Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/GlobalFunctions.php on line 2578
Deprecated: Optional parameter $prefix declared before required parameter $code is implicitly treated as a required parameter in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/languages/Language.php on line 4036
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/languages/LanguageConverter.php on line 726
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/search/SearchEngine.php on line 1502
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=AdamshlossmanMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-07-12T22:26:49ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_12_Questions/Comments325--Week 12 Questions/Comments2009-04-09T12:09:14Z<p>Adamshlossman: </p>
<hr />
<div>Nye addresses a lot of interesting points in this week's readings, but I want to focus on one of the topics from today's lecture on the adoption of "labor saving" technological devices like the washing machine and the explosion of small house hold appliances. According to Nye, 3 studies conducted during the 1920s showed that women spent between 51-64 hrs a week doing housework. Studies conducted two generations later show the same data or sometimes an increase in the time that women spend doing house work (Nye 272). While new technological devices like the washing machine drastically reduced that amount of time that it took to complete said tasks, social expectations (i.e. cleaning the house more regularly and spending more time with your kids) coupled with additional technological innovations (having more than two sets of clothing, the invention of other appliances to "shorten" the time one spends cleaning) really only reinforced the time-consuming nature of keeping a home. Work became more gendered as men working in factories were freed from household chores. New technology even allowed women to work in factories because they could still have the time to clean their homes and take care of their children thanks to technological innovation (Nye 272). Yet later on in the chapter, Nye makes that point that since families no longer gathered around the hearth as a source of light and heat, they somewhat lost the closeness of a tight-knit family that relied upon one another in a production-based (now a consumer-based) home (Nye 282). Now technological innovation by no means directly led to the downfall of family values, but it still rings true today that technology does isolate people from one another. Someone can listen to their I-Pod and end up in their own little world totally removed from their surroundings. Since people are relational beings, is technology the Devil? (joking here, but still) -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
wow, how do you go after that one, is technology the devil? I'd say no, because there is a degree of choice in the isolation that comes with the use of the technology, you wouldn't put on your headphones and then expect to have a deep conversation with someone. Also, technology can help provide for social relations as well. Personally, I would feel more disconnected from the world without access to my cell, internet, or lap top. -Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Also, (this relates to part of what Bryan was saying, but may be less extreme) one thing I thought was interesting in this reading was that it showed how electricity affected the family dynamics and how members of the family interacted with each other differently with the introduction of new technologies and appliances. For example, before electricity, it was more common for households to be more open and families tended to gather around a single heat source. However, after light and heat were able to be more easily accessed throughout the household, the family begins to be less centralized. Each member has their own room and their own space, which starts to resemble more how we interact with our own families today. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
My question in a previous posting about the Newport mansions being wired for both gas and electricity was answered in this reading (yay!).On page 242, Nye explains that many of the elite in the 1880's used electricity as a form of conspicuous consumption (no surprise there) and kept old lighting technology as the main light supplier. The new technology was unreliable and expensive.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found the discussion of conspicuous consumption interesting as well. People knew that electricity could do things that require vast amounts of energy but it came through fairly small mundane wires. The only way that people could know that you were consuming the wave of the future, was for you to shove the byproducts in their faces. Even if your practical needs are met by gas or steam power, the world knows that you are a citizen of the modern age because your made answers the door in a light up dress (that presumably puts her at great risk). -Sean B.<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting how much the increased demand for privacy shaped technology and culture. This can be seen in homes when they were once public space with many people in one room, they shifted into individual rooms for each person. Eventually heaters could heat an entire house, and families no longer had to gather around the stove in the kitchen for heat. Another example of this is seen as early as the early 1800’s with the doorbell, which was created as a new form of social distance and communication. Then after the 1900s corporations latched on to the idea of privacy and you can see the push for privacy promoting appliances. Examples of this are an electric massage vibrator, a water heater for shaving cream, and an electric sewing machine. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought the discussion of technology isolating the household was interesting (p 257). Nye makes the point that a host of trades vanished: fruit and vegetable dealers, knife sharpeners, traveling milk and ice salespeople. All these disappearing traveling jobs, according to Nye, meant a more isolated household. I'm not really sure that's true. Jessica makes the point that later technologies (i.e., the internet) increased connectivity. Even before that, though, people still had to go to the store to buy the new technologies. Outside of that, the phone increased connections between people. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
On that same page, I liked Nye's discussion of the household shift from site of production to site of consumption. The house was now still a site of production but in a very different way. Housewives had become productive consumers who bought items and appliances that made food production, mending clothes and all other household chores "easier" and needed to go to the store to accomplish most tasks. Instead of growing their own vegetables, they now had to buy them. Instead of buying ice from a local vendor, they could make their own in the freezer of their new electric appliance: the fridge. It's a bigger shift than I think most people notice. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I like the discussion of advertising as well (p 264-5). It's always interesting to find out how people sold these products. Nye points out two main forms of ads: new mass-circulated magazines as well as door-to-door sales- and ad-people. I like this first because it dovetails well with my previous post, proving that even if some traveling jobs were lost, others were gained because of technology. Second, it's interesting to look at how things were sold and promoted. Utility companies would go door-to-door to current customers advertising new products. It's a weird experience to think about, I missed the age of door-to-door salespeople. With the internet and email it must not be a cost-effective approach anymore. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Matt about how interesting it is to view how things were primarily sold and promoted. What Nye discusses is the fact that companies then went door to door to sell their merchandise. This is so much different from our time today because now companies give us the responsibility and rely on us to go out to the stores and buy their merchandise. One of the reasons that changed the salesmen practice Mike addressed. The fact that the internet makes it so much easier for companies to adversities their products makes the salesmen obsolete. But another technology that also plays a big role in advertisement is television. The reason why companies have stopped going door to door is because this is not cost effective; it is much easier to make an ad and air it on television where it will reach millions of people. It is technology that has changed the way we advertise and I am glad that we can get information out so quickly; but again like Matt I do miss the Door-to-Door Salesmen era. – Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Its amazing how something like technology can shape privacy but yet also shape social relations. Having to keep up with the newest technology help bring people together, by allow families and individuals to almost compete in social standing. At the same time new time saving machines isolated women. While housework seemed easier there was now more work. Housework became more and more isolated. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think that what is important to take away from this reading is that the production of the home was overshadowed by the consumption of the home with the help of modern technology and electrical appliances. Modern is the key word here. In addition - As Dr. M mentioned in class, and this article reiterates, the different domestic spheres were assisted by this new technology craze. Men no longer had anything to do with housework, while women were expected to (with the help of new technology) take on more and more as consumerism culture exploded onto the scene. - Elle<br />
<br />
Nye's discussion of how gender roles were defined by technology actually rings very true for me. The only person in my family to go to college was my grandmother, who holds a degree in home economics. For most of her life, she has not done much career-wise with it, but still owns most of the appliances that she bought in the 60s and 70s because she cares for them extremely well. My grandfather only had a high school diploma but drove a tank in the Marines, then worked for Western Union and MCI. It was never really clear what he did for a living, but it had something to do with making sure the phone system worked. How they lead their lives fits right into this gender paradigm: men's job is to create the technology that improves lives, and women's job is to put it to work improving lives. -Sean B.<br />
<br />
It still shocks me how big of a deal electrification of the home was for people, although it shouldn't. It's hard trying to be a historian and look at things through the lens of someone of the time period. Nonetheless, I couldn't help but sit jaw-dropped at the amount of literature that came from the electrification of the home. The entire situation was seen in plays, advertisements, poems, songs, etc. and it just seems so silly nowadays that these people were so thankful and impressed with electricity in their little suburban homes and city apartments. And what shocked me the most was the amount of time and thought put into the character names and the philosophy behind ''Dynamo,'' the play byt Eugene O'Neill. The cultural shift and emphasis on inner light and good just seems so absurd, but I guess the impact electricity had on American life and society kind of merits that amount of interest and applause. I have a hard time believing, though, that everyone felt this pleased and happy with electricity and appliances when they were first introduced as these writings and advertisements make it appear. I guarantee you there were those people like my mother who stood back and said "before you go on this new rollercoaster, let other people ride it for a couple of months and make sure no one dies first." As appealing as all of this seemed there had to be a large number of skeptics. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Nye writes that only one in ten homes in the U.S. had electrical power by 1910, but seven in ten homes had electricity by 1930. I think it’s interesting to consider that within the context of Fredericksburg. The city first got electrical power in the 1880s, but it was limited to places like factories. With the completion of the Embry Dam in 1910, the rest of the city was able to get electricity, though I assume it took a number of years before most homes were electrified. I suppose that puts Fredericksburg on average with the rest of the country, or maybe even a little ahead of the curve. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The last sentence to the first paragraph on page 277 sums up what we touched in class about "labor-saving" vs "time-saving." Nye says how the girl still did just as much work as her mother, but just 'redefined it.' I really like that thought of time vs labor saving. It not only created more work, but a different type of work for the household (women). -- Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
I also caught that first paragraph on 277. I enjoyed the conversation we had on saving labor vs. saving time, and that section helped to reinforce it. I think that in a major way, social constructs play a role in gaining the new appliances that may save labor, but ultimately increase the time spent on that particular labor. For example, a housewife from the 40s or 50s pressured by the fact that her friends have one and then she gets a washer/dryer set. There may have been less clothes in the past, but now, with that wonderful device, even more clothes can be soiled! --- Jeff P.<br />
<br />
Going back to Bryan's comment, in a way I do see technology as the "devil," it consumes the majority of our lives. We are always on the internet or computer which could take away from family time or actually making you have no social life at all. Of course this is by choice, but technology does influence us to be drawn to it.--Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I think that the development of technology affected women in the 20th century more than is first apparent. Although women may have been able to join the workforce because modern conveniences gave them more free time, their homes were still supposed to be "sites of efficient production," as Nye puts it. The bar was raised for everything, so in fact the idea of saving time was a farce. On page 258, Nye mentions an electric hair curler that was marketed to women. So in addition to running a perfect household, women had to have beautifully curled hair all the time. The more "modern" inventions there were, the more was expected of women. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the piece on the telephone operators from 1911. I found it quite interesting that at that time, a single operator could be responsible for such a large network. Besides the fact of the personal bravery shown by the operators, it was a brilliant bit of marketing done by Bell to not only pay tribute to them, but to imply that their services and employees encourage that kind of behavior. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I found the discussion on page 270 about advertising approaches particularly notable, because it mentioned the concept of electricity replacing servants as a targeted campaign. At a time only a couple of decades prior to the Civil Rights movement sweeping across America, I have to wonder, would it have been as successful if not for these campaigns. Specific advertising campaigns solidified in the mindsets of Americans their lack of necessity for servants, therefore could it have promoted social mobility among lower class blacks still crippled under oppressive post Civil War debts? If so, could it be argued the very method of advertising electricity contributed to the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 60's that was to come.<br />
-Adam Shlossman</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_12_Questions/Comments325--Week 12 Questions/Comments2009-04-09T12:08:37Z<p>Adamshlossman: </p>
<hr />
<div>Nye addresses a lot of interesting points in this week's readings, but I want to focus on one of the topics from today's lecture on the adoption of "labor saving" technological devices like the washing machine and the explosion of small house hold appliances. According to Nye, 3 studies conducted during the 1920s showed that women spent between 51-64 hrs a week doing housework. Studies conducted two generations later show the same data or sometimes an increase in the time that women spend doing house work (Nye 272). While new technological devices like the washing machine drastically reduced that amount of time that it took to complete said tasks, social expectations (i.e. cleaning the house more regularly and spending more time with your kids) coupled with additional technological innovations (having more than two sets of clothing, the invention of other appliances to "shorten" the time one spends cleaning) really only reinforced the time-consuming nature of keeping a home. Work became more gendered as men working in factories were freed from household chores. New technology even allowed women to work in factories because they could still have the time to clean their homes and take care of their children thanks to technological innovation (Nye 272). Yet later on in the chapter, Nye makes that point that since families no longer gathered around the hearth as a source of light and heat, they somewhat lost the closeness of a tight-knit family that relied upon one another in a production-based (now a consumer-based) home (Nye 282). Now technological innovation by no means directly led to the downfall of family values, but it still rings true today that technology does isolate people from one another. Someone can listen to their I-Pod and end up in their own little world totally removed from their surroundings. Since people are relational beings, is technology the Devil? (joking here, but still) -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
wow, how do you go after that one, is technology the devil? I'd say no, because there is a degree of choice in the isolation that comes with the use of the technology, you wouldn't put on your headphones and then expect to have a deep conversation with someone. Also, technology can help provide for social relations as well. Personally, I would feel more disconnected from the world without access to my cell, internet, or lap top. -Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Also, (this relates to part of what Bryan was saying, but may be less extreme) one thing I thought was interesting in this reading was that it showed how electricity affected the family dynamics and how members of the family interacted with each other differently with the introduction of new technologies and appliances. For example, before electricity, it was more common for households to be more open and families tended to gather around a single heat source. However, after light and heat were able to be more easily accessed throughout the household, the family begins to be less centralized. Each member has their own room and their own space, which starts to resemble more how we interact with our own families today. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
My question in a previous posting about the Newport mansions being wired for both gas and electricity was answered in this reading (yay!).On page 242, Nye explains that many of the elite in the 1880's used electricity as a form of conspicuous consumption (no surprise there) and kept old lighting technology as the main light supplier. The new technology was unreliable and expensive.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found the discussion of conspicuous consumption interesting as well. People knew that electricity could do things that require vast amounts of energy but it came through fairly small mundane wires. The only way that people could know that you were consuming the wave of the future, was for you to shove the byproducts in their faces. Even if your practical needs are met by gas or steam power, the world knows that you are a citizen of the modern age because your made answers the door in a light up dress (that presumably puts her at great risk). -Sean B.<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting how much the increased demand for privacy shaped technology and culture. This can be seen in homes when they were once public space with many people in one room, they shifted into individual rooms for each person. Eventually heaters could heat an entire house, and families no longer had to gather around the stove in the kitchen for heat. Another example of this is seen as early as the early 1800’s with the doorbell, which was created as a new form of social distance and communication. Then after the 1900s corporations latched on to the idea of privacy and you can see the push for privacy promoting appliances. Examples of this are an electric massage vibrator, a water heater for shaving cream, and an electric sewing machine. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought the discussion of technology isolating the household was interesting (p 257). Nye makes the point that a host of trades vanished: fruit and vegetable dealers, knife sharpeners, traveling milk and ice salespeople. All these disappearing traveling jobs, according to Nye, meant a more isolated household. I'm not really sure that's true. Jessica makes the point that later technologies (i.e., the internet) increased connectivity. Even before that, though, people still had to go to the store to buy the new technologies. Outside of that, the phone increased connections between people. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
On that same page, I liked Nye's discussion of the household shift from site of production to site of consumption. The house was now still a site of production but in a very different way. Housewives had become productive consumers who bought items and appliances that made food production, mending clothes and all other household chores "easier" and needed to go to the store to accomplish most tasks. Instead of growing their own vegetables, they now had to buy them. Instead of buying ice from a local vendor, they could make their own in the freezer of their new electric appliance: the fridge. It's a bigger shift than I think most people notice. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I like the discussion of advertising as well (p 264-5). It's always interesting to find out how people sold these products. Nye points out two main forms of ads: new mass-circulated magazines as well as door-to-door sales- and ad-people. I like this first because it dovetails well with my previous post, proving that even if some traveling jobs were lost, others were gained because of technology. Second, it's interesting to look at how things were sold and promoted. Utility companies would go door-to-door to current customers advertising new products. It's a weird experience to think about, I missed the age of door-to-door salespeople. With the internet and email it must not be a cost-effective approach anymore. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Matt about how interesting it is to view how things were primarily sold and promoted. What Nye discusses is the fact that companies then went door to door to sell their merchandise. This is so much different from our time today because now companies give us the responsibility and rely on us to go out to the stores and buy their merchandise. One of the reasons that changed the salesmen practice Mike addressed. The fact that the internet makes it so much easier for companies to adversities their products makes the salesmen obsolete. But another technology that also plays a big role in advertisement is television. The reason why companies have stopped going door to door is because this is not cost effective; it is much easier to make an ad and air it on television where it will reach millions of people. It is technology that has changed the way we advertise and I am glad that we can get information out so quickly; but again like Matt I do miss the Door-to-Door Salesmen era. – Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Its amazing how something like technology can shape privacy but yet also shape social relations. Having to keep up with the newest technology help bring people together, by allow families and individuals to almost compete in social standing. At the same time new time saving machines isolated women. While housework seemed easier there was now more work. Housework became more and more isolated. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think that what is important to take away from this reading is that the production of the home was overshadowed by the consumption of the home with the help of modern technology and electrical appliances. Modern is the key word here. In addition - As Dr. M mentioned in class, and this article reiterates, the different domestic spheres were assisted by this new technology craze. Men no longer had anything to do with housework, while women were expected to (with the help of new technology) take on more and more as consumerism culture exploded onto the scene. - Elle<br />
<br />
Nye's discussion of how gender roles were defined by technology actually rings very true for me. The only person in my family to go to college was my grandmother, who holds a degree in home economics. For most of her life, she has not done much career-wise with it, but still owns most of the appliances that she bought in the 60s and 70s because she cares for them extremely well. My grandfather only had a high school diploma but drove a tank in the Marines, then worked for Western Union and MCI. It was never really clear what he did for a living, but it had something to do with making sure the phone system worked. How they lead their lives fits right into this gender paradigm: men's job is to create the technology that improves lives, and women's job is to put it to work improving lives. -Sean B.<br />
<br />
It still shocks me how big of a deal electrification of the home was for people, although it shouldn't. It's hard trying to be a historian and look at things through the lens of someone of the time period. Nonetheless, I couldn't help but sit jaw-dropped at the amount of literature that came from the electrification of the home. The entire situation was seen in plays, advertisements, poems, songs, etc. and it just seems so silly nowadays that these people were so thankful and impressed with electricity in their little suburban homes and city apartments. And what shocked me the most was the amount of time and thought put into the character names and the philosophy behind ''Dynamo,'' the play byt Eugene O'Neill. The cultural shift and emphasis on inner light and good just seems so absurd, but I guess the impact electricity had on American life and society kind of merits that amount of interest and applause. I have a hard time believing, though, that everyone felt this pleased and happy with electricity and appliances when they were first introduced as these writings and advertisements make it appear. I guarantee you there were those people like my mother who stood back and said "before you go on this new rollercoaster, let other people ride it for a couple of months and make sure no one dies first." As appealing as all of this seemed there had to be a large number of skeptics. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Nye writes that only one in ten homes in the U.S. had electrical power by 1910, but seven in ten homes had electricity by 1930. I think it’s interesting to consider that within the context of Fredericksburg. The city first got electrical power in the 1880s, but it was limited to places like factories. With the completion of the Embry Dam in 1910, the rest of the city was able to get electricity, though I assume it took a number of years before most homes were electrified. I suppose that puts Fredericksburg on average with the rest of the country, or maybe even a little ahead of the curve. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The last sentence to the first paragraph on page 277 sums up what we touched in class about "labor-saving" vs "time-saving." Nye says how the girl still did just as much work as her mother, but just 'redefined it.' I really like that thought of time vs labor saving. It not only created more work, but a different type of work for the household (women). -- Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
I also caught that first paragraph on 277. I enjoyed the conversation we had on saving labor vs. saving time, and that section helped to reinforce it. I think that in a major way, social constructs play a role in gaining the new appliances that may save labor, but ultimately increase the time spent on that particular labor. For example, a housewife from the 40s or 50s pressured by the fact that her friends have one and then she gets a washer/dryer set. There may have been less clothes in the past, but now, with that wonderful device, even more clothes can be soiled! --- Jeff P.<br />
<br />
