat‘theradicalversionof the ideathatsocialchangeisdrivenbytechnologicalchange,therea social constructivismbecauseitgivesthemawayofcombatingtechnologicaldeterminism— that, thoughpossessingonlyweakevidence,‘manyhistoriansoftechnologyhaveembraced against find asproblematic,orcallingforexplanation,thefactthatdisciplinelinedupsosolidly 1977. Hounshelldidnot,apartfromwhatisimplicitinhisaccountoftheoriginsSCOT, in thehistoryoftechnologyyearsimmediatelyafter some importance:‘Theproblemoftechnologicaldeterminismdrovemuchthescholarship recent historyofthetechnologydiscipline,inwhichhegaveAlfredChandler’swork how andwhytheissueoftechnologicaldeterminismfiguredsoprominentlyinthen it intotheacademicmarketsofworld.’Hounshell(209–15)hasanextendeddiscussion technology inthestreets’.‘OnlylaterdidBijkerdevelophisapproachmoreformallyandtake social constructiontheyfoundtheirmethod.’They‘literallytaughtof and deterministic’.‘Bijkerhiscolleaguesdeterminedtocountersuchresignation.In presupposition, ofForman,‘Weimar Culture’.Theinvocationthereofsocialpressureto the Moral’. quantitative andnonquantitative, ofthedecline‘thesocial’seeForman,‘FromSocialto tained—itself requiresexplanation byreferencetoculturalvalues. explanations takeasagiven—theimportanceofthesocialboundaries thataretobemain- boundaries aroundacademicscience,industrialresearch,and engineering.’ Forwhatsuch changing practicesinscienceandtechnologythecomplex processofcreatingsocial (196): ‘Explanationsforwhyhistoricalactorstookspecificrhetorical positionswilldrawon neither evenaddressesthematterofpervasiveness. Mechanics’, andLayton,‘AmericanIdeologies’.Aswehaveseen, neitherisnotablyso,and ‘Construing “Technology”’,195,note5,citedMolellaandReingold, ‘TheoristsandIngenious of thisviewandwhyit(andsimilarbeliefs)hasbeensopervasive inAmericanculture’,Kline, brought forwardbyKline. of technologyandscience‘onourscalevalues’,howthathaschangedovertime,wasnot 671. WhatMayrsawasthemostfundamentalaspectofthisquestion,namelyrelative to noeffect. character ofthebodybeingaddressed. to makethatpoint—andnotpoliticitexplicitly—isitselfevidenceoftheideological narrow aconceptionandexclusivepreoccupation.Yettheveryfactthatitseemednecessary and Roland,‘WhatHathKranzbergWrought?’(1997),areindirectargumentsagainstso addresses byHughes,‘ConvergentThemes’(1981),Cowan,‘TechnologyIstoScience’(1996) ‘On theDiscipline’,855,863;Sinclair,‘AnAgendaforSHOT’,598.TheSHOTpresidential Medal’), quotedinnote346,above. friendly, open,anddemocraticnatureofoursociety’.LikewiseLayton(‘LeonardodaVinci Noble Dream

technological determinism.NordidLaudan,‘NaturalAlliance’,S26–7,inexplaining ; Graff, Professing Literature . The VisibleHand

appeared’ in That rank Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 42 Morerecently,Edgerton,‘TheLinearModel’, insupportofhisdenialthatanythoughtful [422] 422 Edgerton,‘BritishScientificIntellectuals’,2. [421] 421 Ofcourse,theinversedoesnothold:adheringtoconceptionofcoherenthistoricaleras [420] 420 So,forexample,Godin,‘MeasuringScience’,79,posesthequestionhowso-very-1950s [419] 419 AsJ.G.A.Pocockwroteintheearly1960s,floodtideof‘thesocial’,‘The sloganthat [418] 418 Christopher Laschinhisseveralbooksonthesamesubject. upon ‘thecultural’.Such,Itakeit,isBell’sargumentin social’; itcanverywellbethesocio-economicconsequencesof‘thecultural’reactingback historian mustkeepanopenmind,buttheultimateexplanansneednotnecessarilybe‘the months. Moregenerally,wherechangeinculturalvaluesiswhatrequirestobeexplained,the some casesbyoneandthesamephysicistormathematicianovercourseofbutafew suddenness ofthechangeinvaluesarticulatedbyphysicistsandmathematicians—in explain ideologicalreorientationwas,andIthinkremains,requiredbythegreatsize persons inthosepost-Second World Wardecades,otherthanself-justifyingscientists, Ibid Foucault hadSpenglerinmindisindicatedbyhisbracketingwithHegelandMarx. to theEnglishEdition’ofFoucault, Spengler’s andMumford’sisperfectlyclearfromthedescriptionhegaveofitinhis‘Foreword odizers asSpengler,MumfordandFoucault.ThatFoucault’saimmethodwereessentially does notofitselfimplyadisciplinaryorientation,asiswellexemplifiedbysucheminentperi- sanctioned science-technologyrelations. Genesis ofTechnoscience’,usesinstitutionalfactorstoaccountfordeparturesfromculturally tent basisforstatisticaltimeseries.Likewise,Harwood, ing theconceptoffundamentalresearch,andbureaucratsinterestinmaintainingaconsis- three decades.Godin’splausibleexplanationistheuniversities’politicalinterestinmaintain- the presentdaynotwithstandingnumerouswell-foundedcriticismsofitoverpast on intheOECDFrascattimanualfor‘measuring’researchfunding,couldhavecontinuedto motivations oftheresearchersandnon-applicationresearchresults’,adoptedearly concept ofbasic(=fundamental)researchscience)‘centeredonthe[non-utilitarian] 1965. MyattentionwasdirectedtoPocock’sagelessadmonitionbyMartinCollins.) Politics, Language,andTime that theyalreadyknowwhattherelationsbetweenideasandsocialrealityare’.Pocock, becoming ashibboleth;toomanyofthosewhopronounceitassume,oftenunconsciously, ideas oughttobestudiedintheirsocialandpoliticalcontextis,itseemsme,dangerof Earmark’ and‘WhatthePastTells Us’. is indicatedinmybriefpapers, Forman, ‘FromtheSocialtoMoral’,‘InEraof all possibilityofdisciplinarity.Something oftheanti-disciplinaryeffectspostmodernvalues sion follows,however,fromotherfeaturesofpostmodernity, cooperatingtodestroy objects andprocedures,cannotpossiblybeconflatedwithtechnology. Thestrongerconclu- will beinthefuturefarfewersciencesthanweknewmodernity, viz.onlysuchas,bytheir sure, theforegoinganalysisdoesnotwarrantsocategoricalaconclusion, butonlythatthere than thefactthatmachineworks,thenitis‘curtains’for scientificenterprise.Tobe ally highlyvaluedways,andifthefactofscientificlawsisnotregarded asagreatermiracle For ifscienceisnotregardedasseparateanddistinguishablefrom technologyinsomecultur- ingly irrelevantandunintelligible.Amongthoseendeavors,science isespeciallyvulnerable. culture andsocietywillrendertheconstructiveendeavorsof pastthreecenturiesincreas- radically self-regardingindividualism—thentheconsequenttransformations ofpersonality, conditions onthisplanetascapableofalteringtheeverwiderspread anddeeperseatingofthis continues itsadvance—andIcanseenothingshortofacatastrophicalterationthelife and practicesinwhichonlyunlovelycharacterscanthrive.Ifpostmodernity,suchasitis, if’ weremainfullycommittedtodisciplinaryobjectivesandconstraintsisachaosofpurposes the slimmesthopeforsurvivalofdisciplinarity,alternativetopursuingscholarship‘as ., 334.WhileIbelievethatnooneconvincedofthefactpostmodernitycanholdanybut , 105.(Theessaythererepublishedwasoriginallypublishedin The OrderofThings , ix–xiii.Howmuchandhowhighly The CulturalContradictions Technology’s Dilemma History andTechnology

and ‘Onthe , andof 127 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Aaserud, Finn.‘Sputnikandthe“PrincetonThree”:TheNational SecurityLaboratoryThatWasNot References TothiscircumstanceHollinger,‘TheDefenseofDemocracy’,drewourattentionintheearly [424] 424 SeeMirowski,asreferencedinnote60,andMirowskiSent, [423] 423 128 Adas, Michael. Alderman, Harold.‘Heidegger’s CritiqueofScienceandTechnology’.In Allen, FrancisR.‘Technologyand SocialChange:CurrentStatusandOutlook.’ P. Forman The ConditionofPostmodernity tions. Forearliereffortstodefineanddatethemodern-postmoderntransition,seeHarvey, public andtheprivate.Collins,‘OneWorld’,foramanifestationofitinglobalcommunica- the coincidenceindatewithabroadshiftconceptionsofrelative‘goodness’ making organizationsfallstozero. value offlyingthebannerpurescience,levelsupportforbasicresearchbyprofit- ness butitsexistence:absentthatcredenceinthelinearmodel,and,moregenerally, about thesmallfractionoftotal‘innovation’fundsappliedtobasicresearchisnotitssmall- of practice.Inviewthatrecenthistory,itseemsbeyonddoubtwhatisimportant is thatlargemarginofdifferenceatthelevelbeliefmakesall The fateofbasicresearchinindustryoverthepasttwoorthreedecadesdemonstratesthatit ‘The LinearModelDidNotExist’,butatthelevelofbelief,heisfarmorewrongthanright. further theirrealinterests,Edgertonisofcoursemorerightthanwrongininsistingthat actual practiceoftechnologicalinnovationandtheapplicationavailableresourcesto contradictory realitythatideologyobscuredfromourview.Atlevel,thelevelof Edgerton toargueagainsttheideologicalprimacyofscience,butratherexpose tice ofthoseconvincedthatideology.Itwasnotatalltheaimmypaperscitedby logical primacyofscience,whichthelinearmodelwasanexpression,andactualprac- is necessarytodistinguishagain,asIhaverepeatedlythroughthispaper,betweentheideo- no suchfaithinbasicresearchasthesourceofnewmilitarytechnologies.Here,however,it that themilitaryagencies,theircommandingofficersandcivilianprogramofficers,had used solelyforresearchesproperlyregardedasbasic,wasadducedbyEdgertonevidence were setasideforbasicresearch,andthatsmallpercentagewasneitherwellrationalizednor small percentage(5%)ofthefundsexpendedbymilitaryforresearchanddevelopment achieving nationalsecuritythroughsuperiorityinmilitarytechnology.Thefactthatonlya the SecondWorldWarwasconditioneduponandintegratedwithafarvasterprogramof greatly expandedgovernmentalsupportofbasicphysicalresearchinacademicsettingsafter especially, Forman,‘BehindQuantumElectronics’(1987),whichpapersexploredhowthe believed inthelinearmodel,citedForman,‘IntoQuantumElectronics’(1996)and,more To Be.’ Pyenson, ‘WhatIstheGood’. My attentionwasdrawntoBronowskiandthisquotationthrough theclosingparagraphof is thebasisofasocietywhichscrupulouslyseeksknowledgetomatch andgovernitspower.’ only bythemeanswhichweusetoreachit.Thisishumansum ofthevaluesscience.It Science andHumanValues of thisaxiomcommontomodernscienceandthepolityisgivenbyJacobBronowski, science andmodernityintheprimacybothassertofmeansoverends.Averyclearstatement 1980s. Yet,tomyknowledge,attentionhasnotbeendrawntheparticularunanimityof Philosophy: CriticalEssays, Dominance. Culture 1978, 35–50. HistoricalStudiesinthePhysicalandBiologicalSciences 1(1959):48–59.

Machines astheMeasureofMen:Science,Technology,andIdeologies ofWestern Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress, 1989.

edited byMichaelMurray.New Haven, CT:YaleUniversityPress, , 71:‘theendforwhichwe[scientists]workexistsandisjudged ; Rose, The Post-Modern . 25(1995):185–239. Science BoughtandSold

Heidegger andModern

Technology and , for Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Blake, CaseyN.‘ThePerilsofPersonality: LewisMumfordandPoliticsAfterLiberalism.’In Blackman, Stuart.‘TheRightResearch Mix.’ Bix, AmySue. Bimber, Bruce.‘ThreeFacesofTechnologicalDeterminism.’In Bijker, WiebeE.‘ReviewofLatour, ———. ‘PhysicsandtheIdeologyofNon-Ideology:Re-Constructing theCulturalRoleofSciencein Beyler, Richard.‘TheDemonofTechnology,MassSociety,andAtomicPhysicsinWestGermany, ———, Hughes,ThomasP.andPinch,TrevorJ.eds. ———. ———. ——— andGraubard,StephenR.,eds. Berg, Maxine. Bell, Daniel. Beard, CharlesA.,ed. Bauman, Zygmunt. Baker, WilliamO.‘Response’[toC.P.Snow,‘TheMoralUnneutralityofScience’]. Amsterdamska, Olga.‘ReviewofLatour, Baird, Davis,Nordmann,AlfredandSchummer,Joachim,eds. Auerbach, Felix. Appleby, Joyce,Hunt,LynnandJacob,Margaret. Andrews, JamesT. Ashby, Eric. Asner, GlenR.‘TheLinearModel,theU.S.DepartmentofDefense,andGoldenAgeIndustrial Mumford: PublicIntellectual, http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/mar/feature_040301.html; accessedMarch2004.) 1929–1981. Oxford UniversityPress,1990,283–300, 417–20.(ReprintedinRobertHollingerandDavid Dilemma ofTechnologicalDeterminism, MIT Press,1994,79–100. Press, 1987. Systems: NewDirectionsintheSociologyandHistoryofTechnology. in Germanyfrom1920to1970’,Berlin,30September2005. Post-1945 WestGermanyandComparativeContexts.’Presentation attheConference‘Physics 1945–1957.’ Cambridge UniversityPress,1980. 1988, 409–447.) Press, 1960.(Reprinted,withnew‘Afterword’.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity de Franceonlinecatalog.) industrielle Books, 1973.(Reprinted,withnewForewords,1976,1999.Translatedas Mifflin, 1968.(Reprintedwithadditionalfrontmatter,Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1997.) (1960): 261–2. IOS Press,2004. Gesetze undTheorien. Science HistoryPublications,2004,3–30. 123’, editedbyKarlGrandin,NinaWormbsandSvenWidmalm.SagamoreBeach,MA: Press, 2003. Imagination inSovietRussia,1937-1934. (1990): 495–504. 1994. Research.’ In New York:St.Martin’sPress,1966.(Originallypublished1958.)