Going back to Bryan's comment, in a way I do see technology as the "devil," it consumes the majority of our lives. We are always on the internet or computer which could take away from family time or actually making you have no social life at all. Of course this is by choice, but technology does influence us to be drawn to it.--Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I think that the development of technology affected women in the 20th century more than is first apparent. Although women may have been able to join the workforce because modern conveniences gave them more free time, their homes were still supposed to be "sites of efficient production," as Nye puts it. The bar was raised for everything, so in fact the idea of saving time was a farce. On page 258, Nye mentions an electric hair curler that was marketed to women. So in addition to running a perfect household, women had to have beautifully curled hair all the time. The more "modern" inventions there were, the more was expected of women. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the piece on the telephone operators from 1911. I found it quite interesting that at that time, a single operator could be responsible for such a large network. Besides the fact of the personal bravery shown by the operators, it was a brilliant bit of marketing done by Bell to not only pay tribute to them, but to imply that their services and employees encourage that kind of behavior. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I found the discussion on page 270 about advertising approaches particularly notable, because it mentioned the concept of electricity replacing servants as a targeted campaign. At a time only a couple of decades prior to the Civil Rights movement sweeping across American, I have to wonder, would it have been as successful if not for these campaigns. Specific advertising campaigns solidified in the mindsets of Americans their lack of necessity for servants, therefore could it have promoted social mobility among lower class blacks still crippled under oppressive post Civil War debts? If so, could it be argued the very method of advertising electricity contributed to the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 60's that was to come.<br />
-Adam Shlossman</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--Week 10 Questions/Comments2009-03-26T07:05:27Z<p>Adamshlossman: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Cowan's "Social History of American Technology", on the forth page, the author discusses society's scorn for early doctor's use of tools as "unprofessional". Public perception on this issue has changed so incredibly since the invention of the blood pressure cuff and now it seems just the opposite. Mechanical and technical skills appear to be critical in the success in nearly every industry and occupation with companies spending millions to further educate their employees about new technology and systems as they become available. I just found this contrast eyecatching, as I had never thought about the scorn of tools in professional industries as a part of our past. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Later on in Cowan's book he discusses an extended debate between top politicians like Jefferson and Hamilton about the desires of God for technology. This debate is portrayed as a rather widespread and fueled affair. I was curious, did many debates such as this get the founding fathers of America talking theologically? We have heard the bible discussed with regard to slavery but this seems suspiciously absent from many of early America's political reasoning. - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I could not help but notice how Nye's chapter on "Crosstown Transfer" relates to the current crises our local governments have been facing against a nearly identical problem. As Metro lines to Dulles and Tyson's Corner are being scapped halfway into production, it is becoming clear that the previous mentality distinguished by a lack of foresight is still at play. It is notable indeed to further pursue class discussion on this topic. American society gave up on trollies. Will buses and trains come next in this logical progression? Or is America's mindset really shaping everything? - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read the memoir by Charles Sorensen and then to have that followed by Charles Madison’s description of his service to the Ford assembly line. The first memoir talked about the assembly line in terms of its great achievement in the field of manufacturing and production and proclaims at the end “Under this system man is not a slave to the machine, he is slave without it.” And after reading about Charles Madison’s experience, I’m sure he would stand to disagree. After moving from job to job in search of better pay and a better working experience, he finally decided to rid himself of the deceptive promises that Ford made to its workers and commit to the Dodge factory. It shows a real contrast between the two perspectives. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I too thought that it was interesting; however, unlike Madison I would not disagree. Just by going off of what Dr. McClurken said in class on Tuesday of the rapid pace in which automobiles were being produced after the invention and adjustments were made to the assembly line. To think that anyone would disagree with the methods of the assembly lines and the speedy way in which it produced equipment is just insane. Who wouldn't want to make a car in 93 minutes instead of seven days? Not only did the assembly line help mass produce cars, it also helped during the wartime effort and has proved vital ever since the Model T.--Marren<br />
<br />
“The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” explored how people adapted to technology in terms how they saw it to be most useful. The car began to be used for a lot more uses than transportation from place to place. So much so, that it became indistinguishable from other pieces of farming technology in rural areas. I was somewhat surprised that the automobile wasn’t readily adapted in the rural areas, especially since the conception is that rural farms are the most isolated and distanced from the expansions in the cities, including technology and access to consumer goods and department stores. On a side note (addressing some of the legislation aimed at preventing the use cars), the image of cars driving behind people waving red flags in Vermont is slightly entertaining. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Jessica. I was also very surprised by this reading stating that cars were not automatically adapted into rural areas of the country. In my opinion I would think this would be the first place for the car to be welcomed with open arms. The famers have to most distance between not only each other but most parts of the town and they had much more work to do. But if you look at the statistics about who was buying cars and for what purpose cars were used when they were first made, one can see how this statement about rural areas actually makes sense. – Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I saw the reading on "The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States" quite interesting because it really outlined how the car was viewed in terms of usefulness. I would have figured that the rural areas would have accepted and adapted the car not as something fun but a means to connect them to more people to be social and improve their way of life by being able to have some of those things that can only be found in a city. Aislyn<br />
<br />
From the selection of readings about technological acculturation, I liked the prizewinning essay. I never would have guessed that it was written by a 15 year old. It is suppose to portray what the effects of electricity were on the family in the early 20th century. However, it more shows how the electric company wanted people to think about the effects of electricity. Since it was a contest, people were writing in and describing images of electricity in the home in ways that they thought would be positive for the company (it’s one of those, tell them what you think they want to hear, even if you disagree). Given the prompt was to write about how it “adds to the happiness of the family” obviously people are going to take it a certain direction. I would only wonder how the essays were published in the original sources, was it explained as an essay aimed to address this particular prompt? Or was it used as more of an advertising tool? To suggest something like “see, even the children see a more positive family dynamic, so if you’re not going to do it for yourself, do it for your children…” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Nye 133-137 Nye's article describes the growing gap between the social classes during the 1920s. "[T]he automobile had created a gap between those who drove and those who rode." (133) I find that more and more, new technologies are for the privileged not for all Americans. Thinking about it today - who has the new I-phone? The people who can afford it. Basically new technology does intensify the awareness of who can afford what new gadget (for today, and apparently in the 1920s as well). --Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with Elle in terms of comparing today's technology with the 1920s; however, I would disagree with the fact that Ford wanted his automobiles to be affordable and even encouraged his workers to buy a car for their family. In other words what I am trying to say is the car was a way to close the social gaps created by finances in the 1920s and cars seemed to be more affordable then where as in today's society it is not the fact that you have a car in which you are judged on but rather what type of car. The same goes for other sorts of technology (I-phones, IPODS, computers, etc.)--Marren<br />
<br />
Marren, I definitely agree. I think iCulture and car culture have gotten to such an extent that we know the newest Chevy, Lexus or iPhone more than we can name our local Senate representative (being registered in the Fred Vegas area, it's Rob Wittman, for me). As for judging car by car, I really kinda miss my 125,000-mile '97 Jetta. That thing was rad. -Cash<br />
<br />
Nye's article was a good one because he does illustrate the growing gap of the social classes during the 1920's. Not for nothing I can see the gap between the social classes in the 21st century with all sorts of technology.It shows a gap in financial gaps, as well as social classes, and geographic areas are seperated, so the car as well as many others seperate and have a huge impact of life. Aislyn <br />
<br />
I also found this article interesting, and I think the gap in social classes can still be seen in terms of transportation. I was reading one of those bizarre advice columns in the Post a couple weeks ago and saw someone writing in to complain about people who sniffle and sneeze on the Metro coming to and from the city. The columnist chastised this particular contributor, stating that the solution to this problem is not for people to stop riding the train if they're a bit under the weather but to realize that people can't "sacrifice the $20" to park in a public garage because not everyone has a car. Automobiles have become such a prevalent part of the American lifestyle that now, we tend to forget that not everyone is lucky enough to have one. -Cash<br />
<br />
My Life and Work, 1929 - Henry Ford The way that Ford describes the Model T is somewhat disturbing to me. Simplicity being the key - I didn't realize a car could run with only 4 main parts - he may be oversimplifying for us (undoubtedly), but the intentions of car producers and marketers has definitely shifted. Imagine if this statement were still true today - "The parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buyy new ones than to have old ones repaired..." (315) Maybe I am just a little bitter about some recent car problems, but wouldn't it be nice if people could still use the words "cheap" and "new car parts" in the same sentence? The assembly line came up several times too and all I could think about was the dis-assembly line (euw). -- Elle<br />
<br />
I was really impress by how the new technologies made the car parts as well as the cars cheaper so that more American could afford them. This really seemed like the one way that new technology was available to most. Yet there were some places and groups that were excluded from being able to purchase the cars. Today it seems that the new technologies are only available to the select few. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
Full Social History of American Technology - There is definitely a trend that new technology tends to deskill the laborers involved with the old process. For example - the sphygmomanometer vs. the finger - some felt that by adding this new technology, it was taking away from the importance of fine-tuning skills learned to be a doctor. While this is true (in my opinion) it also makes the profession more technical and standardized - which helps everyone in the long run. --Elle<br />
<br />
The short Nye reading was really interesting to me because it showed the political sociological, and economic reasons for the rise of the automobile. One reason that stuck out for me was the fact that riders did not accept the "zone system of payment," which Europeans used (134). Why Europeans like it but not Americans. Anyway, the reading described more about why one piece of technology is chosen over another and specifically discussed the automobile. Just another reason to not believe technological determinism. --Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
Social Reconstruction- The "anti-auto crusade" discussed in the beginning of the article is very entertaining. The laws, such as the one from Vermont that "required a person to carry a red flag and walk ahead of the car," and the personal attacks on motorists in states all over the country surprised me and made me think about all of the opposition new technology takes (i.e.electricity). I also found it interesting that one law addressed scaring carriage horses. My horse absolutely hates cars and almost kicked his foot through a driver's side window when someone sped past us, so I can only imagine what those horses thought of the weird machinery. Funny how opposition can be seen in politics, social settings, and the environment.--Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's "My Life and Work, 1929". In it, Ford describes the process of developing the ideas behind the Model T, as well as the execution of its production. Throughout its development, you can clearly see the ideas of previous American inventors embedded in the creation of the Model T. Eli Whitney and John Hall's systems of interchangeable parts, the American System of Manufacturing, and Taylor's Scientific Management are all ideas utilized by Ford to create the Model T. - Lon<br />
<br />
Reading about Henry Ford's "My Life and Work" was good because through out the reading I saw how he improved on the ideas of others, which is a good thing. I am not at all a fan of Henry Ford because what I have learned in another class. As a person he was not so good, but what he accomplished for industry was wonderful. Aislyn<br />
The 15 year old girl's essay "How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family" is a clear demonstration of how electricity and electrical appliances effectively changed American's day to day lives. It is also an example of how people saw electricity not only as a technological development, but progress for society overall. Fern Van Bramer asserts that through electricity, Americans can now enjoy both happier, and efficient lives. For Van Bramer, the past is literally seen in the dark, while the future is flooded with light and warmth. - Lon<br />
<br />
<br />
The encyclopedia article from 1926 about mass production seems to be informative, but perhaps skeptical? The article first explains what mass production is, “the focusing upon a manufacturing project of the principles of power accuracy, economy, system, continuity and speed”. Next, the article lists the effects of mass production on society:<br />
1. Increase in industrial control, as distinguished from financial control<br />
2. Highest standard of quality ever attained in output of great quantities. <br />
3. Wide variety of single-purpose machines.<br />
4. The physical load is lifted off men and placed on machines. <br />
Finally, the article makes an interesting ending argument about the need for skilled labor. It seems almost out of place! The article states, “the need for skilled and creative genius is greater under mass production than without it,” then goes on to say, “it has been debated whether there is less or more skills as a consequence of mass production. The present writer’s opinion is that there is more”. Based off of this, I get the feeling that the encyclopedia was almost trying to cover their butt. As we have discussed in class, the rise of mass production meant the decline in skilled workers. It seems as though the author of this article knew this too, but was reluctant to say it. Rather, the argument was justified by a generalization/opinion that in modern times, every field of work requires knowledge and responsibility. Does this suggest that there is no longer a distinction between skilled and unskilled workers? Everyone is just a worker? And what does that mean for the worker? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the essay, How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family, to be hilarious! The argument of this prizewinning essay states, “if more wives and mothers would only understand that money spent in beautifying their homes is the truest form of economy, fewer fathers and sons would be paying for the bright lights in unwholesome places”. The argument is that light from electricity would motivate men to come home rather than go to “unwholesome places” which allure them solely based off of their bright lights! Rather, Women should embrace electricity so the men can come home to them where they can have a home cooked meal waiting! Very indicative of the time, did people really buy into this!? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
When we learn about Henry Ford and his development of the assembly line and how it brought a lot of progress to American manufacturing it is easy to forget the common people working in the factories. In "Detroit Motors" by Edmund Wilson, a man named Bert describes his experiences working for Ford. The workers are forced to work very long hours, have very short lunch breaks and are kept in a constant fear of loosing their jobs. It seems that in an effort to maximize production not much attention was given to those doing the actual work. This shouldn't be a very big surprise however, since employee rights wasn't considered even a possibility at that point. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
After reading the text and Lauren’s comment about Henry Ford I was somewhat confused. From my understanding in class was that Ford cared about his employees and saw them as a leading part to the success of his company. Long hours and short breaks completely contradict these thoughts and this leads me to believe that maybe all the good that was said about Ford may not be entirely true. But I can also see where this makes some sort of sense because the changes that were made in his factories were done not because it made work easier for the employee, but because it made production and the flow of money faster. It always all comes down to money – Jimmy Conroy <br />
<br />
Charles Madison's Seven Years of Automotive Servitude also helps to bring to light how Ford's advertisers got the best of many seeking work in his factories. When Charles tried to get a job under the $5-$7/day system he was surprised to learn that it came with fine print. Its kind of a shame that he didn't stay in the drafting room as he could have worked his way up but just like my brother he quit and later came crawling back. The juxtaposition of the harsh "hell" like conditions of Ford and the nicer, slower Dodge are interesting. Ford, being a way more popular company in terms of sales, shows how one can't be nice and slow to get ahead in any industry. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I found the passage from Henry Ford's autobiography, "My Life and Work, 1929," very interesting because Ford describes the development of the Model T and assembly line manufacturing process as scientific. Ford's research team made it their goal to reduce the amount of time that it took one to complete a given task. They valued production, and to some degree worker comfort, enough to repeatedly shut down operations in order to make tasks easier. It's interesting to note that while Ford paid his workers well and allowed them the mobility they desired in switching jobs, he was adamant that work had to be done by the book or else the factory would descend into utter chaos. While it may be true that some people legitimately preferred to not have to think while working, it seems unlikely that unskilled work satisfied every factory worker. After all, Ford himself claimed that he could never do the jobs of his employees. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The document on "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion, 1934" is a good example of how the notion of unskilled, assembly line labor permeated all venues of American industry after Ford adopted the principles. It was clever of the company to show its female employees that using the assembly fixtures and improved bins greatly increased their production while reducing the amount of energy they exerted in their work. Did other companies and industries use similar tactics in training their employees in not only how to do their work, but in "proving" that their way was so much better than thinking for one's self? -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
There’s a lot to be said about Henry Ford, but let’s keep it simple. He was pretty much a jerk. His autobiography certainly shows some of these jerkass qualities. The fact that he was terrified of repetitive labor himself but imposed it on his workers says a lot. He seemed to believe that being a creative man made him unsuitable for that kind of work, while the ordinary working majority actually <i>craved</i> a job without physical or mental exertion. Also, Ford may have offered his employees high wages, and he may have given jobs to immigrants and African Americans, but there were so many strings attached before anyone got anything. For instance, before being accepted for the Five Dollar Day plan, Ford’s Sociological Department first investigated workers at home. The department encouraged the “right” way of life, which included good morals, sobriety, family values, etc. The department also aimed for the Americanization of immigrants. For instance, it was required that they speak English at all times. With his Sociological Department, Ford expanded control over his laborers from the workplace only over into their personal lives. There was a reason Hitler considered this fellow a hero. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see how amateur involvement with the radio actually led to government restriction. The federal government didn’t have much of a place in quickly consolidated technological systems like electricity and telephony. What was the reason that large companies didn’t consolidate radio technology and stations right away? Why were amateurs allowed to become so involved and knowledgeable in radio technology? Even young boys were encouraged to make their own, despite the interference that they could cause on commercial and navy stations. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's account of how things went down in the assembly plants and then reading Charles Sorensen's account of the assembly line. The impression that Ford's article made for me was that he was the main thinker for the changes that we made to accommodate to the efficiency of the assembly line so that mass production would work to the best of its ability; while Sorensen's article explained that the idea of the assembly line was taken from previous ways of moving pieces to work on and that the ideas were a joint effort. "[Ford] was glorified as the originator of the mass production idea. Far from it; he just grew into it, like the rest of us" (321). -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Another thing that I found interesting was Ford's insistence that the average worker could work mind numbing activities day in and day out and be alright with it only because they didn't want to move up in the hierarchy that is job positions. I found the points that he made about the workers in the factory were belittling. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was in the passage by Henry Ford titled "My Life and Work," he writes "the parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buy new ones than to have old ones repaired." The cars he was building would not last forever and would inevitably need repairs or replacements. He made it cheaper to buy new parts, so customers would buy new parts from Ford instead of going to a repair shop. Even after a person purchased a car, the company could still make money from the sale of replacement parts. This demonstrates Ford's shrewd business skills because he was guaranteeing the success of the company. -- Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
In class we discussed Ford and Professor said how Ford encouraged the term "Fordism," and James J. Flink's "Modern Times" addresses the term. He describes the term and is read with a negative tone, thats how i perceived it. He opens with the end to skilled workers and then in the definition, says "apprenticeship required for becoming a competent craftsman" were no longer necessary. It shows with just those sentences, how the workplace went from a prestigious job/ability to where anyone could do it. I realize it is more efficient, but it seems the workers lost their ability to contribute to the end product, it was now a fixed result. Also, the lunch break, 15 min, is just ridiculous. Flink goes on to explain the workplace conditions. There were "gang labor spies and thugs": to keep control of the workers. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
In this week's readings "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion" is another document where women are bring used in the workplace (from the watch texts). I like that it describes the need for training girls, and the steps through it. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
Charles Stevenson's piece highlights an important theme that has been brought up several times in this course. The person who gets credit for an invention is not always the person solely responsible for creating it. Stevenson refers to Henry Ford as a "sponsor" of the process of mass production and not as the sole inventor. In the cases of many other artifacts such as the cotton gin and the Bessemer steel process, it is unclear as to who should receive credit. Thomas Edison was given credit for inventing the light bulb, when in fact he had dozens of people working in his laboratory helping him. It also seems common to forget that none of these artifacts were created out of the blue, but came from antecedents. Stevenson is just stating his role in developing the process of mass production. -- Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found "How Electricity....Happiness of the Family" to be a rather unintelligent essay. Blaming wives for not making the house pretty enough as the cause for their husbands to "wander" is ridiculous. Electricity does not constitute fidelity. Additionally, food cooked from non-electric sources, like charcoal grills, usually smells and tastes ten times better than anything cooked with electricity. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I thought the clipping from the article about high schoolers and college kids working as radio operators to be quite interesting. Not only was the fact that freight vessels could change over to passenger vessels in the summer intriguing, but also that the new laws put into place about radios had an impact on the people who could actually serve as operators. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
And this is where the technology nerd in me comes out -- I loved the section pertaining to technology and hobbies. My favorite was the Electrician and Mechanic Magazine, where the author discusses his friend who decided spontaneously to take up electrical telegraphy. I think we forget how much trial and error goes into creating a successful "science experiment" so to speak. We learn about all these great inventions like the cotton gin and the light bulb and when we're little there really isn't much trial and error thrown into the lecture. It was nice to read about some realistic failures in this article in particular because it kind of made everything seem more realistic. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were not perfect, you know. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I liked the Cowan article that supplemented the reading in the book as well. It was interesting to see what a short and atypical history the word "technology" had before it came to be what it is today. I would not have guessed that it actually meant "knowledge of the arts" in its original form. I also wouldn't have guessed that the arts it referred to did not mean ballet and painting. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Mass production was obvious in itself that machines will take over human's job because of the greater level of efficiency. Why not find a different profession while you still have the chances to do so. This was no over night process. If a human could make something in about a day and machines could do the same thing in half the time and the product still being up to par, then why not go with the wiser choice.-- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