TheCulturalContradictionsofCapitalism. The ComingofPost-IndustrialSociety:AVentureinSocialForecasting.

Technology andtheAcademics:AnEssayonUniversitiesScientificRevolution. The EndofIdeology:OntheExhaustionPoliticalIdeasinFifties.

Inventing OurselvesoutofJobs?America’sDebateoverTechnological Unemployment, The MachineryQuestionandtheMakingofPoliticalEconomy.

Entwicklungsgeschichte dermodernenPhysik,zugleicheineÜbersichtihrerTatsachen, , byPierreAndler.Paris:R.Laffont,1976.AsgiventheBibliothequeNationale Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press,2000. HistoryandTechnology

The IndividualizedSociety.

The Science–IndustryNexus:History,Policy,Implications, Science fortheMasses:TheBolshevikState,PublicScience,andPopular TowardCivilization. Berlin:SpringerVerlag,1923.

Science inAction. edited byThomasP.Hughesand AgathaC.Hughes.NewYork:

Toward theYear2000:WorkinProgress. Science inAction NewYork:Longmans,Green,1930. 19(2003):227–40.

The Scientist

Oxford/Cambridge, UK:.Blackwell/PolityPress,2001. edited byM.R.SmithandL.Marx.Cambridge,MA:

Telling theTruthaboutHistory. NewYork:BasicBooks,1976. College Station,TX:TexasA&MUniversity ’ TechnologyandCulture

18, No.4(1March2004),17.(Available at .’ The SocialConstructionofTechnological

Science, Technology,&HumanValues

Discovering theNanoscale.

Does TechnologyDriveHistory?The History andTechnology

29(1988):982–3. Cambridge, MA:MIT

‘Nobel Symposium

New York:Norton, Vers lasociétépost- Boston, Houghton

New York:Basic Glencoe, IL:Free Cambridge, UK:

Amsterdam: Science

Lewis

133 129

15 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ———, ———andKrohn,Wolfgang.‘FinalizationinScience.’ Braun, Hans-Joachim.‘Technikals“Kulturhebel”und“Kulturfaktor”:ZumVerhältnisvonTechnik ———, RainerHohlfeld,WolfgangKrohnandWolfSchäfer. Borgman, Albert,assistedbyMitcham,Carl.‘TheQuestionofHeideggerandTechnology:ACritical Broad, WilliamJ.‘DoesGeniusorTechnologyRuleScience?’ Brick, Howard.‘OptimismoftheMind:ImaginingPostindustrialSocietyin1960sand1970s.’ ———, ———and———.‘The“Scientification”ofTechnology.’In ———, ———and———. ———. ‘TheMethodologyand Planning ofScienceandTechnology.’[Speechon6April1931, at Braun, TiborandDiospatonyi,Ildiko.‘ASimplisticApproachofRevealingtheComingAge ———, vandenDaele,WolfgangandHohlfeld,Rainer.‘FinalizationRevisited.’In Böhme, Gernot,ed. Bronowski, Jacob. Bukharin, NikolaiI. Böhme, Gernot.‘IstdieProtophysikeineReinterpretationdesKantischenApriori?’In Browning, GaryK. 130 Buchanan, R.Angus.‘ReflectionsontheDeclineofHistory TechnologyinBritain.’ Brush, StephenG.‘TheChimericalCat:PhilosophyofQuantumMechanics inHistoricalPerspective.’ Bruce, RobertV. P. Forman Daele, RainerHohlfeld,WolfgangKrohnandWolfSchäfer.Dordrecht:Kluwer,1983,131–72. und KulturbeiFranzReuleaux.’In schaftliche OrientierungdeswissenschaftlichenFortschritts.StarnbergerStudien,Nr1. den Daele,RainerHohlfeld,WolfgangKrohn,WolfSchäferandTilmanSpengler, Dordrecht: Kluwer,1983.(LargelyarevisionandtranslationofGernotBöhme,Wolfgangvan Social OrientationofScientificProgress.BostonStudiesinthePhilosophyScience, Layton, JrandPeterWeingart.Dordrecht:Reidel,1978,219–50. Technology. SociologyoftheSciencesYearbook, lung. Review oftheLiterature.’ a.M.: Suhrkamp,1978.) American Quarterly Nova Science,2005,1–7. Deutschland, vorstellungen vonTechnikernundIngenieurenzwischenKaiserreichfrüherBundesrepublik (1976): 307–30.(OriginallypublishedinGerman1973the Science: TheSocialOrientationofScientificProgress, communicated byProf.Mackay, 2004.) Bukharin, unpublished translationbyAlan Mackayof the firstAll-UnionConference onthePlanningofScientificResearchWork],beingan org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/6.htm; accessed23June2006.) Russian edn.NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1925.(Available athttp://www.marxists. Nanoscience.’ In Waxmann, 1996,35–44. Frankfurt a.M.:SuhrkampVerlag,1976. a.M.: SuhrkampVerlag,1976,219–34. Für undwidereinekonstruktiveWissenschaftstheoriederPhysik, History ofTechnologyinBritain.’ Technology reprinted, Greenwood,1999,72–87.) Depew, eds. Social StudiesofScience Frankfurta.M.:SuhrkampVerlag,1977. TheLaunchingofModernAmericanScience,1846–1876.

Izbrannye trudy, ScienceandHumanValues, 22 (2000):211–21.[Oneinacollectionofpaperson‘TheCurrent Stateofthe

Lyotard andtheEndofGrandNarratives.

Pragmatism: FromProgressivismtoPostmodernism.

edited byBurkhardDietz,MichaelFessnerandHelmutMaier.Münster: Historical Materialism:ASystemofSociology. Protophysik: FürundwidereinekonstruktiveWissenschaftstheoriederPhysik.

Nanostructures: NovelArchitecture, 44(1992):348–80.

Experimentelle Philosophie:UrsprüngeautonomerWissenschaftsentwick- 10(1980):393–447. PhilosophyToday

edited byP.V.Volobuev.Moscow: Nauka,1989.(Privately Ibid.

Technische Intelligenzund‘KulturfaktorTechnik’:Kultur- , 171–264.] rev.edn.NewYork:Harper&Row,1965. 31(1987):98–194. Metodologiya iplanirovanienauki itekhniki.

Vol. 2,editedbyWolfgangKrohn,EdwinT.

New YorkTimes

edited byMirceaV.Diudea.NewYork: Cardiff: UniversityofWalesPress,2000. by GernotBöhme,Wolfgangvanden

Authorized translationfrom3rd

edited byG.Böhme.Frankfurt Social ScienceInformation

Zeitschrift fürSoziologie Westport, CT:Praeger,1995;

The DynamicsofScienceand

NewYork:Knopf,1987. Finalization inScience:The

(7 August1984):C1,C10.

Finalization in

Protophysik:

Die gesell- Frankfurt History of

Vol. 77. .)

15 In Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Carson, Cathryn.‘NuclearEnergyDevelopmentinPostwarWestGermany:Strugglesover Carlyle, Thomas.‘SignsoftheTimes.’ Carlson, W.Bernard. ——— andGubser,Michael.‘ScienceAdvisingSciencePolicyinPost-WarWestGermany:The ———. ‘ScienceasInstrumentalReason:Heidegger,Habermas,Heisenberg.’Draftmanuscript Capshew, JamesH.andRader,KarenA.‘BigScience:PricetothePresent.’ Cao, TianYu,andSchweber,SilvanS.‘TheConceptualFoundationsthePhilosophicalAspects Bush, Vannevar. Burlingame, Roger. ———. ‘Technology:NeglectedCluetoHistoricalChange’. ———. ‘TheHardwareofCulture.’ Butts, RobertE.,andBrown,JamesRobert,eds. Calvert, MonteA. Callon, Michel.‘SocietyintheMaking:TheStudyofTechnologyasaToolforSociologicalAnalysis.’ Centre deCréationIndustrielle. Carty, J.‘TheRelationofPureSciencetoIndustrialResarch.’ Clark, LynnSchofield. Chargaff, Erwin. ——— and———. Collins, HarryandPinch,Trevor. Cochrane, Rexmond. Ceruzzi, Paul.‘Moore’sLawandTechnologicalDeterminism:ReflectionsontheHistoryof Conant, JamesB. Collins, Martin.‘OneWorld…One Telephone:Iridium,OneLookattheMakingofaGlobalAge.’ Cohen, StephenF. Cowan, RuthSchwartz.‘Technology IstoScienceasFemaleMale:MusingsontheHistoryand 1870–1900. Works. Cooperation intheFederalRepublic’sFirstReactorStation.’ at http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/carlyle/signs1.html;accessed4August2006.) Example oftheDeutscherForschungsrat.’ 2007. (2002): 233–70. of RenormalizationTheory.’ Baltimore, MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1967. Scribners, 1940. (Available athttp://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm;accessed31May2006.) Philosophy. TheUniversityofWesternOntarioSeriesinPhilosophyScience, MA: MITPress,1987,83–103. of Technology, In Dordrecht: Kluwer,1989. Cambridge, UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993. York: A.Knopf,1973. Oxford UniversityPress,2003. Technology.’ Paris: Centrenationald’artetdecultureGeorgesPompidou,1985. History andTechnology Cambridge UniversityPress,1998. Washington, DC:TheAcademy,1978. Character ofOurDiscipline.’ Columbia UniversityPress,1952.

The SocialConstructionofTechnologicalSystems:NewDirectionsintheSociologyandHistory

30 vols.London,1897–1901.Reprinted,NewYork:AMSPress,1969.27:56–82.Available HeracliteanFire.

Science, TheEndlessFrontier. NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991. Modern ScienceandMan. BamptonLecturesinAmerica,No.5.

The MechanicalEngineerinAmerica,1830–1910:ProfessionalCulturesConflict.

TechnologyandCulture

Bukharin andtheBolshevikRevolution:APoliticalBiography,1888–1938.

Engines ofDemocracy:InventionsandSocietyinMatureAmerica. The GolematLarge:WhatYouShouldKnowAboutTechnology. edited byWiebeE.Bijker,ThomasP.HughesandTrevorJ.Pinch.Cambridge,

Innovation asaSocialProcess:ElihuThompsonandtheRiseofGeneralElectric,

From AngelstoAliens:Teenagers,theMedia,andSupernatural. The NationalAcademyofSciences:FirstHundredYears, 1863–1963. 21(2005):301–24.

NewYork:TheRockefellerUniversityPress,1978. Les Immatériaux Synthese TechnologyandCulture TechnologyandCulture

Edinburgh Review, The Golem:WhatEveryoneShouldKnowAboutScience. 46(2005):584–93. 97(1993):33–108.

ConstructivismandScience:EssaysinRecentGerman Washington, DC:U.S.Gov’tPrintingOffice,1945. Minerva : [1]

Epreuves d’écriture. No. 98(1829).(AsreprintedinCarlyle. 40(2002):147–79.

Technology andCulture 37(1996):572–82. 1(1959):11–19. Science History andTechnology 44(1916):511–18.

History andTechnology Osiris [2]

Album etinventaire. 7(1992):3–25.

2 (1961):219–29.

Cambridge, UK:

New York: New York: New York:

Vol. 44.

New The

131 18 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Daniels, GeorgeH. Dewey, John.‘LogicalConditionsofaScientificTreatmentMorality’.In ———. ——— andNoble,DavidF.‘By Force ofReason:ThePoliticsScienceandTechnologyPolicy.’ In ———. ‘ScienceasSubject-MatterandMethod.’ ———. ‘TheBigQuestionsintheHistoryofAmericanTechnology.’ Dickson, David. Daumas, Maurice.‘TheHistoryofTechnology:itsAims,Limits,Methods.’ ———, ed. Deutsches Museum. ———. Crowther, Paul.‘ 132 ———. ‘Philosophy.’In ———. ‘ThePragmaticAcquiescence.’ ———. ‘Introduction:ReconstructionasSeenTwentyFive Years Later.’In ———. ———. ‘ScienceandSociety.’In ———. ———. Dessauer, Friedrich. Dear, Peter.‘WhatistheHistoryofScience ———. ———. ‘ByNatureandbyArt.’ ———. ‘AuthorityandSocialChange.’In Depew, David.‘PragmatistsandProgressives:Introduction.’In P. Forman Andrew Benjamin.London:Routledge,1992,192–205. Thomas FergusonandJoelRogers. NewYork:PantheonBooks,1981,260–312. Museum, 1927. Technik: Gründung,GrundsteinlegungundEröffnung,1903–1925. The HiddenElection:Politicsand Economicsinthe1980PresidentialCampaign, Works 1st Ser.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1903,3:115–39.(AsreprintedinDewey, 1981–1990. 1 (1976):85–112.(Originallypublishedin University Press,1972. (1970): 1–21. Later Works Dewey, tion, Boston:BeaconPress,1948.) pour l’HistoiredesTechniques Philosophy, 1976–1983. 3: 115–32.) A. Beard.NewYork:Longmans,Green,1928,313–31.(ReprintedinDewey, 3–18. (ReprintedbyGreenwood,1999.) Postmodernism, also inDewey, Philosophy, University Press,1937,170–90.(Reprintedin Conference ofArtsandSciences(August31–September12,1936). Conference ofArtsandSciences.Paperspresentedatasymposium oftheHarvardTercentenary Balch, 1931,318–30. Verwaltungs-Bericht

TheQuestforCertainty.

Streit umdieTechnik. The MiddleWorks,1899–1924. Reconstruction inPhilosophy. The LaterWorks,1925–1953.

, 3:3–39.) Nineteenth CenturyAmericanScience:AReappraisal. Later Works TheNewPoliticsofScience. byJohnDewey.Boston:BeaconPress,1948,v–xli.

Les Immatériaux 15:84–96.) edited byJosephRatner.NewYork:ModernLibrary,1939,343–363. Reprinted

American ScienceintheAgeofJackson. PhilosophiederTechnik:DasProblemRealisierung.

Chronik desDeutschenMuseumsvonMeisterwerkenderNaturwissenschaftund Later Works

edited byRobertHollingerandDavidDepew.Westport,CT:Praeger,1995,

Whither Mankind:APanoramaofModernCivilization, , 3:145–51.) 3(1906);5(1908). 2 nd NewYork:Minton,Balch,1929.

edition. Frankfurta.M.:VerlagJosefKnecht-Carolusdruckerei,1958.

, 11:130–45.)

Journal ofPhilosophy Philosophy andCivilization,

, no.7(1969);translated,withintroductorynote,byA.R.Hall.) and thePostmodernSublime.’In

New York:HenryHolt,1920.(Reprinted,withnewintroduc- 17 vols.Carbondale,IL:University ofSouthernIllinoisPress,

15 vols.Carbondale,IL:UniversityofSouthernIllinoisPress,

New Republic NewYork:Pantheon,1984.

Authority andtheIndividual:HarvardTercentenary Revue d’HistoiredesSciences Science Intelligence intheModernWorld:JohnDewey’s

Of 41 (1944):281–92.(AsreprintedinDewey,

New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1968. 49 (5January1927):186–9.(Reprintedin ?’ 31(1910):121–7. Isis

by JohnDewey.NewYork:Minton, 96(2005):390–406.

Pragmatism: FromProgressivismto

Evanston, IL:Northwestern

Judging Lyotard,

Technology andCulture

The DecennialPublications, Cambridge, MA:Harvard Bonn:F.Cohen,1927.

22 (1969)and

München: Deutsches

History ofTechnology

edited byCharles Reconstruction in Later Works Documents

edited by edited by Middle

11 , Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ———. ‘TheTechnologicalOrder.’ Eisenhower, DwightD.‘Science:HandmaidenofFreedom.’In ———. ‘“TheLinearModel”DidNotExist:Reflectionsonthe HistoryandHistoriographyof Edgerton, David.‘BritishScientificIntellectualsandtheRelations ofScience,Technology,andWar.’ Ellul, Jacques.La Edge, David.‘ReviewofKrohn,Layton,andWeingart,eds. Dupree, A.Hunter.‘TheHistoryofAmericanScience—AFieldFindsItself.’ Dunn, Gano.‘TheRelationshipBetweenScienceandEngineering.’ Dietz, Burkhard,Fessner,MichaelandMaier,Helmut,eds. Dietz, Burkhard,Fessner,MichaelandMaier,Helmut.‘Der“KulturwertderTechnik”alsArgument Dunlavy, ColleenA.‘Technology.’In Drieschner, Michael.‘DieVerantwortungderWissenschaft:EinRückblickaufdasMax-Planck- Douramanis, Demetrios. Doel, RonaldE.,Hoffmann,DieterandKrementsov,Nikolai.‘NationalStatesInternational Diggins, JohnP. Dillon, WiltonS.‘MargaretMeadandGovernment.’ ———. Dingler, Hugo. Dictionnaire d’histoireetdephilosophiedessciences, The TechnologicalSociety. and SvenWidmalm.SagamoreBeach,MA:ScienceHistoryPublications, 2004,31–57. History, Policy,Implications.NobelSymposium123, Science andResearchinIndustrytheTwentiethCentury.’In 1996, 1–35. Twentieth CenturyHistory, In The BritishJournalofSociology 034&year=1959&id=107 (accessed 19July2004). 1959, 133–42.Availableathttp://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/docs/pppus.php?admin= by DaelWolfle.Washington,DC: AmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience, Review S. Boyer.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2001,765. Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Technik’: KulturvorstellungenvonTechnikernundIngenieurenzwischenKaiserreichfrüher and HelmutMaier.Münster;NewYork:Waxmann,1996,1–34. Kaiserreich undfrüherBundesrepublikDeutschland, und ‘KulturfaktorTechnik’:KulturvorstellungenvonTechnikernIngenieurenzwischen der technischenIntelligenzfürsozialenAufsteigundAnerkennung.’In Universitaires deFrance,1999. by T.FischerandR.Seising.Frankfurta.M.:Lang,1996,173–98.) 2005). (An‘überarbeiteteFassung’ofthatpublishedin http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/philosophy/staff/drieschner/beding.htm (accessed13July Institut zurErforschungderLebensbedingungenwissenschaftlich-technischenWelt.’ Undervisning/HABIB.PDF; accessed11July2005.) Sydney, Australia:self-published,1995.(Availableathttp://www.sociology.ku.dk/socha/ Sachse andMarkWalker.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2005,49–76. International PerspectivesontheKaiserWilhelmInstitute.Osiris, Stalin’s Russia,andColdWarUnitedStates.’In Science: AComparativeHistoryofInternationalScienceCongressesinHitler’sGermany, Verlag, 1964. Seabury Press,1978.(Reprinted1999.) 1928.

Aufbau derexaktenFundamentalwissenschaften, National MilitaryEstablishmentsandtheAdvancementofScience and Technology:Studiesin 71(1966):863–74.

Das Experiment:SeinWesenundseineGeschichte. Technique:l’enjeudusiècle.

The BardofSavagery:ThorsteinVeblenandModernSocialTheory.

Mapping Habermas:ABibliographyofPrimaryLiterature1952–1995. NewYork:Knopf,1964.)

edited byP.FormanandJ.M.Sánchez-Ron.Dordrecht:Kluwer, Münster:Waxmann,1996. TechnologyandCulture TheOxfordCompaniontoUnitedStatesHistory, 31(1980):449–50. Paris:A.Colin,1954.(Translated byJohnWilkinsonas AmericanAnthropologist,

edited byDominiqueLecourt.Paris:Presses

Politics andScienceinWartime:Comparative

edited byBurkhardDietz,MichaelFessner edited byPaulLorenzen.Munich:Eidos-

The DynamicsofScienceandTechnology.’ 3(1962):394–421. edited byKarlGrandin,NinaWormbs

Technische Intelligenzund‘Kulturfaktor Wissenschaft undÖffentlichkeit,

Symposium onBasicResearch,

Munich: VerlagErnstReinhardt, Science History andTechnology

The Science–IndustryNexus:

Vol. 20,editedbyCarola 71(1930):276–7. 82(1980):318–39.

Technische Intelligenz

American Historical editedbyPaul

New York:

edited edited 133 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Engels, Friedrich. ———. ‘WhatthePastTellsUsaboutFutureofScience.’ In ———. ‘IntheEraofEarmark:TheRecentPejorationMeritocracy—and ofPeerReview.’ ———. ‘RecentScience:Late-ModernandPost-Modern.’In Ezrahi, Yaron,Mendelsohn,EverettandSegal,HowardP.,eds. England, J.Merton. ———. ‘HowLewisMumfordSaw Science,andArt,Himself’. ———. ‘FromtheSocialtoMoral totheSpiritual:ThePostmodernExaltationofHistory of Elzinga, Aant.‘Research,BureaucracyandtheDriftofEpistemicCriteria.’In 134 ———. ‘IntoQuantumElectronics:TheMaseras“Gadget”ofCold-WarAmerica.’In ———. ‘BehindQuantumElectronics:NationalSecurityasBasisforPhysicalResearchinthe ———. ‘TheFinancialSupportandPoliticalAlignmentofPhysicistsinWeimarGermany.’ ———. ‘TheHelmholtzGesellschaft:SupportofAcademicPhysicalResearchbyGermanIndustry ———. ‘WeimarCulture,Causality,andQuantumTheory,1918–1927:AdaptationbyGerman Forman, Paul.‘TheDiscoveryoftheDiffractionX-raysbyCrystals:ACritiqueMyths.’ ———. Etzkowitz, Henry.‘ReviewofLatour, Fores, Michael.‘Price,Technology,andthePaperModel.’ Fogel, RobertW. Fitzgerald, Deborah.‘Reviewof ———. ‘SocialNicheandSelf-ImageoftheAmericanPhysicist.’In P. Forman Stockholm: AlmqvistandWiksell,1985,191–217. System: ThePublicPoliciesoftheHomeScientists, Recent ScienceNewsletter Mirowski andE.-M.Sent.Chicago.IL:UniversityofChicagoPress, 2002,109–48.) (Reprinted in Science andTechnology, 261–326. 1945–1957. C.P. Dutt.NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1939. Springer Verlag,2007(inpress). the PhilosophyofScience, Science.’ In Milenio, 2002,27–37. tercer milenio, and BiologicalSciences 96–104. United States,1940–1960.’ 12 (1974):39–66. Century History, Military EstablishmentsandtheAdvancementofScienceTechnology:StudiesinTwentieth 60’, RomeSeptember1988, Conference ‘TheRestructuringofthePhysicalSciencesinEuropeandUnitedStates,1945– after theFirstWorldWar.’Typescript,1971. Physical Sciences Physicists andMathematicianstoaHostileIntellectualEnvironment.’ Archive forHistoryofExactSciences University ofChicagoPress,2000. WI, oncriticalproblems]. [Selected proceedingsofthejointSHOT/HistoryScienceSociety1991meetinginMadison, Amherst, MA:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1995.) Postmodernism. SociologyofSciences:AYearbook,

‘ Technik: orMumfordReconsidered.’HistoryofTechnology

Washington,DC:NationalScienceFoundation,1982.

Herr EugenDühring’sRevolutioninScience, Positioning theHistoryofScience The FourthGreatAwakeningandtheFutureofEqualitarianism.

A PatronforPureScience:TheNationalScienceFoundation’sFormativeYears, Science BoughtandSold:RethinkingtheEconomicsofScience, edited byJoséManuelSánchezRon.Madrid:SociedadEstatalEspaña Nuevo 3(1971):1–115.

edited byP.FormanandJ.M.Sánchez-Ron.Dordrecht:Kluwer, 1996, (2007):inpress.

2,no.3(2001):1,10–12. edited byThomasSöderqvist.London:Harwood,1997,179–213. Osiris.

Technology andCulture HistoricalStudiesinthePhysicalSciences

Vol. 248,editedbyJürgenRenn andKostasGavroglu.Berlin: edited byM.DeMaria ScienceinAction’. Vol. 10… 6(1969):38–71.

Technology andCulture. [ Festschrift forS.Schweber Vol.17.Dordrecht:Kluwer,1994.(Reissued 38(1997):744–6. TechnologyandCulture et al.

edited byB.WittrockandAa.Elzinga.

(1987),238:695–96.

translated byEmileBurns,edited The HistoriographyofContemporary

Singapore: WorldScientific,1989, 6(1981):121–137.

La cienciaylatecnologiaanteel Historical StudiesinthePhysical

Proceedings oftheInternational

Technology, Pessimism,and 18(1987):149–229.

Vol. 36,No.2(Suppl.)’

HistoricalStudiesinthe The UniversityResearch ] 12(1971):621–7. , BostonStudiesin

edited byPhilip

Chicago, IL:

National Minerva Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Greenberg, DanielS.‘Reactionto Snow:Scientists’RoleinPublicAffairsDrawsIncreasinglyHeavy Greeley, AndrewM.andHout,Michael. ‘Americans’IncreasingBeliefinLifeafterDeath:Religious Gode-von Aesch,Alexander. Godin, Benoit.‘MeasuringScience:IsThere“BasicResearch” WithoutStatistics?’ ———. Goldman, StevenL.‘ReviewofLatour, Graham, LorenR.‘BukharinandthePlanningofScience.’ Gilpin, Robert. Gispen, Kees. Graff, Gerald. Gilman, Nils. ———. Gillispie, CharlesC.‘TheNaturalHistoryofIndustry.’ Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Frank, Thomas. ———. Frison, Guido.‘TechnicalandTechnologicalInnovationinMarx.’ Gieryn, ThomasF. ———. ‘ThreeLaboratories.’ Galison, Peter.‘Introduction:TheManyFacesofBigScience.’In Fuller, RobertC. Frosch, RobertA.‘TheNotes,NottheTune’. Gennes, P.G.de. Füssl, Wilhelm.‘KonstruktiontechnischerKultur:SammlungspolitikdesDeutschenMuseumsin ———. Foucault, Michel. Criticisms.’ Information Competition andAcculturation.’ University Press,1967. Cambridge UniversityPress,1989. Press, 1941. Press, 1987. Johns HopkinsUniversityPress,2003. 1968. University Press,2004. Chicago Press,1999. Scale Research, ode ‘Second, RevisedEdition’,revisedinlightofallsubsequenteditions, University Press,2002. D. Kritzman.London:Routledge,1988. Press, 1992,1–17. Economic Democracy. University Press,1997. Press, 1997. Deutsches Museum,2003,33–54. Museums, 299–324. den Aufbaujahren1903–1909’.In English Edition’). Books, 1971(atranslationof

The SovietAcademyofSciencesand theCommunistParty,1927–1932. Science andPolityinFrance:TheRevolutionaryNapoleonicYears. Politics, Philosophy,Culture:InterviewsandOtherWritings,1977–1984, Image andLogic:AMaterialCultureofMicrophysics. , originallypublished1960.

Mandarins oftheFuture:ModernizationTheoryinColdWarAmerica.

New Profession,OldOrder:EngineersandGermanSociety,1815–1914.

Professing Literature:AnInstitutionalHistory. France intheAgeofScientificState.

Spiritual, ButNotReligious:UnderstandingUnchurchedAmerica. One MarketUnderGod:ExtremeCapitalism,Populism,andtheEndof

edited byUlfHashagen,OskarBlumtritt,andHelmuthTrischler.Munich: Science, The OrderofThings:AnArchaeologytheHumanSciences.

42(2003):57–90.

Soft Interfaces:The1994DiracMemorialLecture. Cultural BoundariesofScience:CredibilityontheLine.

edited byPeterGalisonandBruceHevly.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity

Truth andMethod. 142(4October1963):34–5. NewYork:Doubleday,2000.

Natural ScienceinGermanRomanticism. SocialResearch Les Motsetleschoses Science inAction. AmericanSociologicalReview

Circa 1903:ArtefakteinderGründungszeitdesDeutschen

New York:Continuum,1989.Beingatranslationofthe 64(1997):1127–65. EASSTReview Isis ’

Princeton, NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress, History ofEuropeanIdeas 48(1957):398–407. RussianReview

19,No.2(2000):3–8. (Paris, 1966),witha‘Forewordtothe

Chicago, IL:UniversityofChicago Chicago, IL:UniversityofChicago

History andTechnology Big Science:TheGrowthofLarge

History andTechnology New York:ColumbiaUniversity 64(1999):813–35.

Cambridge, UK:Cambridge

23(1964):135–48. Chicago, IL:Universityof

Princeton, NJ:Princeton

Princeton NJ:

New York:Pantheon Wahrheit undMeth-

edited byLawrence

New York:Oxford

9 (1988):748–50.