Paul, I think the situation was that these people had been working factory work all their lives. The idea that the very objects they would build would one day erase them from existence was too much for them to handle, so they refused to accept it as a possibility, or rather, an inevitability. Just think of the workers who went from making cars by hand to constructing them in an assembly line. I'm sure they wondered if work was to become that mechanized and automated, what would be next? -Cash<br />
<br />
Henry Ford was a brilliant man. As stated in his "My Life and Work" article, "The first step forward in assembly came when we began taking the work to the men instead of the men to the work," made a tremendous impact on the whole process of assembling a car. His idea of eliminating multitasking by having someone perform a certain task on the product and sliding it down to the next person who performed a different task on the product made it possible to increase productivity. Even though a great idea, I think that people's skill sets started to diminish from this process because they only focused on a particular job that needed to be done. The new employees would only know how to perform the task of their station and not the whole process of putting the part together.-- Paul Kim</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--Week 10 Questions/Comments2009-03-26T06:38:16Z<p>Adamshlossman: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Cowan's "Social History of American Technology", on the forth page, the author discusses society's scorn for early doctor's use of tools as "unprofessional". Public perception on this issue has changed so incredibly since the invention of the blood pressure cuff and now it seems just the opposite. Mechanical and technical skills appear to be critical in the success in nearly every industry and occupation with companies spending millions to further educate their employees about new technology and systems as they become available. I just found this contrast eyecatching, as I had never thought about the scorn of tools in professional industries as a part of our past. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Later on in Cowan's book he discusses an extended debate between top politicians like Jefferson and Hamilton about the desires of God for technology. This debate is portrayed as a rather widespread and fueled affair. I was curious, did many debates such as this get the founding fathers of America talking theologically? We have heard the bible discussed with regard to slavery but this seems suspiciously absent from many of early America's political reasoning. - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read the memoir by Charles Sorensen and then to have that followed by Charles Madison’s description of his service to the Ford assembly line. The first memoir talked about the assembly line in terms of its great achievement in the field of manufacturing and production and proclaims at the end “Under this system man is not a slave to the machine, he is slave without it.” And after reading about Charles Madison’s experience, I’m sure he would stand to disagree. After moving from job to job in search of better pay and a better working experience, he finally decided to rid himself of the deceptive promises that Ford made to its workers and commit to the Dodge factory. It shows a real contrast between the two perspectives. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I too thought that it was interesting; however, unlike Madison I would not disagree. Just by going off of what Dr. McClurken said in class on Tuesday of the rapid pace in which automobiles were being produced after the invention and adjustments were made to the assembly line. To think that anyone would disagree with the methods of the assembly lines and the speedy way in which it produced equipment is just insane. Who wouldn't want to make a car in 93 minutes instead of seven days? Not only did the assembly line help mass produce cars, it also helped during the wartime effort and has proved vital ever since the Model T.--Marren<br />
<br />
“The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” explored how people adapted to technology in terms how they saw it to be most useful. The car began to be used for a lot more uses than transportation from place to place. So much so, that it became indistinguishable from other pieces of farming technology in rural areas. I was somewhat surprised that the automobile wasn’t readily adapted in the rural areas, especially since the conception is that rural farms are the most isolated and distanced from the expansions in the cities, including technology and access to consumer goods and department stores. On a side note (addressing some of the legislation aimed at preventing the use cars), the image of cars driving behind people waving red flags in Vermont is slightly entertaining. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Jessica. I was also very surprised by this reading stating that cars were not automatically adapted into rural areas of the country. In my opinion I would think this would be the first place for the car to be welcomed with open arms. The famers have to most distance between not only each other but most parts of the town and they had much more work to do. But if you look at the statistics about who was buying cars and for what purpose cars were used when they were first made, one can see how this statement about rural areas actually makes sense. – Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I saw the reading on "The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States" quite interesting because it really outlined how the car was viewed in terms of usefulness. I would have figured that the rural areas would have accepted and adapted the car not as something fun but a means to connect them to more people to be social and improve their way of life by being able to have some of those things that can only be found in a city. Aislyn<br />
<br />
From the selection of readings about technological acculturation, I liked the prizewinning essay. I never would have guessed that it was written by a 15 year old. It is suppose to portray what the effects of electricity were on the family in the early 20th century. However, it more shows how the electric company wanted people to think about the effects of electricity. Since it was a contest, people were writing in and describing images of electricity in the home in ways that they thought would be positive for the company (it’s one of those, tell them what you think they want to hear, even if you disagree). Given the prompt was to write about how it “adds to the happiness of the family” obviously people are going to take it a certain direction. I would only wonder how the essays were published in the original sources, was it explained as an essay aimed to address this particular prompt? Or was it used as more of an advertising tool? To suggest something like “see, even the children see a more positive family dynamic, so if you’re not going to do it for yourself, do it for your children…” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Nye 133-137 Nye's article describes the growing gap between the social classes during the 1920s. "[T]he automobile had created a gap between those who drove and those who rode." (133) I find that more and more, new technologies are for the privileged not for all Americans. Thinking about it today - who has the new I-phone? The people who can afford it. Basically new technology does intensify the awareness of who can afford what new gadget (for today, and apparently in the 1920s as well). --Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with Elle in terms of comparing today's technology with the 1920s; however, I would disagree with the fact that Ford wanted his automobiles to be affordable and even encouraged his workers to buy a car for their family. In other words what I am trying to say is the car was a way to close the social gaps created by finances in the 1920s and cars seemed to be more affordable then where as in today's society it is not the fact that you have a car in which you are judged on but rather what type of car. The same goes for other sorts of technology (I-phones, IPODS, computers, etc.)--Marren<br />
<br />
Marren, I definitely agree. I think iCulture and car culture have gotten to such an extent that we know the newest Chevy, Lexus or iPhone more than we can name our local Senate representative (being registered in the Fred Vegas area, it's Rob Wittman, for me). As for judging car by car, I really kinda miss my 125,000-mile '97 Jetta. That thing was rad. -Cash<br />
<br />
Nye's article was a good one because he does illustrate the growing gap of the social classes during the 1920's. Not for nothing I can see the gap between the social classes in the 21st century with all sorts of technology.It shows a gap in financial gaps, as well as social classes, and geographic areas are seperated, so the car as well as many others seperate and have a huge impact of life. Aislyn <br />
<br />
I also found this article interesting, and I think the gap in social classes can still be seen in terms of transportation. I was reading one of those bizarre advice columns in the Post a couple weeks ago and saw someone writing in to complain about people who sniffle and sneeze on the Metro coming to and from the city. The columnist chastised this particular contributor, stating that the solution to this problem is not for people to stop riding the train if they're a bit under the weather but to realize that people can't "sacrifice the $20" to park in a public garage because not everyone has a car. Automobiles have become such a prevalent part of the American lifestyle that now, we tend to forget that not everyone is lucky enough to have one. -Cash<br />
<br />
My Life and Work, 1929 - Henry Ford The way that Ford describes the Model T is somewhat disturbing to me. Simplicity being the key - I didn't realize a car could run with only 4 main parts - he may be oversimplifying for us (undoubtedly), but the intentions of car producers and marketers has definitely shifted. Imagine if this statement were still true today - "The parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buyy new ones than to have old ones repaired..." (315) Maybe I am just a little bitter about some recent car problems, but wouldn't it be nice if people could still use the words "cheap" and "new car parts" in the same sentence? The assembly line came up several times too and all I could think about was the dis-assembly line (euw). -- Elle<br />
<br />
I was really impress by how the new technologies made the car parts as well as the cars cheaper so that more American could afford them. This really seemed like the one way that new technology was available to most. Yet there were some places and groups that were excluded from being able to purchase the cars. Today it seems that the new technologies are only available to the select few. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
Full Social History of American Technology - There is definitely a trend that new technology tends to deskill the laborers involved with the old process. For example - the sphygmomanometer vs. the finger - some felt that by adding this new technology, it was taking away from the importance of fine-tuning skills learned to be a doctor. While this is true (in my opinion) it also makes the profession more technical and standardized - which helps everyone in the long run. --Elle<br />
<br />
The short Nye reading was really interesting to me because it showed the political sociological, and economic reasons for the rise of the automobile. One reason that stuck out for me was the fact that riders did not accept the "zone system of payment," which Europeans used (134). Why Europeans like it but not Americans. Anyway, the reading described more about why one piece of technology is chosen over another and specifically discussed the automobile. Just another reason to not believe technological determinism. --Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
Social Reconstruction- The "anti-auto crusade" discussed in the beginning of the article is very entertaining. The laws, such as the one from Vermont that "required a person to carry a red flag and walk ahead of the car," and the personal attacks on motorists in states all over the country surprised me and made me think about all of the opposition new technology takes (i.e.electricity). I also found it interesting that one law addressed scaring carriage horses. My horse absolutely hates cars and almost kicked his foot through a driver's side window when someone sped past us, so I can only imagine what those horses thought of the weird machinery. Funny how opposition can be seen in politics, social settings, and the environment.--Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's "My Life and Work, 1929". In it, Ford describes the process of developing the ideas behind the Model T, as well as the execution of its production. Throughout its development, you can clearly see the ideas of previous American inventors embedded in the creation of the Model T. Eli Whitney and John Hall's systems of interchangeable parts, the American System of Manufacturing, and Taylor's Scientific Management are all ideas utilized by Ford to create the Model T. - Lon<br />
<br />
Reading about Henry Ford's "My Life and Work" was good because through out the reading I saw how he improved on the ideas of others, which is a good thing. I am not at all a fan of Henry Ford because what I have learned in another class. As a person he was not so good, but what he accomplished for industry was wonderful. Aislyn<br />
The 15 year old girl's essay "How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family" is a clear demonstration of how electricity and electrical appliances effectively changed American's day to day lives. It is also an example of how people saw electricity not only as a technological development, but progress for society overall. Fern Van Bramer asserts that through electricity, Americans can now enjoy both happier, and efficient lives. For Van Bramer, the past is literally seen in the dark, while the future is flooded with light and warmth. - Lon<br />
<br />
<br />
The encyclopedia article from 1926 about mass production seems to be informative, but perhaps skeptical? The article first explains what mass production is, “the focusing upon a manufacturing project of the principles of power accuracy, economy, system, continuity and speed”. Next, the article lists the effects of mass production on society:<br />
1. Increase in industrial control, as distinguished from financial control<br />
2. Highest standard of quality ever attained in output of great quantities. <br />
3. Wide variety of single-purpose machines.<br />
4. The physical load is lifted off men and placed on machines. <br />
Finally, the article makes an interesting ending argument about the need for skilled labor. It seems almost out of place! The article states, “the need for skilled and creative genius is greater under mass production than without it,” then goes on to say, “it has been debated whether there is less or more skills as a consequence of mass production. The present writer’s opinion is that there is more”. Based off of this, I get the feeling that the encyclopedia was almost trying to cover their butt. As we have discussed in class, the rise of mass production meant the decline in skilled workers. It seems as though the author of this article knew this too, but was reluctant to say it. Rather, the argument was justified by a generalization/opinion that in modern times, every field of work requires knowledge and responsibility. Does this suggest that there is no longer a distinction between skilled and unskilled workers? Everyone is just a worker? And what does that mean for the worker? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the essay, How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family, to be hilarious! The argument of this prizewinning essay states, “if more wives and mothers would only understand that money spent in beautifying their homes is the truest form of economy, fewer fathers and sons would be paying for the bright lights in unwholesome places”. The argument is that light from electricity would motivate men to come home rather than go to “unwholesome places” which allure them solely based off of their bright lights! Rather, Women should embrace electricity so the men can come home to them where they can have a home cooked meal waiting! Very indicative of the time, did people really buy into this!? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
When we learn about Henry Ford and his development of the assembly line and how it brought a lot of progress to American manufacturing it is easy to forget the common people working in the factories. In "Detroit Motors" by Edmund Wilson, a man named Bert describes his experiences working for Ford. The workers are forced to work very long hours, have very short lunch breaks and are kept in a constant fear of loosing their jobs. It seems that in an effort to maximize production not much attention was given to those doing the actual work. This shouldn't be a very big surprise however, since employee rights wasn't considered even a possibility at that point. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
After reading the text and Lauren’s comment about Henry Ford I was somewhat confused. From my understanding in class was that Ford cared about his employees and saw them as a leading part to the success of his company. Long hours and short breaks completely contradict these thoughts and this leads me to believe that maybe all the good that was said about Ford may not be entirely true. But I can also see where this makes some sort of sense because the changes that were made in his factories were done not because it made work easier for the employee, but because it made production and the flow of money faster. It always all comes down to money – Jimmy Conroy <br />
<br />
Charles Madison's Seven Years of Automotive Servitude also helps to bring to light how Ford's advertisers got the best of many seeking work in his factories. When Charles tried to get a job under the $5-$7/day system he was surprised to learn that it came with fine print. Its kind of a shame that he didn't stay in the drafting room as he could have worked his way up but just like my brother he quit and later came crawling back. The juxtaposition of the harsh "hell" like conditions of Ford and the nicer, slower Dodge are interesting. Ford, being a way more popular company in terms of sales, shows how one can't be nice and slow to get ahead in any industry. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I found the passage from Henry Ford's autobiography, "My Life and Work, 1929," very interesting because Ford describes the development of the Model T and assembly line manufacturing process as scientific. Ford's research team made it their goal to reduce the amount of time that it took one to complete a given task. They valued production, and to some degree worker comfort, enough to repeatedly shut down operations in order to make tasks easier. It's interesting to note that while Ford paid his workers well and allowed them the mobility they desired in switching jobs, he was adamant that work had to be done by the book or else the factory would descend into utter chaos. While it may be true that some people legitimately preferred to not have to think while working, it seems unlikely that unskilled work satisfied every factory worker. After all, Ford himself claimed that he could never do the jobs of his employees. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The document on "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion, 1934" is a good example of how the notion of unskilled, assembly line labor permeated all venues of American industry after Ford adopted the principles. It was clever of the company to show its female employees that using the assembly fixtures and improved bins greatly increased their production while reducing the amount of energy they exerted in their work. Did other companies and industries use similar tactics in training their employees in not only how to do their work, but in "proving" that their way was so much better than thinking for one's self? -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
There’s a lot to be said about Henry Ford, but let’s keep it simple. He was pretty much a jerk. His autobiography certainly shows some of these jerkass qualities. The fact that he was terrified of repetitive labor himself but imposed it on his workers says a lot. He seemed to believe that being a creative man made him unsuitable for that kind of work, while the ordinary working majority actually <i>craved</i> a job without physical or mental exertion. Also, Ford may have offered his employees high wages, and he may have given jobs to immigrants and African Americans, but there were so many strings attached before anyone got anything. For instance, before being accepted for the Five Dollar Day plan, Ford’s Sociological Department first investigated workers at home. The department encouraged the “right” way of life, which included good morals, sobriety, family values, etc. The department also aimed for the Americanization of immigrants. For instance, it was required that they speak English at all times. With his Sociological Department, Ford expanded control over his laborers from the workplace only over into their personal lives. There was a reason Hitler considered this fellow a hero. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see how amateur involvement with the radio actually led to government restriction. The federal government didn’t have much of a place in quickly consolidated technological systems like electricity and telephony. What was the reason that large companies didn’t consolidate radio technology and stations right away? Why were amateurs allowed to become so involved and knowledgeable in radio technology? Even young boys were encouraged to make their own, despite the interference that they could cause on commercial and navy stations. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's account of how things went down in the assembly plants and then reading Charles Sorensen's account of the assembly line. The impression that Ford's article made for me was that he was the main thinker for the changes that we made to accommodate to the efficiency of the assembly line so that mass production would work to the best of its ability; while Sorensen's article explained that the idea of the assembly line was taken from previous ways of moving pieces to work on and that the ideas were a joint effort. "[Ford] was glorified as the originator of the mass production idea. Far from it; he just grew into it, like the rest of us" (321). -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Another thing that I found interesting was Ford's insistence that the average worker could work mind numbing activities day in and day out and be alright with it only because they didn't want to move up in the hierarchy that is job positions. I found the points that he made about the workers in the factory were belittling. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was in the passage by Henry Ford titled "My Life and Work," he writes "the parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buy new ones than to have old ones repaired." The cars he was building would not last forever and would inevitably need repairs or replacements. He made it cheaper to buy new parts, so customers would buy new parts from Ford instead of going to a repair shop. Even after a person purchased a car, the company could still make money from the sale of replacement parts. This demonstrates Ford's shrewd business skills because he was guaranteeing the success of the company. -- Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
In class we discussed Ford and Professor said how Ford encouraged the term "Fordism," and James J. Flink's "Modern Times" addresses the term. He describes the term and is read with a negative tone, thats how i perceived it. He opens with the end to skilled workers and then in the definition, says "apprenticeship required for becoming a competent craftsman" were no longer necessary. It shows with just those sentences, how the workplace went from a prestigious job/ability to where anyone could do it. I realize it is more efficient, but it seems the workers lost their ability to contribute to the end product, it was now a fixed result. Also, the lunch break, 15 min, is just ridiculous. Flink goes on to explain the workplace conditions. There were "gang labor spies and thugs": to keep control of the workers. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
In this week's readings "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion" is another document where women are bring used in the workplace (from the watch texts). I like that it describes the need for training girls, and the steps through it. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
Charles Stevenson's piece highlights an important theme that has been brought up several times in this course. The person who gets credit for an invention is not always the person solely responsible for creating it. Stevenson refers to Henry Ford as a "sponsor" of the process of mass production and not as the sole inventor. In the cases of many other artifacts such as the cotton gin and the Bessemer steel process, it is unclear as to who should receive credit. Thomas Edison was given credit for inventing the light bulb, when in fact he had dozens of people working in his laboratory helping him. It also seems common to forget that none of these artifacts were created out of the blue, but came from antecedents. Stevenson is just stating his role in developing the process of mass production. -- Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found "How Electricity....Happiness of the Family" to be a rather unintelligent essay. Blaming wives for not making the house pretty enough as the cause for their husbands to "wander" is ridiculous. Electricity does not constitute fidelity. Additionally, food cooked from non-electric sources, like charcoal grills, usually smells and tastes ten times better than anything cooked with electricity. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I thought the clipping from the article about high schoolers and college kids working as radio operators to be quite interesting. Not only was the fact that freight vessels could change over to passenger vessels in the summer intriguing, but also that the new laws put into place about radios had an impact on the people who could actually serve as operators. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
And this is where the technology nerd in me comes out -- I loved the section pertaining to technology and hobbies. My favorite was the Electrician and Mechanic Magazine, where the author discusses his friend who decided spontaneously to take up electrical telegraphy. I think we forget how much trial and error goes into creating a successful "science experiment" so to speak. We learn about all these great inventions like the cotton gin and the light bulb and when we're little there really isn't much trial and error thrown into the lecture. It was nice to read about some realistic failures in this article in particular because it kind of made everything seem more realistic. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were not perfect, you know. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I liked the Cowan article that supplemented the reading in the book as well. It was interesting to see what a short and atypical history the word "technology" had before it came to be what it is today. I would not have guessed that it actually meant "knowledge of the arts" in its original form. I also wouldn't have guessed that the arts it referred to did not mean ballet and painting. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Mass production was obvious in itself that machines will take over human's job because of the greater level of efficiency. Why not find a different profession while you still have the chances to do so. This was no over night process. If a human could make something in about a day and machines could do the same thing in half the time and the product still being up to par, then why not go with the wiser choice.-- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