Baltimore, MD:

Social Science

New York:

6 (1988): 135 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Gross, PaulR.,andLevitt,Norman. Guerlac, Henry.‘ScienceandFrenchNationalStrength’(1951).Asreprintedin ———. 136 Habermas, Jürgen.‘ErkenntnisundInteresse.’In Grene, Marjorie.‘Heidegger,Martin.’In Greene, JohnC. Harvey, David. Hartl, Gerhard.‘Protuberanzenspektroskopiezwischennaturwissenschaftlichemundtechnischem Harding, Adrian.‘TheMelancholyofTechnology.’ ——— andJamison,Andrew. ———. ———. Harvie, Christopher.‘“TheSonsofMartha”:Technology,Transport,andRudyardKipling.’ ———. ‘ReviewofLatour, Hacking, Ian. ———. ‘WarumichdieMax-Planck-Gesellschaftverlasse.’ ———. ‘NeuzeitlicheNaturwissenschaft undmoderneTechnik.’ Heidegger, Martin.‘DieZeitdesWeltbildes(1938).’In Heidegger, Harwit, Martin. ———, Blumtritt,OskarandTrischler,Helmuth.‘Artefakte Harwood, Jonathan. Hård, Mikael.‘GermanRegulation:TheIntegrationofModernTechnologyintoNationalCulture.’ Hashagen, Ulf. ———. ‘OntheGenesisofTechnoscience:ACaseStudy GermanAgriculturalEducation.’ P. Forman Science. 1967, 459–65. 491–512. Papers intheHistoryofModernScience. Studies (1977): 1–4. 280–306. Hashagen, OskarBlumtrittandHelmuthTrischler.Munich:DeutschesMuseum,2003, Wissen.’ In May 2004). Technology New York:Routledge,2005. Andrew Jamison.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1998,33–67. a.M.: SuhrkampVerlag,1968,146–68. Oxford, UK:Blackwell,1990. Heidegger, 84. Translatedas‘TheAgeofthe WorldPicture’byJulianYoungandKennethHaynes.In as ‘TheAgeoftheWorldView’by MarjorieGrene. Gesamtausgabe, Hashagen, OskarBlumtrittandHelmuthTrischler.Munich:Deutsches Museum,2003,9–30. Museums, DeutschesMuseum,AbhandlungenundBerichte, Überlegungen-Ergebnissse.’ In Shapiro as Books, 1981. an derTHMünchen. Germany, 1860–1934. In Perspectives onScience ThePoliticsofPureScience.

VorträgeundAufsätze, Erkenntnis undInteresse.

The IntellectualAppropriationofTechnology,1900–1939, RepresentingandIntervening. 20(1977):269–82. Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1994.

Walther vonDyck(1856–1934):Mathematik,TechnikundWissenschaftsorganization AmericanScienceintheAgeofJefferson.

The ConditionofPostmodernity:AnEnquiryintotheOriginsCulturalChange. Cosmic Discovery:TheSearch,Scope,andHeritageofAstronomy.

Knowledge andHumanInterests.

Off theBeatenTrack. No. 2(1995).Availableathttp://tekhnema.free.fr/contents2.html(accessed23 Circa 1903:ArtefakteinderGründungszeitdesDeutschenMuseums,

Technology’s Dilemma:AgriculturalCollegesbetweenScienceandPracticein

I. Abteilung,Band5.Frankfurta.M.:VittorioKlostermann,1977. (Translated Stuttgart:FranzSteinerVerlag,2003. Science inAction.’Philosophyof Oxford,UK:Lang,2005. 13(2005):329–51. 2nd,unalterededn.Pfullingen:Neske, 1959.(Firstedition,1954.)

Hubris andHybrids:ACulturalHistoryofTechnologyScience.

Frankfurt a.M.:SuhrkampVerlag,1968.(TranslatedbyJeremyJ. NewYork:AmericanLibrary,1967.

Higher Superstition:TheAcademicLeftandItsQuarrelswith NewYork:CambridgeUniversity Press,2002,57–85.) Circa 1903:ArtefakteinderGründungszeitdesDeutschen

Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy, NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1983.

Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1977,

Boston,MA:BeaconPress,1971.) Technik undWissenschaftals‘Ideologie’. Ames,IA:IowaStateUniversityPress,1984.

Measure: ACriticalJournal Tekhnema. JournalofPhilosophyand DieZeit circa 59(1992):510–12. (8May1981):42.

1903: MethodischeKonzepte-

Research inPhenomenology Vol. 3.NewYork:Macmillan, n.F., Bd.19,editedbyUlf edited byMikaelHårdand

Holzwege. Heidegger.

New York:Basic

2 (1951):269–

edited byUlf

Essays and

Frankfurt

Victorian 7 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Hindle, Brooke. Higham, John.‘HangingTogether:DivergentUnitiesinAmericanHistory.’ ———. Heilbroner, RobertL.‘TechnologicalDeterminismRevisited’.In ———. ‘HistoriansofTechnologyandtheContextHistory.’In ———. Hensel, Susann.‘DieAuseinandersetzungenumdiemathematischeAusbildungderIngenieurean Heisenberg, Werner.‘DerBegriff“abgeschlosseneTheorie”indermodernenNaturwissenschaft.’In Höpfner, Felix. Hickman, Larry.‘Pragmatism,Technology,andScientism.’In ———. ‘TheDefenseofDemocracyandRobertK.Merton’sFormulation oftheScientificEthos.’ Hollinger, DavidA.‘JustificationbyVerification:TheScientificChallengetotheMoralAuthorityof Hevly, Bruce.‘Afterword:ReflectionsonBigScienceandHistory.’In Herf, Jeffrey. Hewlett, RichardG.andAnderson,OscarE. Holton, Gerald.‘ScientificResearchandScholarship:Notestowards theDesignofProperScales.’ ———. ‘TheEvolutionofIndustrial Research.’In ———. ‘HughesianHistoryofTechnology andChandlerianBusinessHistory:Parallels,Departures, Hounshell, DavidA.‘OntheDisciplineofHistoryAmerican Technology.’ History Indiana UniversityPress,2001. Lovitt. NewYork:HarperandRow,1977. Dilemma ofTechnologicalDeterminism, University ofNorthCarolinaPress,1966. reprinted, Greenwood,1999,72–87. Ihmig andM.Otte, den TechnischenHochschuleninDeutschlandEndedes19.Jahrhunderts.’InS.Hensel,K.-N. Heisenberg, MIT Press,1994,67–78. Presses, 1989,230–43. Robert C.Post.BethlehemPA:LehighUniversityPress;London:Associated History ofTechnology:EssaysinHonorMelvinKranzberg, Postmodernism, Press, 1962. Knowledge andSociety Christianity inModernAmerica.’In Heidelberg: CarlWinter,1990. Life, Large-Scale Research, Reich. Vandenhoeck u.Ruprecht,1989,1–110. Press, 1992,355–63. University Press,1996,80–96.) Culture: StudiesinTwentieth-CenturyAmericanIntellectualHistory. States AtomicEnergyCommission, alus tific Thought:KeplertoEinstein. title ‘ModelsforUnderstandingtheGrowthofResearch’.InHolton, and Critics.’ Business SchoolPress,1996,13–85. the EndofanEra, History

The QuestionConcerningTechnology,andOtherEssays, Philosophical ToolsforTechnologicalCulture:PuttingPragmatismtoWork.

editedbyMichaelJ.Lacey.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1989,116–35. 91 (1962):362–99.(‘Asomewhatcondensedandrevisedversion’ was publishedunderthe NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984.

61(1974):5–28. 67(1981):854–65;68(1982):900–2. Reactionary Modernism:Technology,Culture,andPoliticsinWeimartheThird

Wissenschaft widerdieZeit:GoethesFarbenlehreausrezeptionsgeschichtlicherSicht. Technology inEarlyAmerica:NeedsandOpportunitiesforStudy. SchritteüberGrenzen. HistoryandTechnology

edited byRobertHollingerandDavidDepew.Westport,CT:Praeger,1995;

edited byRichardS.Rosenbloom andWilliamJ.Spencer.Boston:Harvard

Mathematik undTechnikim19.JahrhundertinDeutschland.

edited byP.GalisonandB.Hevly.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity

4 (1983):1–15.(AsreprintedinHollinger, Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1973,397–430.)

Munich:Piper,1971,81–94. Vol. 1.UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaState 12(1995):205–24.

Religion andTwentieth-CenturyAmericanIntellectual

edited byM.R.SmithandL.Marx.Cambridge,MA: The NewWorld,1939/1946:AHistoryoftheUnited

Engines ofInnovation:U.S.Industrial Researchat

DoesTechnologyDriveHistory?The Pragmatism: FromProgressivismto

edited byStephenH.Cutcliffeand edited andtranslatedbyWilliam History andTechnology

In Context:Historyandthe

Big Science:TheGrowthof

Thematic OriginsofScien- Science, Jews,andSecular Princeton, NJ:Princeton

Journal ofAmerican

Journal ofAmerican

Chapel Hill,NC:

Bloomington:

Göttingen:

Daed- 137 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 James, William. ———. ‘Technology’sTheorists: ConceptionsofInnovationinRelationtoScienceandTechnology Jamison, Andrew.‘TheMaking of LewisMumford’s ———. ——— andHughes,AgathaC.,eds. ———. ———. ‘TechnologicalMomentum.’In ———. ‘TheSeamlessWeb:Technology,Science,Etcetera,Etcetera.’ ———. ‘ConvergentThemesintheHistoryofScience,Medicine,andTechnology.’ Jacoby, Russell. Jacob, MargaretC.andStewart,Larry. Ihde, Don.‘Editor’sForeword.’InLarryHickman, Huxley, T.H.‘ScienceandCulture.AnAddressDeliveredattheOpeningofSirJosiahMason’s ——— and———.‘GeneralIntroduction:Mumford’sModernWorld.’In ———. ———. ‘Machines,Megamachines,andSystems.’In Howard, Don.‘TwoLeftTurnsMakeaRight:OntheCuriousPoliticalCareerofNorthAmerican ———. ‘IndustrialResearch:Commentary[onthepapersofG.R.AsnerandD.Edgerton].’In 138 Hughes, ThomasP.,ed. P. Forman re-edition in‘TheWorksofWilliamJames’. Books, 1987. Policy.’ (accessed 11October2005). No. 1(March1995).Asmade available athttp://www.easst.net/review/march1995/jamison 1979. 1990. Indiana SeriesinthePhilosophyofTechnology. Chicago Press,2004. Press, 1994,101–13. Technological Determinism, of ChicagoPress,2004.) York: Viking,1989.(Reissued,withxxadditionalpagesoffrontmatter,Chicago:University Culture Row, 1975. Bloomington, IN:IndianaUniversityPress,1991. and Empire,1687–1851. and OtherEssays. Science College,atBirmingham,onthe1stofOctober1880.’InHuxley, Press, 1990,3–14. Intellectual, Press, 1990. for theAdvancementofScience,26May1986,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.) sponsored bytheHistoryofScienceSocietyatAnnualMeetingAmericanAssociation Bethlehem PA:LehighUniversityPress,1989,106–19.(TheGeorgeSartonMemorialLecture Essays inHonorofMelvinKranzberg, (1986): 281–92. Philosophy ofScienceatMid-Century.’In Publications, 2004,59–65. Grandin, NinaWormbsandSvenWidmalm.SagamoreBeach,MA:ScienceHistory Science–Industry Nexus:History,Policy,Implications.NobelSymposium123, 2003, 25–93. Gary HardcastleandAlanRichardson.Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,

Instrumental Realism:TheInterfacebetweenPhilosophyofScienceand PhilosophyofTechnology. Human-Built World:HowtoThinkaboutTechnologyandCulture. American Genesis:ACenturyofInventionandTechnologicalEnthusiasm,1870–1970. TechnologyandCulture 22(1981):550–8.

The LastIntellectuals:AmericanCultureintheAgeofAcademe. The WilltoBelieveandOtherEssaysinPopularPhilosophy

edited byThomasP.HughesandAgathaC.Hughes.NewYork:OxfordUniversity NewYork:D.Appleton,1882,7–30.

Changing AttitudesTowardAmericanTechnology. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2004.

edited byM.R.SmithandL.Marx,Cambridge,MA:MIT

Lewis Mumford:PublicIntellectual. 30(1989):505–33.

Practical Matter:Newton’sScienceintheServiceofIndustry

Does TechnologyDriveHistory?TheDilemmaof edited byStephenH.CutcliffeandRobertC.Post.

Logical EmpiricisminNorthAmerica,

In Context:HistoryandtheofTechnology:

Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress,

Technics andCivilization Bloomington, IN:IndianaUniversityPress,

John Dewey’sPragmaticTechnology.The

New York:OxfordUniversity

Social StudiesofScience

Chicago, IL:Universityof

Lewis Mumford:Public New York:Harper&

.’ Science andCulture,

EASST Review

New York:Basic (1897)

Technology and edited byKarl

edited by . Critical

New

The

14, 16 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Kamlah, Wilhelm.‘MartinHeideggerunddieTechnik:EinoffenerBrief.’ Jewkes, John,Sawers,DavidandStillerman,Richard. ——— andLorenzen,Paul. Kamlah, Andeas.‘ZurDiskussionumdieProtophysik.’In Jenkins, Philip. Jardine, Nicholas.‘ReviewofLatour, Kaminer, Wendy. Kaiser, Jocelyn.‘JaneliaFarmtoRecruitFirstClass.’ ———. ‘TheStalinistMentalityandtheHigherLearning.’ Joravsky, David. Johnson, Ann.‘RevisitingTechnologyasKnowledge.’ Kasson, JohnF. Kaplan, DavidM.,ed. ———. ———, ed., ———. ———. ‘Physics—NaturalScienceorTechnology?’In Janich, Peter. Janicaud, Dominique. ———. ‘DieStrukturtechnischerInnovationen’.In Jordan, JohnM. Kapitza, Peter. Kelly, Michael.‘ModernScience AndTechnology:AReviewoftheProceedings35thAnnual ———. ‘AmericanAnxieties:TechnologyandtheReshapingofRepublicanValues.’In und WissenschaftinderneuzeitlichenProfanität. 9, No.11(1954):10–13.(AsreprintedinKamlah, edited byKunoLorenz,2vols.Berlin:deGruyter,1979.Vol.1:311–39. zur DiskussionumdiekonstruktiveWissenschaftstheorie.PaulLorenzenzum60.Geburtstag, University Press,2002. 113–22.) York: RandomHouse,1999. 1987), 1291. Suhrkamp Verlag,1998,129–77. philosophischen Selbstverständnis, Chapel Hill,NC:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1994. W.W. Norton,1969(Originallypublished1958). 2004. Dichtungstheorie undzeitgenössischerChemie. Logical Propaedeutic:Pre-SchoolofReasonableDiscourse. Bibliographisches Institut,1967.(Translatedfromthe1973edition byHokeRobinsonas Peter Weingart.Dordrecht:Reidel,1978,3–27. Sociology oftheSciencesYearbook, 1973. Hård andAndrewJamison.CambridgeMA:MITPress,1998,69–100. Suhrkamp Verlag,1996. Studies inthePhilosophyofScience, America, 1984.) (accessed 4October2006). Available athttp://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/endsandmeans/vol5no2/docs/vol5no2.pdf Meeting ofTheNorthAmerican HeideggerSociety.’ York: PenguinBooks,1977.(Reprinted withnewpreface,NewYork:HillandWang,1999.) Intellectual AppropriationofTechnology:DiscoursesonModernity,1900–1939,

Konstruktivismus undNaturerkenntnis:AufdemWegzumKulturalismus. Protophysics ofTime:ConstructiveFoundationandHistoryTimeMeasurement.Boston EntwicklungendermethodischenPhilosophie.

Zweck undMethodederPhysikausphilosophischerSicht.

Die frühromantischeTheoriederMischung:ÜberdenZusammenhang vonromantischer

Civilizing theMachine:Technology andRepublicanValuesinAmerica,1776–1900.

TheLysenkoAffair. The NextChristendom:ComingofGlobalChristianity.

Sleeping withExtra-terrestrials:TheRiseofIrrationalismandthePerilsPiety. Machine-Age Ideology:SocialEngineeringandAmericanLiberalism,1911–1939.

HeideggerenFrance, Readings inthePhilosophyofTechnology.

Logische Propädeutik:VorschuledesvernünftigenRedens. Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress,1970.

Science inAction.’TimesLiterarySupplement

edited byDirkHartmannandPeterJanich.Frankfurta.M.: Vol. 2,editedbyWolfgangKrohn,EdwinT.Layton,Jrand Vol.30.Boston:Kluwer,1985. 2vols.Paris:A.Michel,2001. Munich:MaxHueber,1968. Science

Die KulturalistischeWende:ZurOrientierungdes PerspectivesonScience

The SourcesofInvention,

Mannheim: BibliographischesInstitut,1975,

Frankfurta.M.:SuhrkampVerlag,1992. The DynamicsofScienceandTechnology. Von derSprachezurVernunft:Philosophie

SlavicReview Konstruktionen versusPositionen:Beiträge 306(8October2004):210–11.

Means andEnds

Lanham, MD:Rowman&Littlefield,

Lanham, MD:UniversityPressof History andTechnology

Konstanz: Universitätsverlag,

42(1983):575–600. Deutsche Universitätszeitung 13(2005):554–73.

5, No.2(2001):26–30.

2nd edn.NewYork: New York:Oxford

(20–26 November

edited byMikael Frankfurt a.M.:

Mannheim:

New New The 139 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ——— andWoolgar,Steve. Laudan, Rachel.‘NaturalAlliance orForcedMarriage?ChangingRelationsbetweentheHistories of ———. ‘WhyHasCritiqueRunoutofSteam?FromMattersFact toMattersofConcern.’ ———. Latour, Bruno.‘GiveMeaLaboratoryandIWillRaisetheWorld.’ In ———. ‘TheProgrammingofInterdisciplinaryResearch through InformalScience-Policy Kwa, Chunglin.‘InterdisciplinarityandPostmodernityintheEnvironmentalSciences.’ Lafollette, MarcelC. Kroker, Arthur. Krohn, WolfgangandvandenDaele,Wolfgang.‘ScienceasanAgentofChange:Finalization ——— andDavenport,WilliamH.,eds. ——— andMarx,Leo.‘CommentResponseontheReviewof“InContext”.’ ———. ‘Let’sNotGetWroughtUpaboutIt.’ ———. ‘TheDisunityofScience–Technology.’ ———. ‘TheUnityofScience–Technology.’ ———. ‘TheNewestHistory:ScienceandTechnology’. Kranzberg, Melvin.‘AttheStart.’ König, Wolfgang.‘Science-BasedIndustryorIndustry-BasedScience?ElectricalEngineeringin Kojevnikov, AlexeiB. Knowles, ScottG.andLeslie,StuartW.‘“IndustrialVersailles”:EeroSaarinen’sCorporateCampuses Knorr, Karin.‘ReviewofKrohn,Layton,andWeingart,eds. ———. ‘Cybernetics,ManagementScience,andTechnologyPolicy:TheEmergenceof“Information Kline, Ronald.‘Construing“Technology”as“AppliedScience”:PublicRhetoricofScientistsand Kevles, DanielJ. 140 Klevorick, A.K.,Levin,R.C.,Nelson,andWinter,S.G.‘OntheSourcesSignificanceof ———. ‘TheNationalScienceFoundationandtheDebateoverPostwarResearchPolicy,1942– Kipling, Rudyard.‘SonsofMartha’.In P. Forman the HistoryofTechnology,Madison, Wisconsin,30October–3November1991’). ‘Selected Proceedingsfromthe Conference onCriticalProblemsandResearchFrontiersin Science andTechnology.’ CA: Sage,1979. Inquiry Harvard Univ.Press,1987. Karin D.Knorr-CetinaandMichaelMulkay.London:Sage,1983, 141–70. Technology University ofChicagoPress,1990. Interactions.’ Martin’s Press,1992. Experimental Implementation.’ Schocken Books,1972. Culture Germany beforeWorldWarI.’ Imperial CollegePress,2004. for GM,IBM,andAT&T.’ Isis Technology” asaKeyword,1948–1985.’ Engineers intheUnitedStates,1880–1945.’ Interindustry DifferencesinTechnologicalOpportunities.’ modeng/public/KipSons.html (accessed25June2006). Doubleday, Doran,1942,380–381.Asmadeavailableathttp://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/ 1945: APoliticalInterpretationof Knopf, 1977(reprinted,withadditionalfrontmatter,1987,1995).

Science inAction:HowtoFollowScientistsandEngineersthrough Society. 72(1981):298–9. 30(2004):225–48. 33(1992):406–7.

ThePhysicists:HistoryofaScientificCommunityinModernAmerica. The PossessedIndividual:TechnologyandtheFrenchPostmodern. 21(2005):331–44. ScienceandPublicPolicy

Making ScienceOurOwn:PublicImagesofScience,1910–1955. Stalin’s GreatScience:TheTimesandAdventuresofSovietPhysicists.

Laboratory Life:TheSocialConstruction ofScientificFacts.

Isis TechnologyandCulture Technology andCulture 92(2001):1–33. TechnologyandCulture SocialScienceInformation

Rudyard Kipling’sVerse,DefinitiveEdition. Science—The EndlessFrontier AmericanScientist

33(2006):457-67. Technology andCulture:AnAnthology. TechnologyandCulture TechnologyandCulture AmericanScientist Isis 86(1995):194–221. Science 1(1959):1–10.

36, no.2(1995):S17–28(Supplement: The DynamicsofScienceandTechnology.’ 37(1996):70–101. 55(1967):48–66. 136(1962):463–8. 37(1998):191–222.

Research Policy 56(1968):21–34. 25(1984):735–49. .’ 47(2006):513–35. Isis

Science Observed, 68(1977):4–26.

24 (1995):185–205.

Garden City,NY: Cambridge, MA:

Technology and New York:St.

Beverly Hills,

Chicago, IL:

History and New York: NewYork:

edited by

London: Critical Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Lovitt, WilliamandHarriet Brundage. ———. ———. ———. ———. ‘WieistdieObjektivitätderPhysikmöglich?’In ———. ———. ‘TheoriedestechnischenWissens’.In ———. ‘MethodischesDenken/MethodicalThinking.’ ———. Lelas, Srdan.‘ScienceasTechnology.’ Lecuyer, Christophe.‘TheMakingofaScienceBasedTechnologicalUniversity:KarlCompton, ———. Lorenzen, Paul.‘Vorwort’.InHugoDingler, Levitt, Norman. Lorenz, Kuno,ed. Long, Stewart.‘LewisMumfordandInstitutionalEconomics.’ ‘Leonardo daVinciMedal’[awardedtoLewisMumford]. ‘Leonardo daVinciMedal’[awardedtoEdwinT.Layton,Jr]. ———. ‘ThroughtheLookingGlass,orNewsfromLakeMirrorImage.’ ———. ‘AmericanIdeologiesofScienceandEngineering.’ Lecourt, Dominique. ———. ‘Eloge:MelvinKranzberg,22November1917–6December1995.’ ———. ‘TechnologyasKnowledge.’ Layton, EdwinT.,Jr.‘VeblenandtheEngineers.’ ———. ———. ‘Comment:TheInteractionofTechnologyandSociety.’ ———. ‘Mirror-ImageTwins:TheCommunitiesofScienceandTechnologyin19thCentury Problems inContemporaryPhilosophy, 1976, 40–82. Wissenschaftstheorie derPhysik, Philosophy. Frankfurt a.M.:SuhrkampVerlag,1968,142–51.(Translatedin Lorenzen, Paul. 57 [Englishedition]. by PaulLorenzen.Munich:Eidos-Verlag,1964,9–11. of Science, 23 (1992):153–80. James Killian,andtheReformofMIT,1930–1957.’ Hachette, 1990. tion? by GregoryElliottof 579–86. Wissenschaftstheorie. PaulLorenzenzum60.Geburtstag. June 2006). 167–82. Asmadeavailableathttp://diglib.lib.utk.edu/utj/jei/36/jei-36-1-9.pdf(accessed25 Brunswick, NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,1999. 688–701. American Science:AReappraisal, (1987): 594–607. University Press,1972,210–30.) 27–31. America.’ Baltimore, MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1971(Reprinted,withnewpreface,1986). ConstructivePhilosophy. Grundbegriffetechnischerundpolitischer Kultur. MethodischesDenken. TheMediocracy:FrenchPhilosophysincetheMid-1970s.

Normative LogicandEthics. Science andModernity:TowardanIntegralTheoryofScience.BostonStudiesinthePhilosophy The RevoltoftheEngineers:SocialResponsibilityandAmericanEngineeringProfession. Paris:Maspero,1978.)

Vol.214.Dordrecht:Kluwer,2000. Prometheus Bedeviled:ScienceandtheContradictionsofContemporaryCulture. Technology andCulture Amherst,MA:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1987,231–7.)

Konstruktionen versusPositionen:BeiträgezurDiskussionumdiekonstruktive

Contra lapeur:descienceàl’éthique,uneaventureinfinie. Les piètrespenseurs. Frankfurta.M.:SuhrkampVerlag,1968. Amherst,MA:UniversityofMassachusetts Press,1987.

2nd. annotatededn.Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut,1984. TechnologyandCulture BritishJournalofthePhilosophyScience

edited byGernotBöhme.Frankfurta.M.:SuhrkampVerlag,

edited byGeorgeH.Daniels.Evanston,IL:Northwestern 12 (1971):562–80.(Alsopublishedin Vol.17.Lewiston,NY:TheEdwin MellenPress,1995.

Aufbau derexaktenFundamentalwissenschaften,

Modern TechnologyintheHeideggerian Perspective.

AmericanQuarterly Paris: Flammarion,1999and

Protophysik: Fürundwidereinekonstruktive

Ratio Frankfurta.M.:SuhrkampVerlag, 1985.

Technology andCulture

Methodisches Denken, Historical StudiesinthePhysicalSciences 15(1974):31–41.

2vols.Berlin:deGruyter,1979. 7 (1965):1–23[Germanedition];35–

Journal ofEconomicIssues London:Verso,1999.(Atranslation Technology andCulture

Technology andCulture

Technology andCulture History andTechnology 14(1962):64–72.

Technology andCulture Isis 87(1996):501–3. Dissidence ourévolu- 44(1993):423–42. Nineteenth Century

11 (1970):205–13. by PaulLorenzen. Constructive

17 (1976): 32 (1991): 36 (2002): 11 (1970):

edited Paris:

New 141

28 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ———. ———. Marx, Leo. May, HenryF. ———. ‘TheIdeaof“Technology”andPostmodernPessimism.’ In ———. ‘Reviewof ———. ‘LewisMumford:ProphetofOrganicism’.In Mayer, Anna-K.‘SettingUpaDiscipline, II:BritishHistoryofScienceand“TheEndIdeology,” ———. Marx, Karl. ———. ‘TechnologyAcademicised:EducationandTrainingoftheEngineer[inGermany]in ———. ‘OnHeidegger’sConceptionofTechnologyandItsHistoricalValidity.’ ——— andSmith,MerrittRoe.‘Introduction.’In ———. ‘Technology:TheEmergenceofaHazardousConcept.’ Mayr, Otto.‘TheScience–Technology RelationshipasaHistoriographicalProblem.’ MacKenzie, DonaldA.‘MarxandtheMachine.’ Manegold, Karl-Heinz. Lyotard, Jean-François. 142 Mallgrave, Harry. P. Forman Kranzberg Ullstein, 1981. Books, 1977. Economy of Political me23_000.htm; accessed26July2006.)TranslatedbyBenFowkesas Verlag, 1968,11–802,andmadeavailableathttp://www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/ 1994, ix–xv. Technological Determinism, 401–3. Thomas P.HughesandAgathaC.Hughes.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1990,164–80, Review 1931–1948.’ Press, 1992.) (1959). (Reprinted,withForeword byDavidA.Hollinger,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Kapitals Penguin Books,1973.) Foundations oftheCritiquePoliticalEconomy(RoughDraft). a.M.]: EuropäischeVerlagsanstalt,1953.(TranslatedbyMartinNicholasas Edwin T.Layton,JrandPeterWeingart.Dordrecht:Reidel,1978,137–58. Nineteenth Century.’In Berlin: Duncker&Humblot,1970. der Technikim19.JahrhundertunterbesondererBerücksichtigungBestrebungenFelixKleins. Oxford UniversityPress,1964.(Reprintedin2000withanewafterword.) and L.Marx..Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1994,237–57.) Technology DriveHistory?TheDilemmaofTechnologicalDeterminism, Mendelsohn andHowardP.Segal.Dordrecht:Kluwer,1994, 11–28.(Reprintedin Postmodernism. SociologyofSciences:AYearbook, Culture University ofMinnesotaPress,1984.) 1979. (Translatedas Cambridge UniversityPress,2005. (Reprinted inMacKenzie, MIT Press,1996,23–48,267–75.) MathematicalManuscriptsofKarlMarx. Dietechnologisch–historischenExzerpte, Das Kapital.