Paul, I think the situation was that these people had been working factory work all their lives. The idea that the very objects they would build would one day erase them from existence was too much for them to handle, so they refused to accept it as a possibility, or rather, an inevitability. Just think of the workers who went from making cars by hand to constructing them in an assembly line. I'm sure they wondered if work was to become that mechanized and automated, what would be next? -Cash<br />
<br />
Henry Ford was a brilliant man. As stated in his "My Life and Work" article, "The first step forward in assembly came when we began taking the work to the men instead of the men to the work," made a tremendous impact on the whole process of assembling a car. His idea of eliminating multitasking by having someone perform a certain task on the product and sliding it down to the next person who performed a different task on the product made it possible to increase productivity. Even though a great idea, I think that people's skill sets started to diminish from this process because they only focused on a particular job that needed to be done. The new employees would only know how to perform the task of their station and not the whole process of putting the part together.-- Paul Kim</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--Week 10 Questions/Comments2009-03-26T06:30:00Z<p>Adamshlossman: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Cowan's "Social History of American Technology", on the forth page, the author discusses society's scorn for early doctor's use of tools as "unprofessional". Public perception on this issue has changed so incredibly since the invention of the blood pressure cuff and now it seems just the opposite. Mechanical and technical skills appear to be critical in the success in nearly every industry and occupation with companies spending millions to further educate their employees about new technology and systems as they become available. I just found this contrast eyecatching, as I had never thought about the scorn of tools in professional industries as a part of our past. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read the memoir by Charles Sorensen and then to have that followed by Charles Madison’s description of his service to the Ford assembly line. The first memoir talked about the assembly line in terms of its great achievement in the field of manufacturing and production and proclaims at the end “Under this system man is not a slave to the machine, he is slave without it.” And after reading about Charles Madison’s experience, I’m sure he would stand to disagree. After moving from job to job in search of better pay and a better working experience, he finally decided to rid himself of the deceptive promises that Ford made to its workers and commit to the Dodge factory. It shows a real contrast between the two perspectives. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I too thought that it was interesting; however, unlike Madison I would not disagree. Just by going off of what Dr. McClurken said in class on Tuesday of the rapid pace in which automobiles were being produced after the invention and adjustments were made to the assembly line. To think that anyone would disagree with the methods of the assembly lines and the speedy way in which it produced equipment is just insane. Who wouldn't want to make a car in 93 minutes instead of seven days? Not only did the assembly line help mass produce cars, it also helped during the wartime effort and has proved vital ever since the Model T.--Marren<br />
<br />
“The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” explored how people adapted to technology in terms how they saw it to be most useful. The car began to be used for a lot more uses than transportation from place to place. So much so, that it became indistinguishable from other pieces of farming technology in rural areas. I was somewhat surprised that the automobile wasn’t readily adapted in the rural areas, especially since the conception is that rural farms are the most isolated and distanced from the expansions in the cities, including technology and access to consumer goods and department stores. On a side note (addressing some of the legislation aimed at preventing the use cars), the image of cars driving behind people waving red flags in Vermont is slightly entertaining. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Jessica. I was also very surprised by this reading stating that cars were not automatically adapted into rural areas of the country. In my opinion I would think this would be the first place for the car to be welcomed with open arms. The famers have to most distance between not only each other but most parts of the town and they had much more work to do. But if you look at the statistics about who was buying cars and for what purpose cars were used when they were first made, one can see how this statement about rural areas actually makes sense. – Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I saw the reading on "The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States" quite interesting because it really outlined how the car was viewed in terms of usefulness. I would have figured that the rural areas would have accepted and adapted the car not as something fun but a means to connect them to more people to be social and improve their way of life by being able to have some of those things that can only be found in a city. Aislyn<br />
<br />
From the selection of readings about technological acculturation, I liked the prizewinning essay. I never would have guessed that it was written by a 15 year old. It is suppose to portray what the effects of electricity were on the family in the early 20th century. However, it more shows how the electric company wanted people to think about the effects of electricity. Since it was a contest, people were writing in and describing images of electricity in the home in ways that they thought would be positive for the company (it’s one of those, tell them what you think they want to hear, even if you disagree). Given the prompt was to write about how it “adds to the happiness of the family” obviously people are going to take it a certain direction. I would only wonder how the essays were published in the original sources, was it explained as an essay aimed to address this particular prompt? Or was it used as more of an advertising tool? To suggest something like “see, even the children see a more positive family dynamic, so if you’re not going to do it for yourself, do it for your children…” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Nye 133-137 Nye's article describes the growing gap between the social classes during the 1920s. "[T]he automobile had created a gap between those who drove and those who rode." (133) I find that more and more, new technologies are for the privileged not for all Americans. Thinking about it today - who has the new I-phone? The people who can afford it. Basically new technology does intensify the awareness of who can afford what new gadget (for today, and apparently in the 1920s as well). --Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with Elle in terms of comparing today's technology with the 1920s; however, I would disagree with the fact that Ford wanted his automobiles to be affordable and even encouraged his workers to buy a car for their family. In other words what I am trying to say is the car was a way to close the social gaps created by finances in the 1920s and cars seemed to be more affordable then where as in today's society it is not the fact that you have a car in which you are judged on but rather what type of car. The same goes for other sorts of technology (I-phones, IPODS, computers, etc.)--Marren<br />
<br />
Marren, I definitely agree. I think iCulture and car culture have gotten to such an extent that we know the newest Chevy, Lexus or iPhone more than we can name our local Senate representative (being registered in the Fred Vegas area, it's Rob Wittman, for me). As for judging car by car, I really kinda miss my 125,000-mile '97 Jetta. That thing was rad. -Cash<br />
<br />
Nye's article was a good one because he does illustrate the growing gap of the social classes during the 1920's. Not for nothing I can see the gap between the social classes in the 21st century with all sorts of technology.It shows a gap in financial gaps, as well as social classes, and geographic areas are seperated, so the car as well as many others seperate and have a huge impact of life. Aislyn <br />
<br />
I also found this article interesting, and I think the gap in social classes can still be seen in terms of transportation. I was reading one of those bizarre advice columns in the Post a couple weeks ago and saw someone writing in to complain about people who sniffle and sneeze on the Metro coming to and from the city. The columnist chastised this particular contributor, stating that the solution to this problem is not for people to stop riding the train if they're a bit under the weather but to realize that people can't "sacrifice the $20" to park in a public garage because not everyone has a car. Automobiles have become such a prevalent part of the American lifestyle that now, we tend to forget that not everyone is lucky enough to have one. -Cash<br />
<br />
My Life and Work, 1929 - Henry Ford The way that Ford describes the Model T is somewhat disturbing to me. Simplicity being the key - I didn't realize a car could run with only 4 main parts - he may be oversimplifying for us (undoubtedly), but the intentions of car producers and marketers has definitely shifted. Imagine if this statement were still true today - "The parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buyy new ones than to have old ones repaired..." (315) Maybe I am just a little bitter about some recent car problems, but wouldn't it be nice if people could still use the words "cheap" and "new car parts" in the same sentence? The assembly line came up several times too and all I could think about was the dis-assembly line (euw). -- Elle<br />
<br />
I was really impress by how the new technologies made the car parts as well as the cars cheaper so that more American could afford them. This really seemed like the one way that new technology was available to most. Yet there were some places and groups that were excluded from being able to purchase the cars. Today it seems that the new technologies are only available to the select few. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
Full Social History of American Technology - There is definitely a trend that new technology tends to deskill the laborers involved with the old process. For example - the sphygmomanometer vs. the finger - some felt that by adding this new technology, it was taking away from the importance of fine-tuning skills learned to be a doctor. While this is true (in my opinion) it also makes the profession more technical and standardized - which helps everyone in the long run. --Elle<br />
<br />
The short Nye reading was really interesting to me because it showed the political sociological, and economic reasons for the rise of the automobile. One reason that stuck out for me was the fact that riders did not accept the "zone system of payment," which Europeans used (134). Why Europeans like it but not Americans. Anyway, the reading described more about why one piece of technology is chosen over another and specifically discussed the automobile. Just another reason to not believe technological determinism. --Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
Social Reconstruction- The "anti-auto crusade" discussed in the beginning of the article is very entertaining. The laws, such as the one from Vermont that "required a person to carry a red flag and walk ahead of the car," and the personal attacks on motorists in states all over the country surprised me and made me think about all of the opposition new technology takes (i.e.electricity). I also found it interesting that one law addressed scaring carriage horses. My horse absolutely hates cars and almost kicked his foot through a driver's side window when someone sped past us, so I can only imagine what those horses thought of the weird machinery. Funny how opposition can be seen in politics, social settings, and the environment.--Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's "My Life and Work, 1929". In it, Ford describes the process of developing the ideas behind the Model T, as well as the execution of its production. Throughout its development, you can clearly see the ideas of previous American inventors embedded in the creation of the Model T. Eli Whitney and John Hall's systems of interchangeable parts, the American System of Manufacturing, and Taylor's Scientific Management are all ideas utilized by Ford to create the Model T. - Lon<br />
<br />
Reading about Henry Ford's "My Life and Work" was good because through out the reading I saw how he improved on the ideas of others, which is a good thing. I am not at all a fan of Henry Ford because what I have learned in another class. As a person he was not so good, but what he accomplished for industry was wonderful. Aislyn<br />
The 15 year old girl's essay "How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family" is a clear demonstration of how electricity and electrical appliances effectively changed American's day to day lives. It is also an example of how people saw electricity not only as a technological development, but progress for society overall. Fern Van Bramer asserts that through electricity, Americans can now enjoy both happier, and efficient lives. For Van Bramer, the past is literally seen in the dark, while the future is flooded with light and warmth. - Lon<br />
<br />
<br />
The encyclopedia article from 1926 about mass production seems to be informative, but perhaps skeptical? The article first explains what mass production is, “the focusing upon a manufacturing project of the principles of power accuracy, economy, system, continuity and speed”. Next, the article lists the effects of mass production on society:<br />
1. Increase in industrial control, as distinguished from financial control<br />
2. Highest standard of quality ever attained in output of great quantities. <br />
3. Wide variety of single-purpose machines.<br />
4. The physical load is lifted off men and placed on machines. <br />
Finally, the article makes an interesting ending argument about the need for skilled labor. It seems almost out of place! The article states, “the need for skilled and creative genius is greater under mass production than without it,” then goes on to say, “it has been debated whether there is less or more skills as a consequence of mass production. The present writer’s opinion is that there is more”. Based off of this, I get the feeling that the encyclopedia was almost trying to cover their butt. As we have discussed in class, the rise of mass production meant the decline in skilled workers. It seems as though the author of this article knew this too, but was reluctant to say it. Rather, the argument was justified by a generalization/opinion that in modern times, every field of work requires knowledge and responsibility. Does this suggest that there is no longer a distinction between skilled and unskilled workers? Everyone is just a worker? And what does that mean for the worker? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the essay, How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family, to be hilarious! The argument of this prizewinning essay states, “if more wives and mothers would only understand that money spent in beautifying their homes is the truest form of economy, fewer fathers and sons would be paying for the bright lights in unwholesome places”. The argument is that light from electricity would motivate men to come home rather than go to “unwholesome places” which allure them solely based off of their bright lights! Rather, Women should embrace electricity so the men can come home to them where they can have a home cooked meal waiting! Very indicative of the time, did people really buy into this!? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
When we learn about Henry Ford and his development of the assembly line and how it brought a lot of progress to American manufacturing it is easy to forget the common people working in the factories. In "Detroit Motors" by Edmund Wilson, a man named Bert describes his experiences working for Ford. The workers are forced to work very long hours, have very short lunch breaks and are kept in a constant fear of loosing their jobs. It seems that in an effort to maximize production not much attention was given to those doing the actual work. This shouldn't be a very big surprise however, since employee rights wasn't considered even a possibility at that point. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
After reading the text and Lauren’s comment about Henry Ford I was somewhat confused. From my understanding in class was that Ford cared about his employees and saw them as a leading part to the success of his company. Long hours and short breaks completely contradict these thoughts and this leads me to believe that maybe all the good that was said about Ford may not be entirely true. But I can also see where this makes some sort of sense because the changes that were made in his factories were done not because it made work easier for the employee, but because it made production and the flow of money faster. It always all comes down to money – Jimmy Conroy <br />
<br />
Charles Madison's Seven Years of Automotive Servitude also helps to bring to light how Ford's advertisers got the best of many seeking work in his factories. When Charles tried to get a job under the $5-$7/day system he was surprised to learn that it came with fine print. Its kind of a shame that he didn't stay in the drafting room as he could have worked his way up but just like my brother he quit and later came crawling back. The juxtaposition of the harsh "hell" like conditions of Ford and the nicer, slower Dodge are interesting. Ford, being a way more popular company in terms of sales, shows how one can't be nice and slow to get ahead in any industry. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I found the passage from Henry Ford's autobiography, "My Life and Work, 1929," very interesting because Ford describes the development of the Model T and assembly line manufacturing process as scientific. Ford's research team made it their goal to reduce the amount of time that it took one to complete a given task. They valued production, and to some degree worker comfort, enough to repeatedly shut down operations in order to make tasks easier. It's interesting to note that while Ford paid his workers well and allowed them the mobility they desired in switching jobs, he was adamant that work had to be done by the book or else the factory would descend into utter chaos. While it may be true that some people legitimately preferred to not have to think while working, it seems unlikely that unskilled work satisfied every factory worker. After all, Ford himself claimed that he could never do the jobs of his employees. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The document on "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion, 1934" is a good example of how the notion of unskilled, assembly line labor permeated all venues of American industry after Ford adopted the principles. It was clever of the company to show its female employees that using the assembly fixtures and improved bins greatly increased their production while reducing the amount of energy they exerted in their work. Did other companies and industries use similar tactics in training their employees in not only how to do their work, but in "proving" that their way was so much better than thinking for one's self? -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
There’s a lot to be said about Henry Ford, but let’s keep it simple. He was pretty much a jerk. His autobiography certainly shows some of these jerkass qualities. The fact that he was terrified of repetitive labor himself but imposed it on his workers says a lot. He seemed to believe that being a creative man made him unsuitable for that kind of work, while the ordinary working majority actually <i>craved</i> a job without physical or mental exertion. Also, Ford may have offered his employees high wages, and he may have given jobs to immigrants and African Americans, but there were so many strings attached before anyone got anything. For instance, before being accepted for the Five Dollar Day plan, Ford’s Sociological Department first investigated workers at home. The department encouraged the “right” way of life, which included good morals, sobriety, family values, etc. The department also aimed for the Americanization of immigrants. For instance, it was required that they speak English at all times. With his Sociological Department, Ford expanded control over his laborers from the workplace only over into their personal lives. There was a reason Hitler considered this fellow a hero. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see how amateur involvement with the radio actually led to government restriction. The federal government didn’t have much of a place in quickly consolidated technological systems like electricity and telephony. What was the reason that large companies didn’t consolidate radio technology and stations right away? Why were amateurs allowed to become so involved and knowledgeable in radio technology? Even young boys were encouraged to make their own, despite the interference that they could cause on commercial and navy stations. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's account of how things went down in the assembly plants and then reading Charles Sorensen's account of the assembly line. The impression that Ford's article made for me was that he was the main thinker for the changes that we made to accommodate to the efficiency of the assembly line so that mass production would work to the best of its ability; while Sorensen's article explained that the idea of the assembly line was taken from previous ways of moving pieces to work on and that the ideas were a joint effort. "[Ford] was glorified as the originator of the mass production idea. Far from it; he just grew into it, like the rest of us" (321). -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Another thing that I found interesting was Ford's insistence that the average worker could work mind numbing activities day in and day out and be alright with it only because they didn't want to move up in the hierarchy that is job positions. I found the points that he made about the workers in the factory were belittling. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was in the passage by Henry Ford titled "My Life and Work," he writes "the parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buy new ones than to have old ones repaired." The cars he was building would not last forever and would inevitably need repairs or replacements. He made it cheaper to buy new parts, so customers would buy new parts from Ford instead of going to a repair shop. Even after a person purchased a car, the company could still make money from the sale of replacement parts. This demonstrates Ford's shrewd business skills because he was guaranteeing the success of the company. -- Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
In class we discussed Ford and Professor said how Ford encouraged the term "Fordism," and James J. Flink's "Modern Times" addresses the term. He describes the term and is read with a negative tone, thats how i perceived it. He opens with the end to skilled workers and then in the definition, says "apprenticeship required for becoming a competent craftsman" were no longer necessary. It shows with just those sentences, how the workplace went from a prestigious job/ability to where anyone could do it. I realize it is more efficient, but it seems the workers lost their ability to contribute to the end product, it was now a fixed result. Also, the lunch break, 15 min, is just ridiculous. Flink goes on to explain the workplace conditions. There were "gang labor spies and thugs": to keep control of the workers. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
In this week's readings "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion" is another document where women are bring used in the workplace (from the watch texts). I like that it describes the need for training girls, and the steps through it. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
Charles Stevenson's piece highlights an important theme that has been brought up several times in this course. The person who gets credit for an invention is not always the person solely responsible for creating it. Stevenson refers to Henry Ford as a "sponsor" of the process of mass production and not as the sole inventor. In the cases of many other artifacts such as the cotton gin and the Bessemer steel process, it is unclear as to who should receive credit. Thomas Edison was given credit for inventing the light bulb, when in fact he had dozens of people working in his laboratory helping him. It also seems common to forget that none of these artifacts were created out of the blue, but came from antecedents. Stevenson is just stating his role in developing the process of mass production. -- Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found "How Electricity....Happiness of the Family" to be a rather unintelligent essay. Blaming wives for not making the house pretty enough as the cause for their husbands to "wander" is ridiculous. Electricity does not constitute fidelity. Additionally, food cooked from non-electric sources, like charcoal grills, usually smells and tastes ten times better than anything cooked with electricity. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I thought the clipping from the article about high schoolers and college kids working as radio operators to be quite interesting. Not only was the fact that freight vessels could change over to passenger vessels in the summer intriguing, but also that the new laws put into place about radios had an impact on the people who could actually serve as operators. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
And this is where the technology nerd in me comes out -- I loved the section pertaining to technology and hobbies. My favorite was the Electrician and Mechanic Magazine, where the author discusses his friend who decided spontaneously to take up electrical telegraphy. I think we forget how much trial and error goes into creating a successful "science experiment" so to speak. We learn about all these great inventions like the cotton gin and the light bulb and when we're little there really isn't much trial and error thrown into the lecture. It was nice to read about some realistic failures in this article in particular because it kind of made everything seem more realistic. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were not perfect, you know. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I liked the Cowan article that supplemented the reading in the book as well. It was interesting to see what a short and atypical history the word "technology" had before it came to be what it is today. I would not have guessed that it actually meant "knowledge of the arts" in its original form. I also wouldn't have guessed that the arts it referred to did not mean ballet and painting. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Mass production was obvious in itself that machines will take over human's job because of the greater level of efficiency. Why not find a different profession while you still have the chances to do so. This was no over night process. If a human could make something in about a day and machines could do the same thing in half the time and the product still being up to par, then why not go with the wiser choice.-- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
Paul, I think the situation was that these people had been working factory work all their lives. The idea that the very objects they would build would one day erase them from existence was too much for them to handle, so they refused to accept it as a possibility, or rather, an inevitability. Just think of the workers who went from making cars by hand to constructing them in an assembly line. I'm sure they wondered if work was to become that mechanized and automated, what would be next? -Cash<br />
<br />
Henry Ford was a brilliant man. As stated in his "My Life and Work" article, "The first step forward in assembly came when we began taking the work to the men instead of the men to the work," made a tremendous impact on the whole process of assembling a car. His idea of eliminating multitasking by having someone perform a certain task on the product and sliding it down to the next person who performed a different task on the product made it possible to increase productivity. Even though a great idea, I think that people's skill sets started to diminish from this process because they only focused on a particular job that needed to be done. The new employees would only know how to perform the task of their station and not the whole process of putting the part together.-- Paul Kim</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_8_Questions/Comments325--Week 8 Questions/Comments2009-03-12T10:59:32Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Venus Green, Personal Service in the Bell System */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Women's roles in telephone industry ==<br />