The MachineintheGarden:TechnologyandPastoralIdealAmerica. Grundrisse derKritikpolitischenÖkonomie(Rohentwurf)1857–1858. 25(1984):638–52. 17(1976):663–73.

, 4thedn,1890.(AsreprintedinMarx–Engels, The EndofAmericanInnocence.AStudytheFirstYearsOurOwn Time,1912–1917 .’ TechnologyandCulture

StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophy ofScience Modern ArchitecturalTheory:AHistoricalSurvey,1673–1968. In Context:HistoryandtheofTechnology—EssaysinHonorMelvin

Band I.

Universität, TechnischeHochschuleundIndustrie:EinBeitragzurEmanzipation Laconditionpostmoderne:rapportsurlesavoir. , vol.1.Harmondsworth,UK:Penguin,1976;NewYork:Vintage The PostmodernCondition:AReportonKnowledge.

Kritik derpolitischenÖkonomie. The DynamicsofScienceandTechnology,

Knowing Machines:EssaysonTechnicalChange. edited byM.R.SmithandL.Marx..Cambridge,MA:MITPress, 32(1991):394–6. editedbyHans-PeterMüller.Frankfurta.M.:Verlag London:NewPark,1983.

Does TechnologyDriveHistory?TheDilemmaof Technology andCulture

Lewis Mumford:PublicIntellectual,

Vol.17, editedbyYaronEzrahi,Everett PartA35(2004):41–72.

SocialResearch

Werke, Buch I: Paris:LesEditionsdeMinuit,

Harmondsworth, Middlesex:

Vol. 23.Berlin/DDR:Dietz Technology, Pessimism,and edited byWolfgangKrohn, Der Produktionsprozeßdes

edited byM.R.Smith 25 (1984):473–502. 64(1997):965–88. Capital: ACritique

Minneapolis, MN: The Massachusetts

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge, UK:

Technology and

Grundrisse: New York: [Frankfurt

edited by Does Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ———. ‘AmericanTechnologyandtheNineteenth-CenturyWorld.’ ———. ‘GiltdasTrennungsaxiom?ZumVerhältnisvonWissenschafts-undTechnikgeschichte.’In McGee, David.‘MakingUpMind:TheEarlySociologyofInvention.’ ———. ‘ Meikle, JeffreyL.‘ClassicsRevisited:LeoMarx’s ———. ‘TechnologyandDemocracy,1800–1860.’ Meier, HugoA.‘TheTechnologicalConceptinAmericanSocialHistory,1750–1860.’PhDdisserta- Mehrtens, Herbert. Medawar, Peter.‘TwoConceptionsofScience’(1965).In McCray, W.Patrick.‘WillSmallBeBeautiful?MakingPoliciesforOurNanotechFuture.’ Mendelsohn, Everett.‘ProphetofOurDiscontent:LewisMumfordConfrontstheBomb.’In Miller, Perry.‘TheResponsibilityofMindinaCivilization Machines.’ ———. ‘MathematicsandWar:Germany,1900–1945.’In McCormmach, Russell.‘OnAcademicScientistsinWilhelmianGermany.’ ———. Miller, DonaldL. Miller, DavidPhilip.‘“PuffingJamie”:TheCommercialandIdeologicalImportanceofBeinga Milburn, Colin.‘NanotechnologyinanAgeofPosthumanEngineering:ScienceFictionasScience.’ ———. ‘Caveatemptor:Rethinking theHistoricalRelationshipBetweenCommercialActivity Mirowski, Philip.‘TheScientific DimensionsofSocialKnowledgeandtheirDistantEchosin20th- Mindell, DavidA. 618–40. an derTechnischenUniversitätBerlin,1969–1994, Brückenschläge: 25JahreLehrstuhlfürGeschichtederexaktenWissenschaftenundTechnik New York:GrovePress,2002.) 116–30. tion, DepartmentofHistory,UniversityWisconsin,1950. Forman andJ.M.Sánchez-Ron.Dordrecht:Kluwer,1996,87–134. Advancement ofScienceandTechnology:StudiesinTwentiethCenturyHistory, der DisziplinunddesSubjektsformalerSysteme. Press, 1984,28–41. (1995): 773–801. and Technology the AmericanAcademyofArtsandSciences 44 (2003):147–59. Mumford: PublicIntellectual, Press, 1990,152–63,399–401. Intellectual, 1995, 229–51. Burghard Weiss.Berlin:VerlagfürWissenschafts-undRegionalgeschichteDr.MichaelEngel, York: Harper&Row,1975,65–83.) (1962). (AsreprintedinT.P.Hughes, Available athttp://www.shpltd.co.uk/miller-puffing-jamie.pdf(accessed30July2006). ‘Philosopher’ intheCaseofReputationJamesWatt.’ Configurations Oxford UniversityPress,1990,343–60,427–29. 21 November2004. Science.’ Paper presentedattheHistoryofScienceSocietyannualmeeting,Austin, Texas, and (2004): 283–326. Century AmericanPhilosophyof Science.’ Baltimore, MD:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2002. Brace &World,1965.

The LifeoftheMindinAmerica:FromRevolutiontoCivil War. The MythoftheMachine.I.TechnicsandHumanDevelopment

Between HumanandMachine:Feedback,Control,Computingbefore Cybernetics.

edited byThomasP.HughesandAgathaC.Hughes.NewYork:Oxford University Lewis Mumford:ALife.

Moderne—Sprache—Mathematik: EineGeschichtedesStreitsumdieGrundlagen 10(2002):261–95. 21(2005):177–203.

edited byThomasP.HughesandAgathaC.Hughes.NewYork:

New York:WeidenfeldandNicolson,1989.(Reprinted Changing AttitudesTowardAmericanTechnology. The MachineintheGarden 103(1974):157–72.

Studies intheHistoryandPhilosophy ofScience

Mississippi ValleyHistoricalReview Frankfurta.M.:SuhrkampVerlag,1990.

Pluto’s Republic.

National MilitaryEstablishmentsandthe

edited byHans-WernerSchüttand HistoryofScience History andTechnology

American Quarterly

.’ In Technology andCulture

Oxford: OxfordUniversity .’

Daedalus. Proceedingsof

Technology andCulture Lewis Mumford:Public

New York:Harcourt, American Scholar 28(2000),1–24.

edited byP.

43 (1957): 10 (1958):

History

Lewis

New A 35

143

36 31 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Müller, Hans-Peter.‘MaterialismusundTechnologiebeiKarlMarx.’ InKarlMarx, Molesworth, Charles.‘InnerandOuter:TheAxiologyofLewisMumford.’In ——— andReingold,Nathan.‘TheoristsIngeniousMechanics:JosephHenryDefinesScience.’ ———. ‘MumfordinHistoriographicalContext.’In Mösgen, Peter.‘WilhelmKamlah:LebenundWerk.’In Morgenthau, HansJ. ———. ‘Reviewof Multhauf, RobertP.‘TheScientistandthe“Improver”ofTechnology’. ———. ———. ‘TheProudPageantryofMan’[reviewH.W.VanLoon, Mumford, Lewis.‘Viavitae’. ———. ———. ‘TheArts.’In Molella, ArthurP.‘TheFirstGeneration:Usher,Mumford,andGiedion’.In Mitcham, Carl. ———. ‘ThePragmaticAcquiescence: AReply.’ Misch, Georg. ——— andSchot,Johan.‘Introduction.InventingEurope:TechnologytheHiddenIntegration ———, Brey,PhilipandFeenberg,Andrew,eds. ———. ‘BeyondLinearModels:Science,Technology,andProcessesofChange.’In ———. ‘TheCompellingTangleofModernityandTechnology.’In ——— andSent,Esther-Miriam,eds. 144 Misa, ThomasJ.‘TheoriesofTechnologicalChange:ParametersandPurposes.’ P. Forman Anthropologie WilhelmKamlahs. gen.de/pmoekaml.htm (accessed31July2006). gisch–historischen Exzerpte, New Brunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,1991,127–55.) Social StudiesofScience 378–81. Thomas P.HughesandAgathaC.Hughes.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1990,21–42, and RobertC.Post.Bethlehem,PA:LehighUniversityPress,1989,88–105. the HistoryofTechnology:EssaysinHonorMelvinKranzberg, Press, 1990,241–55,414. Intellectual, (1959): 38–47. 1981, i–cxx. 4 (18January1922):449–50. (1972): 295–9. Peter Smith,1959.) 1968. (Originallypublished1926 underthetitle… Beard. NewYork:LongmansGreen, 1928,287–312. Chicago, IL:UniversityofChicagoPress,1994. 1994. of Europe.’ Press, 2003. 257–76. Nina WormbsandSvenWidmalm.SagamoreBeach,MA:ScienceHistoryPublications,2004, Industry Nexus:History,Policy,Implications.NobelSymposium123, 2003, 1–32. edited byPhilipBrey,ThomasMisaandAndrewFeenberg.Cambridge,MA:MITPress, & HumanValues Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress,2002.

The GoldenDay:AStudyinAmerican LiteratureandCulture, The StoryofUtopias.

Der AufbauderLogikaufdemBodenPhilosophiedesLebens.

Thinking ThroughTechnology:ThePathBetweenEngineeringandPhilosophy. HistoryandTechnology

edited byThomasP.HughesandAgathaC.Hughes.NewYork:OxfordUniversity The MythoftheMachine:PentagonPower.

Scientific Manvs.PowerPolitics.

Whither Mankind?APanorama of ModernCivilization, 17(1992):3–12. TheFreeman

New York:BoniandLiveright,1922.(Reprinted,Gloucester,MA: 3 (1973):323–51.(ReprintedinReingold,

edited byHans-PeterMüller.Frankfurta.M.:VerlagUllstein,

Science BoughtandSold:RethinkingtheEconomicsofScience.

21(2005):1–19. Eichstätt, 1997.Asmadeavailableathttp://www.moes- 4(19October1921):141–2. NewRepublic

Modernity andTechnology.

Chicago, IL:UniversityofChicagoPress,1946.

Lewis Mumford:PublicIntellectual, American ExperienceandCulture. 49(19January1927):250–1. The StoryofMankind

edited byStephenH.Cutcliffe Ars vitae—arsmoriendi:Zur

’

3rd edn.NewYork:Dover, Modernity andTechnology, Technology andCulture

Technology andCulture

edited byKarlGrandin, Science, AmericanStyle.

LewisMumford:Public In Context:Historyand

Cambridge, MA:MIT

Freiburg i.Br.:Alber, edited byCharlesA.

Science, Technology, ].

Die technolo-

The Science– The Freeman

edited by )

13 1 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ———. Needell, AllanA.‘NuclearReactors andtheFoundingofBrookhavenNationalLaboratory.’ National AssociationofManufacturers. ———. ‘Bacon:ScienceasTechnology.’ ———. ‘History:NeglectedCluetoTechnologicalChange.’ ———. ———. ‘ToolsandtheMan.’ ———. ———. Myers, Greg.‘ReviewofLatour, ———. ———. ‘TechnicsandtheNatureofMan.’ ———. ‘MantheFinder.’ ———. ‘AuthoritarianandDemocraticTechnics.’ ———. ———. ‘AnAppraisalofLewisMumford’s“TechnicsandCivilization”(1934).’ ———. ———. ———. ‘ProloguetoOurTime.’InMumford, ———. ———. ‘Introductiontothe1957Edition:TheGoldenDayRevisited.’AsreprintedinMumford, ———. ———. ———. ‘ScienceoutoftheCloister’[reviewJ.G.Crowther, ———. ———. ‘TowardCivilization?’[reviewof ———. ‘DramaoftheMachines.’ ———. ‘TheGrainofThings’[ReviewJ.S.Haldane, Ideals. Studies inthePhysicalSciences Institute ofPhysics,1938’). November 1938.InSmithsonian InstitutionArchives,RU7091,Box192,folder11(‘American (1988): 465–74. 1961, asreprintedinMumford, 230–36. of theAmericanAcademyArtsandSciences and ContemporarySociety. Jovanovich, 1975. Press, 1982. Jovanovich, 1967. Publications, 1968,vii–xxx. 1970. Personal Chronicle. New York:BraceJovanovich,1975,367–89.(AlsoinMumford, Harcourt, Brace,1946(reprinted,1972). The GoldenDay:AStudyinAmericanLiteratureandCulture, (3 June1936):108. new preface,1963). 227–40. Interpretations andForecasts,1922–1972. Whitehead, 49–50.

TheCityinHistory. MyWorksandDays:APersonalChronicle.

TheConductofLife. TheConditionofMan.

The MythoftheMachine:II.PentagonPower. Technics andCivilization. Sketches FromLife:TheAutobiographyofLewisMumford:Early Years. The MythoftheMachineI:TechnicsandHumanDevelopment. Science, ColdWarandtheAmerican State:LloydV.BerknerandtheBalanceofProfessional Interpretations andForecasts1922–1972:StudiesinLiterature,History,Biography,Technics, Values forSurvival:Essays,Addresses,andLettersonPoliticsEducation. Findings andKeepings:AnalectsforanAutobiography. Amsterdam:HarwoodAcademic, 2000. The FunctionofReason NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich,1978,3–24.) TechnologyandCulture NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,1961. NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,1951. TechnologyandCulture NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,1944. NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,Jovanovich,1973.

New York:Harcourt,Brace,andCompany,1934(reprintedwith Science inAction. Scribner’s Magazine 14(1984):93–122. Interpretations andforecasts

News Letter.

]. Proceedings oftheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety, Toward Civilization. TechnologyandCulture NewRepublic FindingsandKeepings:AnalectsforanAutobiography.

6(1965):375–81. New York:Harcourt,Brace,Jovanovich,1973, TechnologyandCulture NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich,1978. 88(1959):529–30.

’ 1(1960):320–34 Special IssueNo.1(‘ScienceSupplement’).19

College CompositionandCommunication

(August 1930).AsreprintedinMumford, 62(7May1930):331–2. The SciencesandPhilosophy

New York:HarcourtBraceJovanovich, ] Men ofScience TheNewRepublic

Technology andCulture (1973). 7(1966):303–17. History andTechnology

New York:HarcourtBrace

3rd edn.NewYork:Dover

New York:HarcourtBrace 5(1964):1–8. My WorksandDays:A ].

Daedalus. Proceedings TheNewRepublic 63(28May1930):

New York:Dial

New York:

and A.N.

2 (1961): Historical

October

145 87 39 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Nye, DavidE.‘ShapingCommunicationNetworks:Telegraph,Telephone,Computer.’ Novick, Peter. Pursell, Carroll.‘“WhattheSenate IstotheAmericanCommonwealth”:ANationalAcademy of Overman, Ronald.‘ReviewofLatour, ———. ‘DiePhysikimKontextderDisziplinen:…DeutschenForschungsrat1949–1951.’In ———, andKrige,John.‘SomeThoughtsontheEarlyHistoryofCERN.’In ———. ———. ‘TheMoralandPoliticalEconomyofFrenchScientistsintheFirstHalfXXth Pauly, Philip. Proctor, RobertN. ———. Noble, DavidF. NewYorkTimes. ———, ed. Osietzki, Maria.‘DieGründungsgeschichtedesDeutschenMuseumsvonMeisterwerkender Oldroyd, David.‘ReviewofLatour, Oldenziel, Nevo, Isaac.‘RichardRorty’sRomanticPragmatism.’In 146 Preece, WarrenE.‘IdeasofTechnology:AReporttheDiscussion’ [at‘TheEncyclopediaBritannica Pocock, J.G.A. ———. ‘OfSealingWaxandString.’ Pestre, Dominique. ———. ‘IsTechnologyHistoricallyIndependentofScience?AStudy inStatisticalHistoriography.’ Pinch, Trevor.‘ReviewofLatour, Price, DerekJ.deSolla. ———. ‘TheSocialConstructionofTechnology:AReview.’In P. Forman New York:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988. York: Knopf,1977. Engineers.’ In Harvard UniversityPress,1991. Sciences 2003, 57–72. im Nachkriegsdeutschland, Research 13. Malden,MA:Blackwell,2005. Century.’ Contemporaines, 1984. Garfield. NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1986,237–53.) Price, of LargeScaleResearch, 284–97 (reprintedbyGreenwood,1999). Philadelphia, PA:AmericanPhilosophical Society,1986,19–29. Naturwisssenschaft undTechnikinMünchen1903–1906.’ Postmodernism, Conference ontheTechnologicalOrder’]. 1996, 17–35. Themes intheHistoryofTechnology, 1945. University ofCaliforniaPress,1996). Technology andCulture University Press,1992,78–99. Association Science,argentetpolitique:Unessaid’interprétation. TechnologyMatters:QuestionstoLiveWith.

Making TechnologyMasculine:Men,WomenandModernMachinesinAmerica,1870–

Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress,1999. A CompaniontoAmericanTechnology. BlackwellCompanionstoAmericanHistory,

Little Science,BigScience…andBeyond, The EngineeringIdealinBiology.

24(1988):313–6. That NobleDream:The‘ObjectivityQuestion’andtheAmericanHistoricalProfession. 64(1997):1067–91. Politics,Language,andTime. HistoryandTechnology

America byDesign:Science,Technology,andtheRiseofCorporateCapitalism. Editorial:‘ResearchMilestone’.14October1950,13. 21(1987):484–5.

Value-Free Science?PurityandPowerinModernKnowledge.

New PerspectivesonTechnologyand AmericanCulture, Physique etphysiciansenFrance,1918–1940.

edited byRobertHollingerandDavidDepew.Westport,CT:Praeger,1995, LittleScience,BigScience. 6(1965):553–68.

edited byPeterGalisonandBruceHevly.Stanford,CA:Stanford

edited byDieterHoffmann.Frankfurta.M.:VerlagHarriDeutsch, Science inAction. Science inAction.

Natural History 13(1997):241–8. Science inAction.

edited byRobertFox.Amsterdam:HarwoodAcademic, Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress,1989.

New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1987(reissuedby TechnologyandCulture NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1963. Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2006. ’

’ Sociology: TheJournaloftheBritishSociological

SocialEpistemology 93, No.1(January1984):49–56.(Abridgedin

edited byRobertK.MertonandEugene ’

Journal oftheHistoryBehavioral Paris:INRA,2003.

Pragmatism: FromProgressivismto

Technological Change:Methodsand Technikgeschichte

Paris: EditionsdesArchives 3(1962):466–485. 1(1987):341–6.

edited byBruceSinclair.

Big Science:TheGrowth

52 (1985):49–75. Cambridge, MA:

Physik Social

New

No. Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Roberts, Julian.‘Lorenzen,Paul(1915–95).’In Rose, Hilary.‘ReviewofLatour, Rockmore, Tom. Rosenberg, Nathan.‘KarlMarxontheEconomicRoleofScience.’ In ———. ‘MachinePolitics:TheHistoriographyofTechnologyand PublicPolicy.’ Rifkin, ———. ‘VannevarBush’sNewDealforResearch;or,TheTriumphoftheOldOrder.’ Rorty, Richard.‘AnAntirepresentationalistView:Comments….’In Roland, Alex.‘WhatHathKranzbergWrought?Or,DoestheHistoryofTechnologyMatter?’ Rocque, André.‘ReviewofLatour, Rose, MargaretA. Rose, MarkH.‘ScienceAsanIdiomintheDomainofTechnology.’ Rothschuh, KarlEduard.‘DieBedeutungapparativerHilfsmittel fürdieEntwicklungderbiologis- Rossiter, MargaretW.‘TheMatthewMatildaEffectinScience.’ Rouban, Luc. Rürup, Reinhard.‘Historiansand ModernTechnology:ReflectionsontheDevelopmentand Rowland, HenryA.‘TheHighest AimofthePhysicist.’ Ratner, Joseph,ed. Rae, JohnB.‘WhatDidWeExpectSHOTtoWrought?’ Richards, RobertJ. Reingold, Nathan.‘JosephHenryontheScientificLife:AnAAASPresidentialAddressof1850.’ Riese, Walther.‘TheImpactofRomanticismontheExperimentalMethod.’ Pyenson, Lewis.‘WhatIstheGoodofHistoryScience?’ ———. ‘EngineeringOrganizationandtheScientistinWorldWarI:TheSearchforNational Radder, Hans.‘TechnologyandTheoryinExperimentalScience.’ New York:Tarcher/Putnam,2000. edited byGeorgeLevine.Madison,WI:UniversityofWisconsinPress,l993,125–33. Routledge, 1998,825–8. 10 (1988):27–47. (1987): 3–11. (1962): 12–22. Science, AmericanStyle. in thePhysicalSciences 156–68. Technology andCulture Assoc. Routledge, 1995. Cambridge UniversityPress,1991. chen Wissenschaftenim19.Jahrhundert.’In 325–41. [Originally publishedin by NathanRosenberg.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1976,126–138,311–315. und Ruprecht,1976,161–85. 19. Jahrhundert, Current ProblemsoftheHistory ofTechnology.’ du CNRS,1988. 152–83. Experimentation, In Reingold, Library, 1939. Chicago, IL:UniversityofChicagoPress,2002. Service andRecognition.’

The AgeofAccess:NewCultureHypercapitalism,WhereAllLifeIsPaid-forExperience. 31(1992):129–33[InFrench]. L’Étatetlascience:Lapolitiquepublique delascienceettechnologie.

Heidegger andFrenchPhilosophy:Humanism,Antihumanism,Being.

The Post-ModernandthePost-Industrial:ACriticalAnalysis. Intelligence intheModernWorld:JohnDewey’sPhilosophy. The RomanticConceptionofLife.ScienceandPhilosophyintheAgeGoethe. Science, AmericanStyle.

Part I,editedbyWilhelmTreueandKurtMauel.Göttingen:Vandenhoeck edited byHansRadder.Pittsburgh,PA:UniversityofPittsburghPress,2003, 38(1997):697–713. NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,1991,284–333.)

17 (1986):299–344.(SomewhatrevisedandextendedinReingold, Journal ofPoliticalEconomy Prometheus Science inAction Science inAction 24(2006):257–68.

New Brunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,1991, RoutledgeEncyclopediaofPhilosophy, .’ TheNewStatesman .’

Dialogue:JournaloftheCanadianPhilosophical Naturwissenschaft, Technik,undWirtschaftim Science TechnologyandCulture TechnologyandCulture HistoryofScience (1974).] 10(1899):825–33.

Social StudiesofScience

History andTechnology

In ThePhilosophyofScientific Science &TechnologyStudies (29May1987),23.

Realism andRepresentation,

Perspectives onTechnology,

27(1989):353–89. Studies inRomanticism 15(1974):161–93.

25(1984):731–4.

New York:Modern The PublicHistorian

Cambridge, UK: Historical Studies Vol.5.London: Paris:Editions

23 (1993):

London: 147 5 2 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Segal, HowardP.‘Introduction.’In ——— andSchaffer,Simon. ———. ‘ReviewofLatour, Shapin, Steven.‘PumpandCircumstance:RobertBoyle’sLiterary Technology.’ Sherwin, ChalmersW.andIsenson,RaymondS.‘ProjectHindsight: ADefenseDepartmentStudyof ———. ‘SHOT,theHistoryofTechnology,andEngineeringEducation.’ ———. ‘DeterminismandIndeterminacyintheHistoryofTechnology.’ Seely, Bruce.‘Research,Engineering,andScienceinAmericanEngineeringColleges:1900–1960.’ Scranton, Philip.‘TheoryandNarrativeintheHistoryofTechnology:Comment.’ Sherwood, JohnM.‘Engels,Marx,Malthus,andtheMachine.’ Saatkamp, HermanJ.,Jr. 148 ———. ‘“UnserNewyorkerMitarbeiter”:LewisMumford,WalterCurtBehrendt,andtheModern Samson, M.David.‘German–AmericanDialogues:TheModernMovementBeforethe“Design ———. ‘ Schatzberg, Eric.‘UnderminingCommonSense:TheCritiqueofTechnologicalDeterminismin Schnädelbach, Herbert. Schmookler, Jacob. Shinn, Terry.‘TheFrenchScience FacultySystem,1808–1914:InstitutionalChangeandResearch Shields, William.‘KarlPopper’s quantumghosts.’SummaryofpaperpresentedattheApril2004 Schäfer, Wolf.‘TheFinalizationDebate.’In Schmidt, Alfred. Schaeffer, Jean-Marie. P. Forman Science A Yearbook, (1995): 739–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer,1994,1–10. the UtilityofResearch.’ Princeton, NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1985. Culture Technology andCulture 1994, 143–68.) Technological Determinism, 30–November 3,1991’).(Alsopublishedin Problems andResearchFrontiersintheHistoryofTechnology,Madison,Wisconsin,October No. 2(1995):S31–52(Supplement:‘SelectedProceedingsfromtheConferenceonCritical Press, 1984. Movement inGermany.’ Migration,” 1910–1933’.PhDdissertation,HarvardUniversity,1988. Vanderbilt UniversityPress,1995. schatzberg.html (accessed11December2005). History ofTechnologyCourses.’1999.Availableathttp://www.cals.wisc.edu/iic/innovation/ 1966. 1962, 1971.) Der BegriffderNaturinLehrevonMarx. and Culture of ArtfromKanttoHeidegger. 10 (1979):271–332. Potential inMathematicsandthe PhysicalSciences.’ meeting oftheAmericanPhysical Society. (1985): 837–65. Wolf Schäfer.Dordrecht:Kluwer,1983,273–306. Progress, Technik 14(1984):481–520. 32(1991):385–93.

by GernotBöhme,WolfgangvandenDaele,RainerHohlfeld,Krohnand

The ConceptofNatureinMarx. Comes toAmerica:ChangingMeaningsofTechnologybefore1930.’ 47(2006):486–512.

Vol. 17,editedbyYaronEzrahi,EverettMendelsohnandHoward P.Segal. Invention andEconomicGrowth. Art del’âgemoderne

Philosophy inGermany,1831–1933.

Rorty &Pragmatism:ThePhilosopherRespondstoHisCritics. Science inAction

Leviathan andtheAir-Pump:Hobbes,Boyle,Experimental Life. 34(1993):344–86. Science

The JournaloftheSocietyArchitecturalHistorians

edited byM.R.SmithandL.Marx.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,

Technology, Pessimism,andPostmodernism.SociologyofSciences: Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2000.) 156(1967):1571–7.

(1992). (Translatedas .’ Finalization inScience:theSocialOrientationofScientific SocialStudiesofScience

History ofPhysicsNewsletter

London: NewLeftBooks,1971.(Atranslationof Does TechnologyDriveHistory?TheDilemmaof

Frankfurt a.M.:EuropäischeVerlagsanstalt, Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress,

Historical StudiesinthePhysical Sciences Cambridge, UK:CambridgeUniversity

The AmericanHistoricalReview

Art oftheModernAge:Philosophy 18(1988):533–50.

Technology andCulture Technology andCulture

9 No.3(Fall2004):8–9.

55 (1996):126–39.

Social Studiesof

Technology and

Nashville, TN:

Technology

36, 36 90 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ——— andMarx,Leo,eds. Snow, C.P.‘TheMoralUnneutralityofScience.’ Smith, MerrittRoe.‘TechnologicalDeterminisminAmericanCulture.’In Smith, JohnKenly,Jr.‘ReviewEssay:TheScientificTraditioninAmericanIndustrialResearch.’ ——— andClancey,Gregory,eds. Skramstad, Harold.‘AmericanThings:ANeglectedMaterialCulture.’In Sivin, Nathan.‘TheRoanokeConferenceII.ConcludingRemarksonConference.’ ———. ‘TheRoadtoMadisonandBack:NotesfromaTraveler.’ ———. ‘AnAgendaforSHOT.’ ———. Sombart, Werner.‘TechnikundKultur.’ ———. Siegmund-Schultze, Reinhard.‘ANon-ConformistLongingforUnityintheFracturesofModernity: ———. ‘InventingaGenteelTradition:MITCrossestheRiver.’In ———. ‘RationalityversusContingency intheHistoryofTechnology.’In Staudenmaier, JohnM.‘WhatSHOTHathWroughtandWhat SHOTHathNot:Reflectionson Star, SusanLeigh.‘ReviewofLatour, Sieferle, RolfPeter. ———. ‘WhatKindofScienceIsExperimentalPhysics?’ Sibum, H.Otto.‘ExperimentalistsintheRepublicofLetters’. Sinclair, Bruce. ———. ———. ‘RecentTrendsintheHistory ofTechnology.’ ———. Shrum, Wesley.‘ReviewofLatour, ———. ‘NewSourcesofRadicalInnovation:ResearchTechnologies,TransversalityandDistributed ———. and Sources, and Essays. Cambridge, MA:MITPress,1994. Technology andCulture Cambridge, MA:MITPress,1994,1–35. History? TheDilemmaofTechnologicalDeterminism, Culture 30–November 3,1991’). and ResearchFrontiersintheHistoryofTechnology,Madison, Wisconsin,October Problems (1995): S3–15(Supplement:‘SelectedProceedingsfromtheConferenceonCritical Society, 1986,1–18. and AmericanCulture, Scientific Revolution. Towards aScientificBiographyofRichardvonMises(1883–1953).’ Verlag, 1995. University ofTorontoPressfortheAmericanSocietyMechanicalEngineers,1980. Cambridge, MA:MITPress,1994, 259–73. History? TheDilemmaofTechnological Determinism, Twenty-Five YearsoftheHistoryTechnology.’ Erster Halbband: Boiler Explosions1830–1837. (2004): 333–70. Baltimore, MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1974. History ofTechnologyandtheMIT Press,1985. Learning inaPost-IndustrialOrder.’