<br />
I thought it was neat in the first article (and the second) when men and women's abilities and skills were listed for why they'd be good for such and such a certain job, '''how women were good for the telegraph because they "pay more undivided attention to their duties" (234). Which I think is funny but wrong, as men can too pay undivided attention to a . . . . hey look a doggie . . . duty.''' -- Jeff =)<br />
<br />
I found Katherine M. Schmitt's, "Memoir of a Telephone Operator, 1930," very interesting because it traces the development of the telephone as a piece of technology into an industry from the perspective of one of its earliest operators. Schmitt addresses the courtesy protocols that the New York Telephone Company enforced for its operators. I found this particularly interesting because it seems that courtesy and kindness were crucial for the adoption of the telephone over the telegram as the mainstream system of communication. Clients and operators developed personal relationships that made the technology more "user friendly" and this personal touch undoubtedly facilitated the adoption of the telephone. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The thing I liked most about "Memoir of a Telephone Operator" was the way in which the author's friends considered the telephone a new-fangled technology. I think many of us (at least me) tends to do the same thing when some technologies first come out. 'Why do we need that' or 'what can that possibly do' are common questions people ask when faced with new technlogies, much like people in the above-mentioned article ask. -- Jeff =P<br />
<br />
I agree with Bryan about the "Memoir of a Telephone Operator, 1930" in many ways was it interesting. '''This almost seems like the beginning of customer service.''' The special way the operator had to behave and speak was interesting, makes me think when you call a credit card company or something they all sound similar in tone, etc. Also it does seem that this was a birds eye view of how the telephone moved through its paces. The last part that was interesting and almost refreshing is that here is a job for women. Men were not the first choice and proved to be not a good fit as an operator. Showed women having a little pride being the ones needed to fill a particular role, and not just seen as an extra pair of hands for hard labor. The hours were long and sometimes you got a break, but it was like women being a major part of something new and exciting.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I agree, it really does seem like the beginning of customer service. Women were really the only good choice for the position of telephone operators. I think that in most cases, people, especially men, would prefer to talk to a female while trying to make a call. A female voice is softer, making it easier to hear repeatedly (over many calls) for many men. The telephone was definitely an exciting new development for women because it allowed them to enter an entirely new job market that was designed for them. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In "Memoir of a Telephone Operator," one thing that stood out to me was when she was discussing the concept of the telephone in early stages and how it seemed like a toy to most people. “Those first years no one could afford a telephone except prosperous business men, who used it overtime to get their money’s worth, for it was an expensive toy,” (237). Now a days, it seems like the same comparison could be made but for the opposite reason. It’s now so common that everyone has phones in their homes and in their pocket and people buy new ones because they’re more fun and can do more. I also thought it was interesting how the telephone directory could be used as this elite listing of those people who could afford this new technology of the time and wonder if more wealthy people would subscribe not because they actually needed the technology but so that their name could be on this list to show that they can. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
When talking about the efficiency of the phone operators, I found it surprising that there was only a margin of “irregularities” of 15%. Especially when such irregularities occur simply by forgetting to say please or by not staying 100% with what was scripted for the operators. And Sherwood compares the speed with which the telephone operators have to work as being put in the middle of a street with busy traffic and trying to avoid being run over. Given this, I would think there would be more mistakes, or at least the number of mistakes would increase as the rate of speed or efficiency increased. But, it also doesn’t give you any idea of how they measure these things, so we don’t really have a sense of where the numbers come from, just that these are the standard rates. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Virginia Penny’s “A New Employment for Women” is comparable to Virginia Penny’s previous article about watch making. Now, women are being employed as operators. It was said that women are better for the job because women have “reliable habits”, “an ability to abstract and concentrate thought upon their engagements”, and “greater patience and industry”. '''These reasons are comparable to the reasons that were given for women being better at watch making. Women seem to be given jobs that require patience, I guess men lack patience.''' - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
The article “Mrs. Rayne Visits Western Union” explains how being an operator is a social position for women because they are not compromised, they are able to sit, and they don’t get dirty. However, the inequality in wages is incredible between the genders. The average salary for women is $500 per year while the average salary for a male is $70 per month. It is argued that this inequality is justified based on the fact that males have greater endurance and can be called upon at night. It is also stated that women can’t handle the difficult work. They give the example of the Annual President’s Message, women are not allowed to perform this task because it takes nerve. However,''' the article does not ask the opinion of women and how they feel about these accusations and justifications. When I went on to read Katherine Schmitt’s “Memoir of a Telephone Operator” I still didn’t get a real opinion about wage, perhaps it didn’t occur to the women to question the inequity, perhaps it was expected.''' - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
One thing that really stood out to me and also was enjoyable to read was "Memoir of a Telephone Operator". What I really enjoyed from this reading was the fact that when telephones were first invented that were sold at high prices which only allowed for the richest to buy them. But what I never thought about was if only a few could buy a telephone, what was the point in having this technology. Did they all call each other and talk about how great it was to have such a wealthy staple of technology, since not many others had a phone? :D -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
In "Memoir of a Telephone Operator" I also noticed that the telephone was seen as an toy when it was first invented; this is basically due to the fact that no one could afford the invention. Those people do not know how much the telephone is not only used in our lives, but how much it has changed our day to day lives, if they did I am guessing it would be seen as a toy to them. But what makes me think is how the telephone has changed, especially over the past ten years. If one thinks about it, telephones have gone from a toy to a necessity, back to being a toy. With the Apple iPhone, gadgets and games that comes with a phone these days, it is hard to find a phone that is just a phone. Did we get bored with the technology or are these improvements which can make our lives easier? Time will have to tell...--Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that in 1893 Mrs. Rayne describes that men in the telegraph business were paid more because they had greater endurance, had better transcribing skills, and had more “nerve” than women. Yet, Katherine Schmitt, when describing her early years in the 1880s as an operator, says that men didn’t last long working in the telephone operating business because they were rowdy and rude, leading to them being “abolished.” '''What made men supposedly better than women at telegraph operating, but not telephone operating?''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In response to Taylor, I think part of that goes back to what some people were talking about earlier, that it's kind of where we see customer service start to develop. Politeness is important, especially in the beginning when the subscribers and operators got to know each other more personally, to an extent. I also feel like the men may be more rude because I would imagine that it would be harder to talk with, or be the middle person, between people involved in bigger businesses. Especially since the operator position would have been inferior to those with which they would be in contact with everyday, or at least from a male perspective. --Jessica Kilday <br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see the telephone’s early growth into a security system, particularly how women would leave the phone off the hook while they were alone at home so an operator could hear if something happened. '''Or more so, how some women actually left their children at home alone with the phone as a babysitter that could contact mothers if the children started crying. Paranoid? A little bit. Irresponsible? Very much so. But I think it certainly shows a growing trust in communication technology.''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In "Memoir of a Telephone Operator," I found it interesting that women were not only preferred for telephone operating, but boys were actually "abolished." In response to Taylor, I think that maybe it was not as big a deal for men to be "rowdy" while working at telegraph operating. They were not speaking directly to people, they were sending messages over the telegraph, in other words, there was no real personal interaction. I enjoyed this document because, as others pointed out, it led you through the development of the telephone. Also, I agree with Jimmy that it does seem that the telephone has made a full circle and ended up as a "toy" again. Much like only prosperous business men were able to have a telephone in the beginning, now only those who are well off are able to have the "best" phone out there - which has so many gadgets on it that it's almost hard to tell that it is even a phone anymore. -- Stefanie Holder<br />
<br />
'''Katherine M. Schmitt's comments on the telephone say a great deal about society. In the early years one had to speak to an operator to be connected to who you wanted to call. People were often on a first name basis with their operators and made small talk with them. After phones had become commonplace by the 1930s (in the New York area at least) Schmitt notes that she and her fellow operators became part of the machine.''' No one wanted to speak to the operator, the phone had become just another part of fast-paced life. Another interesting thing to note was that people didn't pay for the minutes they used but were charged for a flat rate and therefore used their "toys" as much as possible. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
'''Could the gendering of the telephone operating be due to the ability of managers to pay women less wages, rather than their customer service skills?''' - Lon<br />
<br />
Katherine M Schmitt's memoir was an interesting read. I liked how she explained the telephone as a "temperamental child" and how she nursed it to maturity. The memoir also serves to show this moment in time that technologies to us were viewed as new and exciting and "hanging in the balance." Society today would be so different if telephones didn't make it. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Along with Katherine M. Schmitt's memoir, I found the "Rules for Operating Room Employees" and the different telephone advertisements interesting. I can't really imagine picking up a phone and there being another conversation on it from people next door and so the telephone courtesy advertisement was silly to me. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I liked the parts of Schmitt's memoir that focused on her friends. Her friends were so weirded out by the idea of someone working for the telephone industry. I particularly liked the part where the friend thought she must hear "such horrible things" over the phone. I empathize with that. It's weird to think of an operator having the ability to listen in to all the calls. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
Katherine Schmitt article, "Memoir of a Telephone Operator," was a eye opening read. I would have never guess an invention to change society, who be looked as an "impractical toy." As Katherine explains, what seems like a toy at first grows to something bigger in the long run. Even though it was costly investment to have a telephone, I think that the way it grew it is remarkable. Just a few years go by and more and more people are getting into the use of the telephone. At first it started off with a few hundred subscriber who knew each other on a "friend" basis, but later on they had a hard time keeping up with the accelerated amount of people subscribing. '''One thing I don't understand is, why would they use boys to become operators when they all knew that they boys are still growing and that they have not matured fully. What would make someone think that it would be ok to put a bunch of boys in a room to do some actual hard work?''' -- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the article by Virginia Penny, A New Employment for Women. I thought it was quite interesting to see the advantages listed of using women as operators. I also was interested to see that some of the women commanded equal wages to men in this field, showing that there wasn't a glass ceiling in that profession. In response to Erin's comment on men not having patience, I would disagree, seeing as working in factories at that time was far more boring than connecting phones and writing messages, seeing as each message was at least different, and took more focus to make sure your hand was not crushed in machinery. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed was that as the technology became more and more complicated, so did the coorespdonding operating jobs. Virginia Penny describes a job as telegraph operator in which it seems only patience and politeness is necessary. However in the clippings from the telephone review, it says "the standard of eligibility must be high" and goes on to mention that the person must be much above the average young woman, excluding those that are mentally or physically unfit. After the invention of the telephone, it seems being an operator became more scientific and tool more skill. -Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
In Katherine Schmitt's memoir, she describes on pg. 237 what I believed to be the most surprising piece of information introduced in this piece. '''According to Schmitt, women were left unsupervised in the workplace. Now, considering the time period we are referring to, which corresponds with the rise of industrialization and big business, I think this spoke a great deal about how valued the telephone industry was at the time. This seems to be the most credible evidence supporting her description of telephones as purely 'toys'.''' - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Ronell on Thomas Watson ==<br />
When I first read this essay, I kind of laughed at the idea of the telephone belonging to the "spirit world." But after thinking about it a bit, I can understand why this assumption could be made about the telephone when it was first created. This was an invention that allowed people to communicate vocally instantaneously. It was almost like magic, or as Ronell said, like male witchcraft. It's hard to think of these inventions as something so new and mystifying because we're a population that can't imagine life without the telephone. But I guess for people who never experienced something like this before it had to be amazing and almost miraculous. Ronell may have seemed crazy in his little tirade, but I'm sure he wasn't alone in his thinking. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I'm with you on this Kelly, I have been trying to take the non technological determinism way of thinking... not only were there alternatives and many trials and errors before technologies were chosen and put to use/produced etc., there was a great deal of mystery behind new technology. While Ronnell does seem to be a little wacked out (in my opinion), it does make perfect sense that the new technology of the telephone would be hard to comprehend from the get go - hearing voices of people that weren't in proximity became a skill that not only the crazies could acquire. --Elle<br />
<br />
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke is famous for having said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And I think this is largely true for the observers of technology. The strange thing about Ronell's account is that one of the main people working on the technology could see it is otherworldly. At the time, it seems perfectly possible for even someone involved in the sciences to be active in the occult. But Watson knew, for the most part, the processes involved in the function of the telephone. It seems strange that he would even think of attributing its machinations to angels or demons. But there is a way in which this could have seemed like magic. Though he was an electrician, Watson may not have fully understood the atomic level of his craft. He was simply directing forces of nature, such as lighting, in really interesting ways. Put that together with a man trying to send voices and draw pictures over long distances and tinkering with human ears, and it starts to sound like a wizard's workshop. -Sean B.<br />
<br />
It's weird to think of such a famous engineer restoring to "spiritual" remedies to technological malfunctions. Ronell refers to Watson seeking a consult with a medium so as to enlist the spirits in giving their work on the telephone a boost. I find it funny, both that Watson was so disgusted he refused to do so again, and that Bell avoided the project from the beginning. It makes me wonder what Bell thought of Watson, and how their working relationship was, if Ronell is right in indicating that Bell thought Watson's beliefs were quackery. -- Matt S<br />
<br />
I was particularly fascinated by the concept of an 'autograph telegraph', as mentioned on pg. 248. Often times we discuss the technology with potential for success that was neglected in favor of other alternatives. I thought that this warranted further explanation than the three sentences it received. This device, according to Ronell, was capable of transmitting facsimile writing and pictures as early as the 1870's. Was the demand for such communication that low, or did other fundamental problems prevent this autograph telegraph from working properly? At what point did this form of communication, which Bell favored as a use of his telegraph, get neglected? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Venus Green, Personal Service in the Bell System ==<br />
<br />
I found Venus Green's explanation of why women were chosen as telephone switchboard operators and why they continued to run said switchboards long after it became technologically possible to move to automated service to be very interesting. Green states that women are more patient than men and can better multitask. More than anything, it appears that the Bell Telephone Company desired to retain the intimacy and personal touch of its telephone communication through live, friendly operators long after its competitors switched to automated connection options. Bell's training manual and managers heavily emphasized the importance of courtesy at all times. In response, customers gave their telephone switchboard operators personal gifts in the same vein that people leave personal gifts or tips for newspaper boys. Bell's commitment to the personal relationship between its company and its clients is remarkable considering that it would have probably been much cheaper to switch over to automated service. Today voicemail and automatic recordings are a normal part of our world. We still find it considerate when businesses employ people to answer their phones or when a businessman answers his own phone. It just goes to show that society's desires in this regard have remained the same as the technology continues to skyrocket. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
Going with what I was saying about women being the chosen people to be involved in the telephone. It was very neat that even when the phone technology was advancing the personal touch was still a vital part in the success. I know I would rather talk to a live person than an atuomated recording, because I feel like my questions/problems are being taken care of right and you also have proof (name of person) is something went wrong. It was interesting that in a time of making money and cornering the market, Bell kept with the live people over switching to an automated system. To me that showed a respect for the workers and the customers.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I agree with Aislyn, I like the personal touch. Even today I hate getting a machine when I am trying to make a call to a company for one reason or another. I do find it amazing the advancement in technology today; the personal touch has been replaced by an automated machine that can understand the voice and transfer the call when needed. To call the computer company or the train station a computer voice asks you several question and based on your response (voice response) transfers your call. I do find it interesting that the automated voice is still female. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
Green's article points to a very interesting decision for telephone executives. Instead of adopting automatic systems, the Bell Company continued to hire women as operators. I don't see this as an attempt to maximize customer service, but rather tradition. The occupation was highly gendered due to the inherent feminine qualities of being an operator (patience, multitasking abilities, gentle voices). However, I think the decision to not adopt automated systems was a move to perpetuate this gendered occupation rather than maintain customer service. -- Lon<br />
<br />
I was going to say what Bryan before me said. How Green illustrated what the telephone switchboard companies wanted to advertise to their subjected audience; patience, caring, and personal touch. This is atleast one profession where a woman is desired to do the job. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
I loved the idea that people used switchboard operators as a means of "ensuring their engagements". Basically, they were used the same way a hotel patron uses the front desk for wake up calls. It did make me think about a small piece of technology we have come to neglect, that is, the idea of an alarm. I am curious if alarms existed as this time, or rather, switchboard operators were used as a sort of free convienence. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Bruno Latour, Ma Bell’s Road Trip ==<br />
<br />
One of Latour's theme's in "Ma Bell's Road Trip" is change. He points out that when Millikan's physics meet the Bell Company, neither are the same. The Bell Company was now serving people across the continent and Millikan's research was greatly expanded. This is due to the Machiavellian-like alliances made by the telephone company. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
What I liked about Latour's essay was the discussion of alliances and their importance in the creation process. Most people recognize Alexander Graham Bell for the telephone, Eli Whitney for the cotton gin, Henry Bessemer for steel, but what we've learned in this class is that these inventions were not solo projects. All of these men had someone else with them; maybe not a whole team but they sure as hell were not alone. Especially inventors like Thomas Edison. The alliances among scientists and then their willingness to work with other scientists to improve their inventions is something, I think, that is often overlooked. These inventors needed to work together to get their projects to work and then to improve them to improve society. They couldn't do this alone. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I don't really think of science and engineering as an alliance game. This article does bring to light the fact that 1. (as Kelly mentions) it is not prudent/convenient to work alone on projects. 2. It suggests that alliances and group members are not permanent, and that in order for progress to really be made, the invention must withstand weak alliances falling through etc. It is a political game. This reminds me of Edison's Menlo labs - He had already gotten the wealthy investors from previous inventions and had built good alliances and had appropriate resources - like fellow engineers and scientists to work with, but also MONEY to make the process easier. I think one thing that wasn't necessarily stressed when talking about alliances is that funding is also key to success as an inventor of new technologies.<br />
<br />
Bruno's article made me realize that we have advanced so far. As stated in the article, the idea of running a telephone line from the West Coast to the East Coast was almost an impossible feat. We can just jump on the internet now and with the help of social networking we can keep in touch with a blink of an eye. Just to think, that establishing communication few kilometers was a great accomplishment. -Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I found it fascinating the uses of the mechanical repeaters to be fascinating in this article. Additionally I thought it was interesting that one of Bell's employee's ties to science helped the company as a whole develop even further. Finally, I found the transition of small labs and university labs to large corporate funded laboratories to be the most important change that this article pointed out. This transition led the way for many more break throughs in technology and science and has helped shape the world as we know it today. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I didn't realize before I read this that there was difficulty building a transcontinental line. I assumed that once the telephone was invented, the wires were effective enough to allow transcontinental communication, but actually most calls could only travel a few miles. This would have greatly limited the effectiveness and usefulness of the telephone. It wasn't until a new electronic repeater was invented that the idea became a reality. -Karen Siegmund</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_8_Questions/Comments325--Week 8 Questions/Comments2009-03-12T10:46:51Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Ronell on Thomas Watson */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Women's roles in telephone industry ==<br />
<br />
I thought it was neat in the first article (and the second) when men and women's abilities and skills were listed for why they'd be good for such and such a certain job, '''how women were good for the telegraph because they "pay more undivided attention to their duties" (234). Which I think is funny but wrong, as men can too pay undivided attention to a . . . . hey look a doggie . . . duty.''' -- Jeff =)<br />
<br />
I found Katherine M. Schmitt's, "Memoir of a Telephone Operator, 1930," very interesting because it traces the development of the telephone as a piece of technology into an industry from the perspective of one of its earliest operators. Schmitt addresses the courtesy protocols that the New York Telephone Company enforced for its operators. I found this particularly interesting because it seems that courtesy and kindness were crucial for the adoption of the telephone over the telegram as the mainstream system of communication. Clients and operators developed personal relationships that made the technology more "user friendly" and this personal touch undoubtedly facilitated the adoption of the telephone. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The thing I liked most about "Memoir of a Telephone Operator" was the way in which the author's friends considered the telephone a new-fangled technology. I think many of us (at least me) tends to do the same thing when some technologies first come out. 'Why do we need that' or 'what can that possibly do' are common questions people ask when faced with new technlogies, much like people in the above-mentioned article ask. -- Jeff =P<br />
<br />
I agree with Bryan about the "Memoir of a Telephone Operator, 1930" in many ways was it interesting. '''This almost seems like the beginning of customer service.''' The special way the operator had to behave and speak was interesting, makes me think when you call a credit card company or something they all sound similar in tone, etc. Also it does seem that this was a birds eye view of how the telephone moved through its paces. The last part that was interesting and almost refreshing is that here is a job for women. Men were not the first choice and proved to be not a good fit as an operator. Showed women having a little pride being the ones needed to fill a particular role, and not just seen as an extra pair of hands for hard labor. The hours were long and sometimes you got a break, but it was like women being a major part of something new and exciting.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I agree, it really does seem like the beginning of customer service. Women were really the only good choice for the position of telephone operators. I think that in most cases, people, especially men, would prefer to talk to a female while trying to make a call. A female voice is softer, making it easier to hear repeatedly (over many calls) for many men. The telephone was definitely an exciting new development for women because it allowed them to enter an entirely new job market that was designed for them. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In "Memoir of a Telephone Operator," one thing that stood out to me was when she was discussing the concept of the telephone in early stages and how it seemed like a toy to most people. “Those first years no one could afford a telephone except prosperous business men, who used it overtime to get their money’s worth, for it was an expensive toy,” (237). Now a days, it seems like the same comparison could be made but for the opposite reason. It’s now so common that everyone has phones in their homes and in their pocket and people buy new ones because they’re more fun and can do more. I also thought it was interesting how the telephone directory could be used as this elite listing of those people who could afford this new technology of the time and wonder if more wealthy people would subscribe not because they actually needed the technology but so that their name could be on this list to show that they can. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
When talking about the efficiency of the phone operators, I found it surprising that there was only a margin of “irregularities” of 15%. Especially when such irregularities occur simply by forgetting to say please or by not staying 100% with what was scripted for the operators. And Sherwood compares the speed with which the telephone operators have to work as being put in the middle of a street with busy traffic and trying to avoid being run over. Given this, I would think there would be more mistakes, or at least the number of mistakes would increase as the rate of speed or efficiency increased. But, it also doesn’t give you any idea of how they measure these things, so we don’t really have a sense of where the numbers come from, just that these are the standard rates. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Virginia Penny’s “A New Employment for Women” is comparable to Virginia Penny’s previous article about watch making. Now, women are being employed as operators. It was said that women are better for the job because women have “reliable habits”, “an ability to abstract and concentrate thought upon their engagements”, and “greater patience and industry”. '''These reasons are comparable to the reasons that were given for women being better at watch making. Women seem to be given jobs that require patience, I guess men lack patience.''' - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
The article “Mrs. Rayne Visits Western Union” explains how being an operator is a social position for women because they are not compromised, they are able to sit, and they don’t get dirty. However, the inequality in wages is incredible between the genders. The average salary for women is $500 per year while the average salary for a male is $70 per month. It is argued that this inequality is justified based on the fact that males have greater endurance and can be called upon at night. It is also stated that women can’t handle the difficult work. They give the example of the Annual President’s Message, women are not allowed to perform this task because it takes nerve. However,''' the article does not ask the opinion of women and how they feel about these accusations and justifications. When I went on to read Katherine Schmitt’s “Memoir of a Telephone Operator” I still didn’t get a real opinion about wage, perhaps it didn’t occur to the women to question the inequity, perhaps it was expected.''' - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
One thing that really stood out to me and also was enjoyable to read was "Memoir of a Telephone Operator". What I really enjoyed from this reading was the fact that when telephones were first invented that were sold at high prices which only allowed for the richest to buy them. But what I never thought about was if only a few could buy a telephone, what was the point in having this technology. Did they all call each other and talk about how great it was to have such a wealthy staple of technology, since not many others had a phone? :D -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
In "Memoir of a Telephone Operator" I also noticed that the telephone was seen as an toy when it was first invented; this is basically due to the fact that no one could afford the invention. Those people do not know how much the telephone is not only used in our lives, but how much it has changed our day to day lives, if they did I am guessing it would be seen as a toy to them. But what makes me think is how the telephone has changed, especially over the past ten years. If one thinks about it, telephones have gone from a toy to a necessity, back to being a toy. With the Apple iPhone, gadgets and games that comes with a phone these days, it is hard to find a phone that is just a phone. Did we get bored with the technology or are these improvements which can make our lives easier? Time will have to tell...--Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that in 1893 Mrs. Rayne describes that men in the telegraph business were paid more because they had greater endurance, had better transcribing skills, and had more “nerve” than women. Yet, Katherine Schmitt, when describing her early years in the 1880s as an operator, says that men didn’t last long working in the telephone operating business because they were rowdy and rude, leading to them being “abolished.” '''What made men supposedly better than women at telegraph operating, but not telephone operating?''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In response to Taylor, I think part of that goes back to what some people were talking about earlier, that it's kind of where we see customer service start to develop. Politeness is important, especially in the beginning when the subscribers and operators got to know each other more personally, to an extent. I also feel like the men may be more rude because I would imagine that it would be harder to talk with, or be the middle person, between people involved in bigger businesses. Especially since the operator position would have been inferior to those with which they would be in contact with everyday, or at least from a male perspective. --Jessica Kilday <br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see the telephone’s early growth into a security system, particularly how women would leave the phone off the hook while they were alone at home so an operator could hear if something happened. '''Or more so, how some women actually left their children at home alone with the phone as a babysitter that could contact mothers if the children started crying. Paranoid? A little bit. Irresponsible? Very much so. But I think it certainly shows a growing trust in communication technology.''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In "Memoir of a Telephone Operator," I found it interesting that women were not only preferred for telephone operating, but boys were actually "abolished." In response to Taylor, I think that maybe it was not as big a deal for men to be "rowdy" while working at telegraph operating. They were not speaking directly to people, they were sending messages over the telegraph, in other words, there was no real personal interaction. I enjoyed this document because, as others pointed out, it led you through the development of the telephone. Also, I agree with Jimmy that it does seem that the telephone has made a full circle and ended up as a "toy" again. Much like only prosperous business men were able to have a telephone in the beginning, now only those who are well off are able to have the "best" phone out there - which has so many gadgets on it that it's almost hard to tell that it is even a phone anymore. -- Stefanie Holder<br />
<br />
'''Katherine M. Schmitt's comments on the telephone say a great deal about society. In the early years one had to speak to an operator to be connected to who you wanted to call. People were often on a first name basis with their operators and made small talk with them. After phones had become commonplace by the 1930s (in the New York area at least) Schmitt notes that she and her fellow operators became part of the machine.''' No one wanted to speak to the operator, the phone had become just another part of fast-paced life. Another interesting thing to note was that people didn't pay for the minutes they used but were charged for a flat rate and therefore used their "toys" as much as possible. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
'''Could the gendering of the telephone operating be due to the ability of managers to pay women less wages, rather than their customer service skills?''' - Lon<br />
<br />
Katherine M Schmitt's memoir was an interesting read. I liked how she explained the telephone as a "temperamental child" and how she nursed it to maturity. The memoir also serves to show this moment in time that technologies to us were viewed as new and exciting and "hanging in the balance." Society today would be so different if telephones didn't make it. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Along with Katherine M. Schmitt's memoir, I found the "Rules for Operating Room Employees" and the different telephone advertisements interesting. I can't really imagine picking up a phone and there being another conversation on it from people next door and so the telephone courtesy advertisement was silly to me. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I liked the parts of Schmitt's memoir that focused on her friends. Her friends were so weirded out by the idea of someone working for the telephone industry. I particularly liked the part where the friend thought she must hear "such horrible things" over the phone. I empathize with that. It's weird to think of an operator having the ability to listen in to all the calls. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
Katherine Schmitt article, "Memoir of a Telephone Operator," was a eye opening read. I would have never guess an invention to change society, who be looked as an "impractical toy." As Katherine explains, what seems like a toy at first grows to something bigger in the long run. Even though it was costly investment to have a telephone, I think that the way it grew it is remarkable. Just a few years go by and more and more people are getting into the use of the telephone. At first it started off with a few hundred subscriber who knew each other on a "friend" basis, but later on they had a hard time keeping up with the accelerated amount of people subscribing. '''One thing I don't understand is, why would they use boys to become operators when they all knew that they boys are still growing and that they have not matured fully. What would make someone think that it would be ok to put a bunch of boys in a room to do some actual hard work?''' -- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the article by Virginia Penny, A New Employment for Women. I thought it was quite interesting to see the advantages listed of using women as operators. I also was interested to see that some of the women commanded equal wages to men in this field, showing that there wasn't a glass ceiling in that profession. In response to Erin's comment on men not having patience, I would disagree, seeing as working in factories at that time was far more boring than connecting phones and writing messages, seeing as each message was at least different, and took more focus to make sure your hand was not crushed in machinery. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed was that as the technology became more and more complicated, so did the coorespdonding operating jobs. Virginia Penny describes a job as telegraph operator in which it seems only patience and politeness is necessary. However in the clippings from the telephone review, it says "the standard of eligibility must be high" and goes on to mention that the person must be much above the average young woman, excluding those that are mentally or physically unfit. After the invention of the telephone, it seems being an operator became more scientific and tool more skill. -Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
In Katherine Schmitt's memoir, she describes on pg. 237 what I believed to be the most surprising piece of information introduced in this piece. '''According to Schmitt, women were left unsupervised in the workplace. Now, considering the time period we are referring to, which corresponds with the rise of industrialization and big business, I think this spoke a great deal about how valued the telephone industry was at the time. This seems to be the most credible evidence supporting her description of telephones as purely 'toys'.''' - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Ronell on Thomas Watson ==<br />
When I first read this essay, I kind of laughed at the idea of the telephone belonging to the "spirit world." But after thinking about it a bit, I can understand why this assumption could be made about the telephone when it was first created. This was an invention that allowed people to communicate vocally instantaneously. It was almost like magic, or as Ronell said, like male witchcraft. It's hard to think of these inventions as something so new and mystifying because we're a population that can't imagine life without the telephone. But I guess for people who never experienced something like this before it had to be amazing and almost miraculous. Ronell may have seemed crazy in his little tirade, but I'm sure he wasn't alone in his thinking. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I'm with you on this Kelly, I have been trying to take the non technological determinism way of thinking... not only were there alternatives and many trials and errors before technologies were chosen and put to use/produced etc., there was a great deal of mystery behind new technology. While Ronnell does seem to be a little wacked out (in my opinion), it does make perfect sense that the new technology of the telephone would be hard to comprehend from the get go - hearing voices of people that weren't in proximity became a skill that not only the crazies could acquire. --Elle<br />
<br />
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke is famous for having said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And I think this is largely true for the observers of technology. The strange thing about Ronell's account is that one of the main people working on the technology could see it is otherworldly. At the time, it seems perfectly possible for even someone involved in the sciences to be active in the occult. But Watson knew, for the most part, the processes involved in the function of the telephone. It seems strange that he would even think of attributing its machinations to angels or demons. But there is a way in which this could have seemed like magic. Though he was an electrician, Watson may not have fully understood the atomic level of his craft. He was simply directing forces of nature, such as lighting, in really interesting ways. Put that together with a man trying to send voices and draw pictures over long distances and tinkering with human ears, and it starts to sound like a wizard's workshop. -Sean B.<br />
<br />
It's weird to think of such a famous engineer restoring to "spiritual" remedies to technological malfunctions. Ronell refers to Watson seeking a consult with a medium so as to enlist the spirits in giving their work on the telephone a boost. I find it funny, both that Watson was so disgusted he refused to do so again, and that Bell avoided the project from the beginning. It makes me wonder what Bell thought of Watson, and how their working relationship was, if Ronell is right in indicating that Bell thought Watson's beliefs were quackery. -- Matt S<br />
<br />
I was particularly fascinated by the concept of an 'autograph telegraph', as mentioned on pg. 248. Often times we discuss the technology with potential for success that was neglected in favor of other alternatives. I thought that this warranted further explanation than the three sentences it received. This device, according to Ronell, was capable of transmitting facsimile writing and pictures as early as the 1870's. Was the demand for such communication that low, or did other fundamental problems prevent this autograph telegraph from working properly? At what point did this form of communication, which Bell favored as a use of his telegraph, get neglected? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Venus Green, Personal Service in the Bell System ==<br />
<br />
I found Venus Green's explanation of why women were chosen as telephone switchboard operators and why they continued to run said switchboards long after it became technologically possible to move to automated service to be very interesting. Green states that women are more patient than men and can better multitask. More than anything, it appears that the Bell Telephone Company desired to retain the intimacy and personal touch of its telephone communication through live, friendly operators long after its competitors switched to automated connection options. Bell's training manual and managers heavily emphasized the importance of courtesy at all times. In response, customers gave their telephone switchboard operators personal gifts in the same vein that people leave personal gifts or tips for newspaper boys. Bell's commitment to the personal relationship between its company and its clients is remarkable considering that it would have probably been much cheaper to switch over to automated service. Today voicemail and automatic recordings are a normal part of our world. We still find it considerate when businesses employ people to answer their phones or when a businessman answers his own phone. It just goes to show that society's desires in this regard have remained the same as the technology continues to skyrocket. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
Going with what I was saying about women being the chosen people to be involved in the telephone. It was very neat that even when the phone technology was advancing the personal touch was still a vital part in the success. I know I would rather talk to a live person than an atuomated recording, because I feel like my questions/problems are being taken care of right and you also have proof (name of person) is something went wrong. It was interesting that in a time of making money and cornering the market, Bell kept with the live people over switching to an automated system. To me that showed a respect for the workers and the customers.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I agree with Aislyn, I like the personal touch. Even today I hate getting a machine when I am trying to make a call to a company for one reason or another. I do find it amazing the advancement in technology today; the personal touch has been replaced by an automated machine that can understand the voice and transfer the call when needed. To call the computer company or the train station a computer voice asks you several question and based on your response (voice response) transfers your call. I do find it interesting that the automated voice is still female. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Green's article points to a very interesting decision for telephone executives. Instead of adopting automatic systems, the Bell Company continued to hire women as operators. I don't see this as an attempt to maximize customer service, but rather tradition. The occupation was highly gendered due to the inherent feminine qualities of being an operator (patience, multitasking abilities, gentle voices). However, I think the decision to not adopt automated systems was a move to perpetuate this gendered occupation rather than maintain customer service. -- Lon<br />
<br />
I was going to say what Bryan before me said. How Green illustrated what the telephone switchboard companies wanted to advertise to their subjected audience; patience, caring, and personal touch. This is atleast one profession where a woman is desired to do the job. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
== Bruno Latour, Ma Bell’s Road Trip ==<br />
<br />
One of Latour's theme's in "Ma Bell's Road Trip" is change. He points out that when Millikan's physics meet the Bell Company, neither are the same. The Bell Company was now serving people across the continent and Millikan's research was greatly expanded. This is due to the Machiavellian-like alliances made by the telephone company. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
What I liked about Latour's essay was the discussion of alliances and their importance in the creation process. Most people recognize Alexander Graham Bell for the telephone, Eli Whitney for the cotton gin, Henry Bessemer for steel, but what we've learned in this class is that these inventions were not solo projects. All of these men had someone else with them; maybe not a whole team but they sure as hell were not alone. Especially inventors like Thomas Edison. The alliances among scientists and then their willingness to work with other scientists to improve their inventions is something, I think, that is often overlooked. These inventors needed to work together to get their projects to work and then to improve them to improve society. They couldn't do this alone. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I don't really think of science and engineering as an alliance game. This article does bring to light the fact that 1. (as Kelly mentions) it is not prudent/convenient to work alone on projects. 2. It suggests that alliances and group members are not permanent, and that in order for progress to really be made, the invention must withstand weak alliances falling through etc. It is a political game. This reminds me of Edison's Menlo labs - He had already gotten the wealthy investors from previous inventions and had built good alliances and had appropriate resources - like fellow engineers and scientists to work with, but also MONEY to make the process easier. I think one thing that wasn't necessarily stressed when talking about alliances is that funding is also key to success as an inventor of new technologies.<br />
<br />
Bruno's article made me realize that we have advanced so far. As stated in the article, the idea of running a telephone line from the West Coast to the East Coast was almost an impossible feat. We can just jump on the internet now and with the help of social networking we can keep in touch with a blink of an eye. Just to think, that establishing communication few kilometers was a great accomplishment. -Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I found it fascinating the uses of the mechanical repeaters to be fascinating in this article. Additionally I thought it was interesting that one of Bell's employee's ties to science helped the company as a whole develop even further. Finally, I found the transition of small labs and university labs to large corporate funded laboratories to be the most important change that this article pointed out. This transition led the way for many more break throughs in technology and science and has helped shape the world as we know it today. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I didn't realize before I read this that there was difficulty building a transcontinental line. I assumed that once the telephone was invented, the wires were effective enough to allow transcontinental communication, but actually most calls could only travel a few miles. This would have greatly limited the effectiveness and usefulness of the telephone. It wasn't until a new electronic repeater was invented that the idea became a reality. -Karen Siegmund</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_8_Questions/Comments325--Week 8 Questions/Comments2009-03-12T10:30:23Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Women's roles in telephone industry */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Women's roles in telephone industry ==<br />
<br />
I found Katherine M. Schmitt's, "Memoir of a Telephone Operator, 1930," very interesting because it traces the development of the telephone as a piece of technology into an industry from the perspective of one of its earliest operators. Schmitt addresses the courtesy protocols that the New York Telephone Company enforced for its operators. I found this particularly interesting because it seems that courtesy and kindness were crucial for the adoption of the telephone over the telegram as the mainstream system of communication. Clients and operators developed personal relationships that made the technology more "user friendly" and this personal touch undoubtedly facilitated the adoption of the telephone. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I agree with Bryan about the "Memoir of a Telephone Operator, 1930" in many ways was it interesting. This almost seems like the beginning of customer service. The special way the operator had to behave and speak was interesting, makes me think when you call a credit card company or something they all sound similar in tone, etc. Also it does seem that this was a birds eye view of how the telephone moved through its paces. The last part that was interesting and almost refreshing is that here is a job for women. Men were not the first choice and proved to be not a good fit as an operator. Showed women having a little pride being the ones needed to fill a particular role, and not just seen as an extra pair of hands for hard labor. The hours were long and sometimes you got a break, but it was like women being a major part of something new and exciting.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I agree, it really does seem like the beginning of customer service. Women were really the only good choice for the position of telephone operators. I think that in most cases, people, especially men, would prefer to talk to a female while trying to make a call. A female voice is softer, making it easier to hear repeatedly (over many calls) for many men. The telephone was definitely an exciting new development for women because it allowed them to enter an entirely new job market that was designed for them. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In "Memoir of a Telephone Operator," one thing that stood out to me was when she was discussing the concept of the telephone in early stages and how it seemed like a toy to most people. “Those first years no one could afford a telephone except prosperous business men, who used it overtime to get their money’s worth, for it was an expensive toy,” (237). Now a days, it seems like the same comparison could be made but for the opposite reason. It’s now so common that everyone has phones in their homes and in their pocket and people buy new ones because they’re more fun and can do more. I also thought it was interesting how the telephone directory could be used as this elite listing of those people who could afford this new technology of the time and wonder if more wealthy people would subscribe not because they actually needed the technology but so that their name could be on this list to show that they can. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
When talking about the efficiency of the phone operators, I found it surprising that there was only a margin of “irregularities” of 15%. Especially when such irregularities occur simply by forgetting to say please or by not staying 100% with what was scripted for the operators. And Sherwood compares the speed with which the telephone operators have to work as being put in the middle of a street with busy traffic and trying to avoid being run over. Given this, I would think there would be more mistakes, or at least the number of mistakes would increase as the rate of speed or efficiency increased. But, it also doesn’t give you any idea of how they measure these things, so we don’t really have a sense of where the numbers come from, just that these are the standard rates. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Virginia Penny’s “A New Employment for Women” is comparable to Virginia Penny’s previous article about watch making. Now, women are being employed as operators. It was said that women are better for the job because women have “reliable habits”, “an ability to abstract and concentrate thought upon their engagements”, and “greater patience and industry”. These reasons are comparable to the reasons that were given for women being better at watch making. Women seem to be given jobs that require patience, I guess men lack patience. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