A CentennialHistoryoftheAmericanSocietyMechanicalEngineers,1880–1980. The TwoCultures:AndaSecondLook.AnExpandedVersionof The TwoCulturesandthe Der moderneKapitalismus Technology’s Storytellers:Reweaving theHumanFabric. Philadelphia’s PhilosopherMechanics:AHistoryoftheFranklinInstitute,1824–1865. 21(1980):621–32.

Early ResearchattheFranklinInstitute:TheInvestigationintoCausesofSteam Boston,MA:HoughtonMifflin,1998. editedbyRobertH.Walker.Westport,CT:GreenwoodPress,1976,185–93.

Die conservativeRevolution:fünfbiographischeSkizzen. Die Grundlagen;DerAufbau.

NewYork,AmericanLibrary,1964. Does TechnologyDriveHistory?TheDilemmaofTechnologicalDeterminism.

31(1990):121–31. edited byBruceSinclair.Philadelphia,PA:AmericanPhilosophical TechnologyandCulture Science inAction

Philadelphia,PA:FranklinInstitute,1966. Major ProblemsintheHistoryofAmericanTechnology:Documents . 3.Bd. Science inAction ArchivfürSoziologieundSozialpolitik

SocialScienceInformation Das WirtschaftslebenimZeitalterdesHochkapitalismus. Science .’

American JournalofSociology Leipzig:Duncker&Humblot,1927. .’

American HistoricalReview SociologicalReview TechnologyandCulture 30(1989):596–600. 133(1960):255–62. Science

edited byM.R.SmithandLeoMarx. ScienceinContext edited byM.R.SmithandL. Marx. 306(2004):60–61.

Cambridge, MA:Societyforthe Technology andCulture

History andTechnology New PerspectivesonTechnology 44(2005):731–64. 36(1988):385–8.

American Studies:Topics

Frankfurt a.M.:Fischer

Does TechnologyDrive Does TechnologyDrive 23(1911):305–47. Science inContext 16(2003):89–120. 25(1984):707–30.

94 (1988):396–403.

95 (1990):715–25.

Technology and

Toronto: 36, no.2 149

17 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 ———. ———. ———. ———. ———. ‘TheEvolutionoftheScientificPointView.’In ———. ‘TheSocialistEconomicsofKarlMarxandHisFollowers.’ ———. ———. ‘ThePlaceofScienceinModernCivilization.’ ———. ‘ArtsandCrafts’[reviewofO.L.Triggs, Veblen, Thorstein.‘ThePreconceptionsofEconomicScience.’ Tetens, Holm.‘“DerGlaubeandieWeltmaschine”:ZurAktualitätderKritikHugoDinglersam ———. ———. ‘GustavSchmoller’sEconomics.’ Valkenier, ElizabethKridl.‘DevelopmentIssuesinRecentSovietScholarship.’ Usher, AbbottPayson. Thackray, Arnold,Sturchio,JeffreyL.,Carroll,P.ThomasandBud,Robert. Taylor, Nick. Sussman, HerbertL. Tigner, Maury.‘DoesAccelerator-BasedParticlePhysicsHaveaFuture?’ Stein, RogerB. ———. ‘DisciplinedImagination:TheLifeandWorkofTomAgathaHughes.’In 150 ‘This MonthinPhysicsHistory.February9,1990:DeathofGeorgedeMestral.’ P. Forman in de.geocities.com/veblenite/txt/evoluts.txt (accessed29January2005). (Originallypublished http://de.geocities.com/veblenite/txt/germany.txt (accessed2December 2005). txt/instinct.txt (accessed2December2005). (reissued, NewYork:B.W.Huebsch,1918).Availableathttp://de.geocities.com/veblenite/ and OtherEssays, Men. de.geocities.com/veblenite/txt/engineer.txt (accessed23June2006). (reprinted, NewBrunswick,NJ: Transaction Press,1997). 20 (1906):575–95;21(1907):292–322. 609. Availableathttp://de.geocities.com/veblenite/txt/pof_sci.txt(accessed7July2004). thl.txt (accessed23June2006). http://de.geocities.com/veblenite/txt/arts_cr.txt (accessed2December2005). Movement exakten WissenschafteninAuseinandersetzungmitHugoDingler, (1980): 485–508. physikalischen Weltbild.’In Simon andSchuster,2000. (1899): 121–50. toc.html (accessed10October2006). 1899. Availableathttp://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/ Cambridge MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1954). 2001): 36–40. 1876–1976: HistoricalIndicators. Mannheim: BibliographischesInstitut,1984,90–100. MA: HarvardUniversityPress,1968. University Press,1967. 2004): 2. Michael ThadAllenandGabrielleHecht.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2001,ix–xx. of Power:EssaysinHonorThomasParkeHughesandAgathaChipleyHughes, TheInstinctofWorkmanshipandtheStateIndustrialArts.

Absentee OwnershipandBusiness EnterpriseinRecentTimes. The HigherLearninginAmerica:AMemorandumontheConduct ofUniversitiesbyBusiness Imperial GermanyandtheIndustrialRevolution. The TheoryoftheLeisureClass:AnEconomicStudyInstitutions. The EngineersandthePriceSystem. The UniversityofCaliforniaChronicle

New York:B.W.Huebsch,1918. Availableathttp://de.geocities.com/veblenite/txt/

Laser: TheInventor,theNobelLaureate,andThirty-YearPatentWar.

John RuskinandAestheticThoughtinAmerica,1840–1900.

(Chicago, 1902)].

Victorians andtheMachine:TheLiteraryResponsetoTechnology.

A HistoryofMechanicalInventions.

by T.Veblen.NewYork:B.W.Huebsch,1919,32–55.Available athttp://

Methodische Philosophie:BeiträgezumBegründungsproblemder Journal ofPoliticalEconomy Dordrecht:D.Reidel,1985. QuarterlyJournalofEconomics

New York:B.W.Huebsch,1921. Availableathttp:// , 1908.)

Chapters intheHistoryofArtsandCrafts

American JournalofSociology ∼

lward/Veblen/Veblen_1899/Veblen_1899_

New York:Macmillan,1915.Availableat

The PlaceofScienceinModernCivilization New York:McGraw-Hill,1929(rev.edn:

The QuarterlyJournalofEconomics

11 (1902):108–111.Availableat

New York:B.W.Huebsch,1923 Quarterly JournalofEconomics NewYork:Macmillan,1914 16(1901):69–93.

Cambridge, MA:Harvard

edited byPeterJanich.

Physics Today New York:Macmillan,

Chemistry inAmerica,

APS News

World Politics

11 (1906):585–

Technologies

Cambridge, New York:

(February

edited by (January

13 32 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Westbrook, Robert.‘LewisMumford,JohnDewey,andthe“Pragmatic Acquiescence”.’In ———. ‘ClassicsRevisited:Lewis Mumford’s Williams, Rosalind.‘LewisMumford asaHistorianofTechnologyin Wien, Wilhelm.‘AufrufzumBeitrittindieHelmholtzGesellschaft ….’(January1921).Nachlass Weintraub, H.,Ashburner,M.,Goodfellow,P.N.[and42others].‘ThroughtheGlassLightly:A Wendt, Ulrich. ———. White, MortonG. Whitehead, A.N. White, Paul.‘MinistersofCulture.Arnold,HuxleyandLiberal AnglicanReformofLearning.’ ———. Weizsäcker, CarlFriedrichvon.‘ErforschungderLebensbedingungen.’In Weiss, Ulrich. Weart, SpencerR.‘ThePhysicsBusinessinAmerica,1919–1940’.In Watson, JamesD.andTooze,John. Waters, Malcolm. Wang, Zuoyue.‘AmericanScienceandtheColdWar:TheRiseofPresident’sAdvisory Walter, TonyandWaterhouse,Helen.‘AVeryPrivateBelief:ReincarnationinContemporary Wade, Nicholas.‘NewHughesHavenforScienceReachestheStars.’ Vucinich, Alexander. Vincenti, WalterG. Veysey, Laurence.‘APostmortemonDanielBell’sPostindustrialism.’ Walker, Timothy.‘DefenseofMechanicalPhilosophy.’ Walker, Mark,ed. G. Reimer,1906. Mumford: PublicIntellectual, York: OxfordUniversityPress,1990, 43–65,381–90. Lewis Mumford:PublicIntellectual, Wien, BibliothekdesDeutschenMuseums,Munich. 1925). Science Collection ofScientistsattheFrontierWereAskedWhatTheySeeinFutureforScience.’ 295–358. Context, Verlag, 1979,47–94.) Oxford UniversityPress,1990,301–22,420–5. History ofScience 1943. (2002): 139–49. Politische Aufsätze,1945–1981, tisch-pragmatischen Begründungszusammenhangs. Francisco, CA:W.H.Freeman,1981. Committee, 1950–1961’.PhDdissertation,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara,1994. England.’ moa-cgi?notisid=ABQ7578-0033-7 (accessed5August2006). Oxford UniversityPress,1969,67–77.)Availableathttp://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/ (Originally publishedinWeizsäcker, Press, 1970. University Press,1990. 49–69. 36. (Reprintedin 2004): D2. DerbedrohteFriede:PolitischeAufsätze,1945–1981. Retooling:AHistorianConfronts TechnologicalChange. 267(1995):1609–18.

Hugo DinglersmethodischePhilosophie:EinekritischeRekonstruktionihresvoluntaris- DieTechnikalsKulturmachtinsozialerundgeistigerBeziehung:EineStudie. edited byNathanReingold.Washington,DC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress,1979, SociologyofReligion DanielBell. ScienceandIdeology:AComparativeHistory.

Science andtheModernWorld. The OriginofDewey’sInstrumentalism.

What EngineersKnowandHowTheyIt.

Science inRussianCulture. 43(2005):115–38. Readings inTechnologyandAmericanLife, NewYork:Routledge,1995.

edited byThomasP.HughesandAgathaC.Hughes.NewYork: 60(1999):187–97.

The DNAStory:ADocumentaryHistoryofGeneCloning.

by C.F.vonWeizsäcker.München:Hanser,1981,449–85.

edited byThomasP.Hughesand AgathaC.Hughes.New Technics andCivilization Diagnosen zurWeltpolitik.

Vol. 2:

New York:Mentor,1948(originallypublished

1861–1917.

North AmericanReview Mannheim:B.I.Wissenschaftsverlag,1991. München:Hanser,1981.

New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress, London:Routledge,2003. Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2002.

edited byCarrollPursell.NewYork:

Stanford, CA:StanfordUniversity

Baltimore, MD:JohnsHopkins History andTechnology

American Quarterly

The SciencesintheAmerican

Technics andCivilization .’ New YorkTimes

Technology andCulture

München: CarlHanser

Der bedrohteFriede:

No. 72(1831):122–

(19 October

34 (1992): Berlin:

Lewis

.’ In San 151

43 Downloaded By: [Forman, Paul] At: 17:39 23 April 2007 Zvorikine, Alexander.‘TechnologyandtheLawsofItsDevelopment.’ Zierdt-Warshaw, Linda,Winkler,AlanandBernstein,Leonard. Yearly, Steven.‘ReviewofLatour, Zilsel, Edgar.‘TheSociologicalRootsofScience.’ Woolgar, Steve.‘TheTurntoTechnologyinSocialStudiesofScience.’ Wolf, ThomasR. ———. ‘ScienceandTechnology.’ Wise, George.‘ANewRoleforProfessionalScientistsinIndustry:IndustrialResearchatGeneral Winner, Langdon. ———. ‘ReviewofJoelMokyr, 152 ———, ed. ———. ———. Wojtowicz, Robert.‘TheLewisMumfordDecades:StudiesinArchitecturalHistory,Criticism,and Wisnioski, MatthewH.‘EngineersandtheIntellectualCrisisofTechnology,1957–1973.’PhD P. Forman (1962): 443–58. Encyclopedia. Human Values 2005. Wissenschaft alsAntwortaufdieKrisederModerne. Architectural Press,1998. Electric, 1900–1916.’ Thought. Technology andCulture Planning. Urbanism, 1922–1962.’PhDdisseratation,UniversityofPennsylvania,1990. dissertation, PrincetonUniversity,2005. Columbia UniversityPress,1985.

Willis R.Whitney,GeneralElectric,andtheOriginsofU.S.IndustrialResearch. Lewis MumfordandAmericanModernism:EutopianTheoriesforArchitectureUrban

Sidewalk Critic:LewisMumford’sWritingsonNewYork. Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1977. NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996.

Hermeneutik undTechnik:MartinHeideggersAuslegungdesLebensder SantaBarbara,CA:ABC-CLIO,2000. Autonomous Technology:Technics-Out-Of-ControlasaThemeinPolitical 16(1991):20–50. TechnologyandCulture 44(2003):371–5. The GiftsofAthena:HistoricalOriginstheKnowledgeEconomy. Science inAction. Osiris 1(1985):229–46. AmericanJournalofSociology ’ 21(1980):408–429. Nature

326(1987):754. Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann,

American WomeninTechnology:An

Technology andCulture

Science, Technology,and

New York:Princeton 47(1942):544–62.

New York: 3 ’