The article “Mrs. Rayne Visits Western Union” explains how being an operator is a social position for women because they are not compromised, they are able to sit, and they don’t get dirty. However, the inequality in wages is incredible between the genders. The average salary for women is $500 per year while the average salary for a male is $70 per month. It is argued that this inequality is justified based on the fact that males have greater endurance and can be called upon at night. It is also stated that women can’t handle the difficult work. They give the example of the Annual President’s Message, women are not allowed to perform this task because it takes nerve. However, the article does not ask the opinion of women and how they feel about these accusations and justifications. When I went on to read Katherine Schmitt’s “Memoir of a Telephone Operator” I still didn’t get a real opinion about wage, perhaps it didn’t occur to the women to question the inequity, perhaps it was expected. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
One thing that really stood out to me and also was enjoyable to read was "Memoir of a Telephone Operator". What I really enjoyed from this reading was the fact that when telephones were first invented that were sold at high prices which only allowed for the richest to buy them. But what I never thought about was if only a few could buy a telephone, what was the point in having this technology. Did they all call each other and talk about how great it was to have such a wealthy staple of technology, since not many others had a phone? :D -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
In "Memoir of a Telephone Operator" I also noticed that the telephone was seen as an toy when it was first invented; this is basically due to the fact that no one could afford the invention. Those people do not know how much the telephone is not only used in our lives, but how much it has changed our day to day lives, if they did I am guessing it would be seen as a toy to them. But what makes me think is how the telephone has changed, especially over the past ten years. If one thinks about it, telephones have gone from a toy to a necessity, back to being a toy. With the Apple iPhone, gadgets and games that comes with a phone these days, it is hard to find a phone that is just a phone. Did we get bored with the technology or are these improvements which can make our lives easier? Time will have to tell...--Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that in 1893 Mrs. Rayne describes that men in the telegraph business were paid more because they had greater endurance, had better transcribing skills, and had more “nerve” than women. Yet, Katherine Schmitt, when describing her early years in the 1880s as an operator, says that men didn’t last long working in the telephone operating business because they were rowdy and rude, leading to them being “abolished.” What made men supposedly better than women at telegraph operating, but not telephone operating? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In response to Taylor, I think part of that goes back to what some people were talking about earlier, that it's kind of where we see customer service start to develop. Politeness is important, especially in the beginning when the subscribers and operators got to know each other more personally, to an extent. I also feel like the men may be more rude because I would imagine that it would be harder to talk with, or be the middle person, between people involved in bigger businesses. Especially since the operator position would have been inferior to those with which they would be in contact with everyday, or at least from a male perspective. --Jessica Kilday <br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see the telephone’s early growth into a security system, particularly how women would leave the phone off the hook while they were alone at home so an operator could hear if something happened. Or more so, how some women actually left their children at home alone with the phone as a babysitter that could contact mothers if the children started crying. Paranoid? A little bit. Irresponsible? Very much so. But I think it certainly shows a growing trust in communication technology. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In "Memoir of a Telephone Operator," I found it interesting that women were not only preferred for telephone operating, but boys were actually "abolished." In response to Taylor, I think that maybe it was not as big a deal for men to be "rowdy" while working at telegraph operating. They were not speaking directly to people, they were sending messages over the telegraph, in other words, there was no real personal interaction. I enjoyed this document because, as others pointed out, it led you through the development of the telephone. Also, I agree with Jimmy that it does seem that the telephone has made a full circle and ended up as a "toy" again. Much like only prosperous business men were able to have a telephone in the beginning, now only those who are well off are able to have the "best" phone out there - which has so many gadgets on it that it's almost hard to tell that it is even a phone anymore. -- Stefanie Holder<br />
<br />
Katherine M. Schmitt's comments on the telephone say a great deal about society. In the early years one had to speak to an operator to be connected to who you wanted to call. People were often on a first name basis with their operators and made small talk with them. After phones had become commonplace by the 1930s (in the New York area at least) Schmitt notes that she and her fellow operators became part of the machine. No one wanted to speak to the operator, the phone had become just another part of fast-paced life. Another interesting thing to note was that people didn't pay for the minutes they used but were charged for a flat rate and therefore used their "toys" as much as possible. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Could the gendering of the telephone operating be due to the ability of managers to pay women less wages, rather than their customer service skills? - Lon<br />
<br />
Katherine M Schmitt's memoir was an interesting read. I liked how she explained the telephone as a "temperamental child" and how she nursed it to maturity. The memoir also serves to show this moment in time that technologies to us were viewed as new and exciting and "hanging in the balance." Society today would be so different if telephones didn't make it. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Along with Katherine M. Schmitt's memoir, I found the "Rules for Operating Room Employees" and the different telephone advertisements interesting. I can't really imagine picking up a phone and there being another conversation on it from people next door and so the telephone courtesy advertisement was silly to me. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I liked the parts of Schmitt's memoir that focused on her friends. Her friends were so weirded out by the idea of someone working for the telephone industry. I particularly liked the part where the friend thought she must hear "such horrible things" over the phone. I empathize with that. It's weird to think of an operator having the ability to listen in to all the calls. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
Katherine Schmitt article, "Memoir of a Telephone Operator," was a eye opening read. I would have never guess an invention to change society, who be looked as an "impractical toy." As Katherine explains, what seems like a toy at first grows to something bigger in the long run. Even though it was costly investment to have a telephone, I think that the way it grew it is remarkable. Just a few years go by and more and more people are getting into the use of the telephone. At first it started off with a few hundred subscriber who knew each other on a "friend" basis, but later on they had a hard time keeping up with the accelerated amount of people subscribing. One thing I don't understand is, why would they use boys to become operators when they all knew that they boys are still growing and that they have not matured fully. What would make someone think that it would be ok to put a bunch of boys in a room to do some actual hard work? -- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the article by Virginia Penny, A New Employment for Women. I thought it was quite interesting to see the advantages listed of using women as operators. I also was interested to see that some of the women commanded equal wages to men in this field, showing that there wasn't a glass ceiling in that profession. In response to Erin's comment on men not having patience, I would disagree, seeing as working in factories at that time was far more boring than connecting phones and writing messages, seeing as each message was at least different, and took more focus to make sure your hand was not crushed in machinery. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed was that as the technology became more and more complicated, so did the coorespdonding operating jobs. Virginia Penny describes a job as telegraph operator in which it seems only patience and politeness is necessary. However in the clippings from the telephone review, it says "the standard of eligibility must be high" and goes on to mention that the person must be much above the average young woman, excluding those that are mentally or physically unfit. After the invention of the telephone, it seems being an operator became more scientific and tool more skill. -Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
In Katherine Schmitt's memoir, she describes on pg. 237 what I believed to be the most surprising piece of information introduced in this piece. According to Schmitt, women were left unsupervised in the workplace. Now, considering the time period we are referring to, which corresponds with the rise of industrialization and big business, I think this spoke a great deal about how valued the telephone industry was at the time. This seems to be the most credible evidence supporting her description of telephones as purely 'toys'. - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Ronell on Thomas Watson ==<br />
When I first read this essay, I kind of laughed at the idea of the telephone belonging to the "spirit world." But after thinking about it a bit, I can understand why this assumption could be made about the telephone when it was first created. This was an invention that allowed people to communicate vocally instantaneously. It was almost like magic, or as Ronell said, like male witchcraft. It's hard to think of these inventions as something so new and mystifying because we're a population that can't imagine life without the telephone. But I guess for people who never experienced something like this before it had to be amazing and almost miraculous. Ronell may have seemed crazy in his little tirade, but I'm sure he wasn't alone in his thinking. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I'm with you on this Kelly, I have been trying to take the non technological determinism way of thinking... not only were there alternatives and many trials and errors before technologies were chosen and put to use/produced etc., there was a great deal of mystery behind new technology. While Ronnell does seem to be a little wacked out (in my opinion), it does make perfect sense that the new technology of the telephone would be hard to comprehend from the get go - hearing voices of people that weren't in proximity became a skill that not only the crazies could acquire. --Elle<br />
<br />
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke is famous for having said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And I think this is largely true for the observers of technology. The strange thing about Ronell's account is that one of the main people working on the technology could see it is otherworldly. At the time, it seems perfectly possible for even someone involved in the sciences to be active in the occult. But Watson knew, for the most part, the processes involved in the function of the telephone. It seems strange that he would even think of attributing its machinations to angels or demons. But there is a way in which this could have seemed like magic. Though he was an electrician, Watson may not have fully understood the atomic level of his craft. He was simply directing forces of nature, such as lighting, in really interesting ways. Put that together with a man trying to send voices and draw pictures over long distances and tinkering with human ears, and it starts to sound like a wizard's workshop. -Sean B.<br />
<br />
It's weird to think of such a famous engineer restoring to "spiritual" remedies to technological malfunctions. Ronell refers to Watson seeking a consult with a medium so as to enlist the spirits in giving their work on the telephone a boost. I find it funny, both that Watson was so disgusted he refused to do so again, and that Bell avoided the project from the beginning. It makes me wonder what Bell thought of Watson, and how their working relationship was, if Ronell is right in indicating that Bell thought Watson's beliefs were quackery. -- Matt S<br />
<br />
== Venus Green, Personal Service in the Bell System ==<br />
<br />
I found Venus Green's explanation of why women were chosen as telephone switchboard operators and why they continued to run said switchboards long after it became technologically possible to move to automated service to be very interesting. Green states that women are more patient than men and can better multitask. More than anything, it appears that the Bell Telephone Company desired to retain the intimacy and personal touch of its telephone communication through live, friendly operators long after its competitors switched to automated connection options. Bell's training manual and managers heavily emphasized the importance of courtesy at all times. In response, customers gave their telephone switchboard operators personal gifts in the same vein that people leave personal gifts or tips for newspaper boys. Bell's commitment to the personal relationship between its company and its clients is remarkable considering that it would have probably been much cheaper to switch over to automated service. Today voicemail and automatic recordings are a normal part of our world. We still find it considerate when businesses employ people to answer their phones or when a businessman answers his own phone. It just goes to show that society's desires in this regard have remained the same as the technology continues to skyrocket. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
Going with what I was saying about women being the chosen people to be involved in the telephone. It was very neat that even when the phone technology was advancing the personal touch was still a vital part in the success. I know I would rather talk to a live person than an atuomated recording, because I feel like my questions/problems are being taken care of right and you also have proof (name of person) is something went wrong. It was interesting that in a time of making money and cornering the market, Bell kept with the live people over switching to an automated system. To me that showed a respect for the workers and the customers.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I agree with Aislyn, I like the personal touch. Even today I hate getting a machine when I am trying to make a call to a company for one reason or another. I do find it amazing the advancement in technology today; the personal touch has been replaced by an automated machine that can understand the voice and transfer the call when needed. To call the computer company or the train station a computer voice asks you several question and based on your response (voice response) transfers your call. I do find it interesting that the automated voice is still female. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Green's article points to a very interesting decision for telephone executives. Instead of adopting automatic systems, the Bell Company continued to hire women as operators. I don't see this as an attempt to maximize customer service, but rather tradition. The occupation was highly gendered due to the inherent feminine qualities of being an operator (patience, multitasking abilities, gentle voices). However, I think the decision to not adopt automated systems was a move to perpetuate this gendered occupation rather than maintain customer service. -- Lon<br />
<br />
I was going to say what Bryan before me said. How Green illustrated what the telephone switchboard companies wanted to advertise to their subjected audience; patience, caring, and personal touch. This is atleast one profession where a woman is desired to do the job. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
== Bruno Latour, Ma Bell’s Road Trip ==<br />
<br />
One of Latour's theme's in "Ma Bell's Road Trip" is change. He points out that when Millikan's physics meet the Bell Company, neither are the same. The Bell Company was now serving people across the continent and Millikan's research was greatly expanded. This is due to the Machiavellian-like alliances made by the telephone company. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
What I liked about Latour's essay was the discussion of alliances and their importance in the creation process. Most people recognize Alexander Graham Bell for the telephone, Eli Whitney for the cotton gin, Henry Bessemer for steel, but what we've learned in this class is that these inventions were not solo projects. All of these men had someone else with them; maybe not a whole team but they sure as hell were not alone. Especially inventors like Thomas Edison. The alliances among scientists and then their willingness to work with other scientists to improve their inventions is something, I think, that is often overlooked. These inventors needed to work together to get their projects to work and then to improve them to improve society. They couldn't do this alone. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I don't really think of science and engineering as an alliance game. This article does bring to light the fact that 1. (as Kelly mentions) it is not prudent/convenient to work alone on projects. 2. It suggests that alliances and group members are not permanent, and that in order for progress to really be made, the invention must withstand weak alliances falling through etc. It is a political game. This reminds me of Edison's Menlo labs - He had already gotten the wealthy investors from previous inventions and had built good alliances and had appropriate resources - like fellow engineers and scientists to work with, but also MONEY to make the process easier. I think one thing that wasn't necessarily stressed when talking about alliances is that funding is also key to success as an inventor of new technologies.<br />
<br />
Bruno's article made me realize that we have advanced so far. As stated in the article, the idea of running a telephone line from the West Coast to the East Coast was almost an impossible feat. We can just jump on the internet now and with the help of social networking we can keep in touch with a blink of an eye. Just to think, that establishing communication few kilometers was a great accomplishment. -Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I found it fascinating the uses of the mechanical repeaters to be fascinating in this article. Additionally I thought it was interesting that one of Bell's employee's ties to science helped the company as a whole develop even further. Finally, I found the transition of small labs and university labs to large corporate funded laboratories to be the most important change that this article pointed out. This transition led the way for many more break throughs in technology and science and has helped shape the world as we know it today. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I didn't realize before I read this that there was difficulty building a transcontinental line. I assumed that once the telephone was invented, the wires were effective enough to allow transcontinental communication, but actually most calls could only travel a few miles. This would have greatly limited the effectiveness and usefulness of the telephone. It wasn't until a new electronic repeater was invented that the idea became a reality. -Karen Siegmund</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--Week 6 Questions/Comments2009-02-19T11:57:48Z<p>Adamshlossman: </p>
<hr />
<div>I’ll just start off by saying: I don’t think I’ve ever actually spent that much time thinking about light. When I first starting reading, I thought the whole book was going to be about light. In that regard, I think it would have been helpful to have read the introduction or the first chapter to get a better feel for the book (which I ended up skimming anyways). But with that said, at first I found it surprising that the discussion of light didn’t really mention the practicality of it at all, in terms of its impact on individual households and daily life, but rather a phenomenon that changed the way cities attracted populations and drew attention to itself through the lighting of streets, buildings, and advertisements. It also discussed how it altered the landscape of cities in general and how this was reflected in the paintings and photos of the cities during the night. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I was also expecting a book about electric lighting. I wasn't so sure how boring (or relatively enjoyable) it was going to be. I very much liked who the book discussed the impact on common man. --- Jeff P.<br />
<br />
On the same topic of practicality - I didn't even think about the entertainment aspect of light. When the first reading started off with talking about special lighting effects in theater I felt surprised that that would be one of the first international uses for it. Then, as the first long reading continued I was interested by the fact that electricity was really first promoted and advertised at world fairs. This plays to the business aspect of electricity but also the reading indicated that there was a certain expectation for every year's fair to be more spectacular and awe-inspiring than the last. Another non-practical use that seemed to be a main focus for the early years of electricity. – Elle<br />
<br />
The author did get in to how electricity affected daily life, but it wasn’t until it reached the rural areas in the 1930’s that the discussion takes this turn. It allowed for appliances in households and ended up increasing the length of the day because people weren’t depending as much on the natural day and night hours mandated by the sun rise and set. But I wasn’t really surprised that the rural areas were of the last affected by electricity. And the author brought up an interesting point when he described the opposition of electricity in rural areas because of how much it would interfere with the natural order of the farms, in terms of how the daily life of the farm could be managed, and how it could lead to a whole new character of farm life. I guess I just never really thought of electricity with a negative connotation as something that would be considered an “interruption.” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
These are all great points brought up, I think we forget how dependent we are on electricity. I remember when I was growing up in Buffalo we had an ice storm and no power for like 9 days. Thankfully at the time we had a gas stove so it did not affect us as bad as others. However, it is the little things like that, which we forget about. To add to Jessica's point about farming, it gave farmers longer hours which meant they could do more work in the fields during the day light, and work in the barns at night time and early morning, so electricity proved to be vital on farms.--Marren<br />
<br />
I have always known that electricity was important to our everyday lives, but I honestly never realized to what extent it affected and impacted the daily lives of people in late 1800s and early 1900s. The political impact of electricity at this time seemed really significant because it would decide how centralized and unified electric systems would become. Who would control the new system; and where would it be located, public or private lands, were both major concerns of Americans. Most importantly was that electricity helped to define progress, something that the majority of Americans wanted. It really amazed me all the considerations that were part of bringing electricity to America.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Overall I thought the reading was great, because to me it showed that America was not first to use "lighting" for things (unless I read it wrong)and it seemed much of our ideas came from Europe. Light was a luxury for such a long time I always wondered when it became a "necessity" rather than something for a small group of people. I was also found it interesting how farmers were being looked at differently.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
Going off of what Aislyn said: I find it funny in that I went to Disney World over break and one of the attractions was the Caruosel (probably butchered the spelling of that) of Progress. One of the things shown in the attraction was the advance (and therefore more common usuage) of lighting and other electric devices by the middle class. These readings reminded me of that. --- Jeff P.<br />
<br />
I found reading about how there was much debate on private and government controlled generator plants. Also the ideas over water power/dams was interesting. My favorite part was reading about how advertising for specific people, and how much of a manipulation it was and of course still is these days. The impact light had on workers, industry, arts, etc is just amazing to me. Electric in general or electric light is something we take for granted now, what would we do if we did not have it anymore? Would we be able to adapt to it? I am not sure if we really could manage.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
Commenting on the same article that Aislyn did above (pg 182-184), I realized I don't even think about where my electricity comes from. Now-a-days our electricity is very consolidated, each region gets it from a certain place and there are much less small electricity businesses than mentioned in this section of Nye's book. I think the fact that the government was uncertain as to how to treat electricity is a good indication that this was a new and confusing technology that had to be integrated more gradually than some people wished. - Elle<br />
<br />
Also in the reading between pp.182-184, I thought it was funny how worries over privatization of electricity and other utilities were around even back then. Anyone who lives off campus around here has had to deal with the monthly utility bills and the seemingly arbitrary way the rates fluctuate. Throughout this small reading, I just kept being reminded of how dreadful Dominion is in regards to billing. At least it's not a new thing. -Cash<br />
<br />
On a random note - I didn't think about how important the idea of putting multiple telegraph messages on the same wire was until I read the first portion of the reading. The mention of hundreds of entangled wires on electrical poles throughout the city is ridiculous - and so unappealing to the eye - no wonder some people weren't supportive of this new technology. - Elle<br />
<br />
Playing off of what both Cash said about the expenses which come along with power, it is easy for us to look at these bills and find them outrageous, but let me ask you this, would you rather pay the expensive bill or have no electricity? For me, it is not even a hard question to answer because life without electricity in my opinion would be awful. Not because I am incapable of doing it, just because I am so used to living my everyday life with so many different electronics. I agree with Elle that the multiple telegraph messages were not only a significant invention but also a necessity. Just thinking of how many vital messages over the years were lost makes me cringe.--Marren <br />
<br />
I agree with the rest of the class that this was the most reading on light that I've ever done, and that we often neglect the socio-historical impact of an artifact of technology like electricity. I found the portion about lighting up urban areas particularly interesting because of the variety in lighting choices made available to the owners of different organizations and companies. It's very understandable that some people would object to ruining the more "natural" atmosphere of the cities, and especially natural attractions like Niagara Falls, while it was aesthetically pleasing to many. As lighting became more common-place, it was natural for companies to try and outdo one another in order to attract more attention to their products. We're still trying to "one up" and outdo one another today which speaks a great deal to our human condition for choosing what may be aesthetically pleasing despite not being the best technological advancement in the long run. As we've said in class, technological advancement shouldn't equate to civilization. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The World's Fairs have always been interesting to me, and this reading did a good job of describing them and what they meant to different people. What Nye points out is that the fairs were not quite like conventions today where everyone tries to sell products. They were trying to sell modern life. Human beings' triumph over nature seems to be a big theme. But there was also resistance to this where people thought that electricity was being brought into nature where it did not belong. Many people have mentioned the problems that people perceived it caused on farms, and the resistance to things like the lighting Niagra Falls and other natural wonders. It seems to be a clash of two new ideologies that characterized the modern era: progressive harnessing of nature for the benefit of people and conserving important parts of the natural world. -Sean<br />
<br />
I also found the development of the amusement park to be very interesting. As early as the late 19th and early 20th centuries people were attracted to fairs for entertainment purposes. Trolley cars provided transportation to trolley parks at a reasonably cheap price. Nye suggests that the cool breeze from these open window cars attracted large numbers of customers to take rural, scenic tours into the countryside where one could have a picnic, hear a band, got boating, or see the park's various attractions (123). The invention of electricity and an efficient, effective electrical system was crucial to the development of these early theme parks. While it is rather apparent that one might need electricity to reach these country parks before cars became the dominant mode of transportation, I had never considered the far reaching implications of electricity prior to this reading. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think Elle put it nicely when she said that electricity was a "new and confusing technology" and the government didn't know how to treat it. Nye talks about the different speeds and motives of foreign governements to provide electricity to the citizenry and how the priorities in specific countries effected electrification in that country. In South Africa, electricity was used to improve gold, coal, and diamond mining, but not the homes of black workers. In Russia, Lenin pursued full electrification because he thought full socialism could not be attained without it. Electrification seems to have been illustrative of a country's political climate at the time. -Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I love the section explaining William Dean Howells' "A Traveler from Altruria." He thought because of electricity people could live off the land and travel into cities which were art centers and have the best of both worlds. Its a bit like Ebenezer Howard's City-Garden idea where the town and country model has an urban center but smaller streetcar suburbs along the outside. I know it was probably naive for these men to think it could happen but I like how they viewed electricity as opening up all these possibilities for rural areas almost like they had in Europe. Obviously since industry was on the rise, cities would take more advantage of electricity. Also in this section about rural electricity (or lack there of) it was interesting how people, even Roosevelt, viewed electricity on farms as something undesirable or cheating the system of natural cycles. In many cases, whether to use electricity or not was viewed as a moral question. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
The ads promoting electricity are interesting. It is odd now to think about having to convince people of how good electricity is but this was what the ads aimed for. The big message is that, basically, electricity will make your life happier and easier. You can go to baseball games at night and go out on the town or stay in and listen to the radio. They are very area specific as well. The ad for the more urban areas talk about lighting classrooms and office buildings while the rural ad focuses on farm equipment and kitchen wares that have probably already been widely used in the cities. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Nye does a good job explaining the impact of the lighting system on American culture. Nye explains how American’s used these new lighting systems in abstract ways for example, lighting up the statue of liberty and world’s fairs. World’s fairs were used to show people of upper middle class and upper class where the American culture was going. '''These people found prestige in electrification and considered it a turning point in American culture; to them it showed evolution and progress. I know that we try to stay away from the word progress when it comes to technology, but I am curious if we have had any revolutionary technology that has had such an impact on life since electrification.''' The only think that comes to mind are computers, which can definitely be considered a revolutionary system, but I am not sure if it has had the quite the same impact as electrification, I am just curious of anyone else’s thoughts. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think the electrification of farms and agricultural regions was a very interesting topic of debate. While the upper classes of individuals found advancement and prestige in electrification, farmers were reluctant. There were definitely mixed emotions about electricity in rural areas. Nye states that in 1920 90% of farmers could not get distributions to their homes and farms (far greater a percentage than European nations who had a majority of their farmers with electricity). Roosevelt found the farmer as the backbone of the nation, and he looked to Jefferson who saw the farmer as “the model for political virtue” (291), based of these ideals, he was hesitant to electrify rural areas. Farmers themselves were not sure about electrification. '''I found it funny that an Iowa newspaper wrote a piece about how cows would be unable to sleep at night. Other farmers thought that electricity would promote growth, and experimented with electricity and plant life. Edison himself stated that electricity would end frost, drought, and could even melt icebergs!''' I think this shows a lot about people at the time, and goes along with the idea of controlling nature. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''Oftentimes, the fact that many people did not initially accept a technology is overlooked.''' It is assumed that everyone embraced the new way of doing things with open arms. Some of the concerns people had with technology seem comical to us now. For example, Nye mentions an article in which the author is worried by the thought that cows would not be able to sleep in an electrified town. Technological determinism makes it harder to see the different possible outcomes and the initial hesitation towards a technology. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
One random part of the first reading I found interesting was the section talking about the American world's fairs. I feel like I have read "The (insert some technology or idea) was first introduced at (some city's) world fair," but I have never asked any details about the fair. Reading that section gave me a whole new incite on the importance of the fair itself and the atmosphere surrounding all of the great inventions.-Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found it funny how both the urban and rural markets viewed electricity as a way to make the urban areas more urban and give the rural areas a chance to "move back to the land." Even funnier was that an area based mostly on an agrarian lifestyle would embrace the glitz and modernity of electricity as a way to enhance the farming lifestyle. Maybe it's the fact that I haven't lived in a farming town for almost thirteen years now, but I guess I just don't really associate farming with electricity anymore. (Perspective: My hometown just got wi-fi in its public library like two years ago. It took another two years to explain to most of the Valparaisoans what wi-fi even is.) -Cash<br />
<br />
The adverse reaction to the New York skyline described starting on page 74 made me think of how people see it today. Seeing the New York skyline from the Brooklyn Bridge for the first time is often a optical experience for anyone. It still can be seen as a powerful, beautiful city with a new world of opportunities and confidence. Also, the author talks about tourists coming to "witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness."(69)The fact that people are interested in eye-catching scenes, good or bad, and technological changes has always been known and capitalized upon. It is the same reason people enjoy watching horror films or looking at the Grand Canyon. Anyway, it was interesting to read about how electricity changed the New York City landscape and how it still captivates people.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
'''It’s interesting to see how technologies can be both democratizing forces and centers of class conflict. For instance, the electric car created specialized sections in cities.''' The wealthier people were able to move out to suburbs on the city’s edge, but the working class who couldn’t afford the trolley fair remained in the city center. Yet, at the same time, the electric car helped bring about department stores, which “democratized” luxury with their affordable products. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think most of us consider the way the U.S. government is split up into three levels to be a generally good way of diffusing power, so it’s interesting to see how our decentralized political system actually hurt creating a national energy policy. It was left up to private companies to electrify American because the government was caught up in jurisdictional boundaries. Private companies were, of course, quick to advertise but slow to electrify homes (except for the ones belonging to rich people). It wasn’t until the government got involved in the 1930s that rural areas received electricity. --Taylor Brann<br />
'''<br />
How reliable was the electricity? I do not think the author addressed that in the reading.''' I know that the Breakers mansion (owned by the Vanderbilts) in Newport, RI and all of the other Newport mansions were wired for both gas and electricity because of the unreliable nature in the Gilded Age. To what extent was that true? Newport is also on an island and could be considered kind of rural, but not used for farming at this point. That might have contributed to this.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I don't think the electricity could have been completely reliable. Even today if we get a bad storm, we can lose power for some time. What could cause power to go out, other than the causes we face today? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
That is true. Also, I was thinking about the other things the reading said about electricity being cost effective, no odor, cleaner, insurance companies charging less because of the fire risk, etc. was it the same for buildings wired for both? I guess the cost would not be a factor since the Newport/New York crowd were paying exorbitant amounts of money on anything and everything. -Kirsten<br />
<br />
Today the conversation is about what might be the best way to get electricity, so it is a little strange to think about a debate between electricity and an alternative, like gas. It is just so ubiquitous today that we can not even consider gas as an alternative in most capacities (as Marren mentioned, things like stoves still run on it). But after electricity began to take over, gas companies tried to market gas-powered appliances (refrigerators, etc.)that we would not even consider in order to maintain a share of the market. What we need is energy, but we do not even think twice about whether that is delivered in the form of electricity or something else. So the concept that this conversation ever existed is difficult to understand today. -Sean<br />
<br />
I guess just in general this reading made me think about how much time and energy it took to get to the state of things as they are today. '''I mean, when I think about electricity and light switches and powering my computer, I don't even hesitate to wonder if there's going to be enough power for the day, or if the lights are going to work.''' Everything is just so habitual and easy for us that reading about how long it took to bring electricity and light to the masses and how many decisions went into the entire situation (such as, private or public?). Like, reading about how farmers couldn't get service under private utility ownership until the government stepped in isn't something I normally think about. I'm impressed, really, with how far we've come. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I wasn't surprised, really, to learn that businessmen were the most organized and "self-concious" focus group on electricity. They knew it was a commodity and knew it would be of great value to the American public and would definitely be quick to advertise it. I did think it was interesting how the groups were broken up into similar educational background as opposed to income and that sometimes the groups would overlap for a large number of reasons such as family background or friendship and association. I find it interesting that companies would have done this especially during this time period. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
'''Businessmen are always out there trying to make a buck.''' Businessmen "institutionalized electrification as a commodity." I think that it was more negotiated with the government and the private utility groups. I think that it is weird how something we take for granted everyday was such a luxury in the 1930's and is something we use everyday without disregard to how much we consume of it. With electricity farmers could be more "self-sufficient and independent."- Paul K <br />
<br />
Edison's skills as a salesman were evident in his attempts to make electricity reach rural America. Nye quotes Edison arguing that electricity "could rid the earth of frost, draw in water during a drought, and resist flood throughout immense rainfall". Being able to make his invention "stick" was a large part of Edison's success. He was able to create a new form of light, while making it accessible and maintaining its link to his own name and company. '''Here we see the difference between Edison and previous inventors - the ability to profit from inventions and create uniform systems that prevail. Being able to to capitalize on entrepreneurial skills, Edison changed industry while benefitting personally as well.''' - Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
I found it quite interesting how Edison and company were able to quickly market their products to a very wide group of people. Not only did the electric light take off in America, but in other countries. The reading mentioned that they installed electric lights in Russia, Chile, and Australia. To be able to do that in that time period so quickly is quite impressive. It was also interesting to see what kind of buildings and businesses adopted electricity first, like hotels and theaters, in order to draw in more business. - Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I thought the whole concept of electrically lighting skyscrapers to be fascinating. Just thinking that there wasn't a way to feasibly do this before Edison is just mind boggling. In addition, I found it rather ingenious of the owners of these buildings to light up there buildings as a sort of rudimentary electric build board for all to see. Additionally, the fact that different owners used different techniques in order to light their buildings to give off different impressions to be quite interesting. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I thought that private utilities company going for their own gain was not a smart choice because they were in their for their own profitable gains. Instead of doing it for the service of the community, they just view electricity as a business deal. Of course the public, even with private companies to set their own goals, still wanted the commodity of having electricity. -Paul K <br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how much time the author devoted to the street car, especially the "fun" aspects of it. It was interesting how the author showed how the electric street car helped level the playing field (it "tented to erase social distinctions" by establishing a "single public standard of comfort, speed and reliability") but also how it separated the upper and lower classes (literally, as someone already mentioned). I liked how the author showed the transition from the street car as an enjoyed novelty to an "unpleasant necessity." Finally, I liked how the author related the street car to amusement parks, and their effect on American society. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I thought the author spent too much time discussing public reaction to the introduction of lighting in cityscapes. It was interesting at first to read the accounts of famous and average citizens discussing whether they thought the lights of Chicago were dazzlingly or the advertisements in New York monstrous but then there just seemed to be so many quotes and narratives about the same topic. Maybe I'm wrong, because it was central to the main idea of the book, but it all started to blur together for me for a bit. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I'm curious how the development of a privatized electricity industry could opt for standardization so quickly before public, state-controlled electricity systems would. Was there a push in cities like London at the turn of the century for standardization, at least from the cities' residents? - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Nye talked briefly about the advantages offered by incandescent lamps in smell. I found this distinction curious. Rarely do we discuss the issue of smells in the 19th century. Was there a distinctly potent smell surrounding arc lamps? - Adam Shlossman</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--Week 5 Questions/Comments2009-02-12T07:12:55Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Virginia Penny – Watchmaking */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking ==<br />
This was interesting because in Switzerland women have been part of making watches for generations and getting paid a nice living, but in England women were not used in the process until later. It's good to see at least in some places women are needed in industry and get good money for it. It was also interesting that women were preferred over men because they have small hands and are patient, but still don't compare to men in all other areas including pay, skill level, etc. Even though the reading says at one point women could do equally well with men, they still are not regarded as equal.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
The reasons in this article for why men were paid better than women are very antiquated but do reflect the times: they do more difficult work (even though it was stated above that in Switzerland and France women did the same jobs), are more "ingenious", more "thoughtful and contriving", it is the custom to pay women less. It is also of note that America was the only country at the time to have mechanized their watchmaking. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I wasn't surprised in the least that women were paid less than the men. This "custom" is one that occurred more often than not in every industry, not just watchmaking. I guess it is a good point though that young women at this time were married off and then quit their jobs - thus, investing in training these young women was a waste of time and money. From a business prospective this does make sense. -Elle<br />
<br />
I found it crazy to see the differences between how European vs. American women are treated when it comes to watch making, I think it really shows the role of women in culture. In Europe, women are preferred to men in the watch making industry, they are said to require less training and to be more intelligent than their male counterparts. In America, women are treated horribly and quite ironically. I say that because women are seen as not intelligent and not strong. This is the justification for paying them only half of what males get paid. However, women are required to work the same hours as males and are required to do equal work. I find that infuriating. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To be blatantly honest, in agreeing with Elle, I too was not surprised by the lack of pay for the women compared to the men. Also I feel that training these young women was a waste because more often than not they would leave their jobs once they were married. Nonetheless, I do not agree that women should have gotten less pay than men, especially because so many places preferred women over men do in large part to their smaller hands, higher level of patience, as well as the fact that generally women are less careless than men are. As it normally is for women when looking back at times, it is extremely frustrating to see how women were either treated or worse, not even given opportunities to get jobs.--Marren<br />
<br />
I think my favorite line was "The principal objection to employing women is that they are very apt to marry just as they become skillful enough to be reliable." Really? I'm not surprised in the least that women in American factories were treated as garbage and were though to be easily replaced (which, sadly they were.) I liked how in Switzerland they were respected for their abilities because of their more feminine features and delicate touch. Put them in a factory in America and they're obviously going to run off an marry. Ridiculous but sadly the theory of the time. Poor women. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I guess we all know that the glass ceiling still exists, but man, this was a jarring reminder of just how present it was back then. Men "do more difficult work, are more ingenious, more thoughtful and contriving"? Really? Come on now. I think the fact that these women were able to grin and bear it is enough reason for equal pay. Maybe it's just me. -Cash<br />
<br />
In response to Erin's comment, I want to clarify that it did not appear that anyone was claiming that women are more intelligent than men in any context. Claims as to their "equality" (the author specifically mentioned that they were regarded as equal in skill in some tasks, no more), were restricted mostly to their nimble hands and dexterity. As a matter of fact, the article specifically defends the higher wages of men as a sign of their superior ingenuity and thoughtfulness. Women just had small brains. Brains a third the size of us. It's science. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men ==<br />
The essay “Machines as the Measure of Men” uses technology and science as a gauge to compare civilizations. Adas argues that technology is the basis that leads a country into global superiority and hegemony. Technological advancement becomes the dividing point between different races and classes and people strive to label the growing gap between the dichotomies of civilized and poorly developed people or countries. But there are different kinds of technology and advancement, some can be in regards to industry or efficiency, others strictly leisure, medical, or cultural. Some are more overlooked than others. I feel like the essay also, ultimately, divides technological progress into a west vs. the rest dichotomy. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Good comment Jessica. I am going to harp on the same sort of thing from this article. I didn't think about technological superiority giving a country a leg up in colonization of other less technologically advanced countries, but this article proves otherwise. Yes, it makes sense that the less developed/industrialized countries will probably want to buy goods from the industrial power houses, but I didn't think about the fact that they could also be forced/coerced into doing so. -Elle<br />
<br />
I truly enjoyed this essay I found it very insightful and hypocritical when it came to the European’s views of their superiority. Europeans and Americans saw themselves as the “lords of humankind” they decided that they were superior to all other nations due to their scientific and technological achievements. They also believed that the measurement of scientific and technological achievement is the gauge by which non-western societies might be evaluated, classified, and ranked. When I read this I thought to myself, “isn’t that cultural”. I was happy to see that a few paragraphs later, it was stated that this gauge was culture bound and biased. The essay went on to talk about how writers at that time followed ideology, and how the railroad because the key symbol of superiority. I really liked this sentence, I think it is very telling, “The assumption that it was desirable for humans to master nature and that the scientifically minded and inventive Europeans were best at doing so led many authors to the conviction that it was the destiny and duty of the Europeans to expand into and develop regions occupied by less advanced peoples” (227). Based off this ideology, I found it really funny when the essay made a turn to show that once the Chinese and Japanese developed their science and technology, they were still considered inferior! In fact, the Europeans were afraid that the Chinese would capitalize off their new technologies and take jobs from the Europeans. I think Jacques Novicov had it right when he said that industrial achievements of the Japanese demonstrated that they were the European’s equals. However, Europeans refuse to accept this, they argue that they are imitating Europeans and will never reason logically like a European. I find this essay truly representative of western thought. Is it just me, or do we still hold this ideology of superiority true to this day? I personally think that we still, to some extent, measure superiority based off of science and technology. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
While there were many aspects of Adas' article that I found intriguing, I'd like to focus on the historic timeline that he addresses. For centuries the Chinese and Arabian cultures were the most technologically advanced civilizations. The former remained isolated while that later expanded under the guise of religious evangelism. As the technological and scientific advances of these cultures reached Europe, the "Age of Exploration," and "Industrial Revolution" among other trends jump-started European advancement until these nations became technologically superior to the "eastern world" which became inherently "backward" from the European perspective. Recent technological advancements through industrialization and the rise of the "Age of Technology" in the 21st century have enabled these "backward" countries to now outdo the "western world" of Europe and the United States. Yet, it seems that each of these periods of "advancement" came at the steep price of losing valuable cultural identity traits. This begs the question of whether or not technological advancement truly leads to a better, superior way of life or whether it leads to the corrosion of cultural values and principles. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
== Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management ==<br />
The problem of greater National Efficiency is always a problem from the workplace to the government (i think anyway). I can't blame some workers for slacking when the people who are not doing much are getting paid the same, but I guess the question is how do you get everyone working together at the same rate of production? I would think "initiative and incentive" plans would work, but some people would get pissed because they may be doing their best and still not get incentives and that may cause an uneasy tension at work. Planning out all work is ok, and does work because I have done it. It does get boring and there are ways to get around or cut corners on the everyday, and make management think all is getting done. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how new ways of management, a non-mechanical idea, could have just as large of an impact on the workplace as the development of something more concrete. Although, he points out many times that in the new system “the management must take over and perform much of the work which is now left the men; almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could,” (273). So if the management is taking on all these new responsibilities in directing their employees, what did they do before? <br />
Also, the source “An Engineering Student Instructs a Laundress” kinds of points out how little changes in procedures can make a big difference in time management and efficiency. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The way Frederick Winslow Taylor described the system of “soldiering” or loafing certainly makes it seem like the workers were extremely lazy. As someone who can appreciate hard work, I automatically had an adverse reaction to that, thinking that owners weren’t asking for too much when they expected their workers to actually do their jobs and be paid accordingly. But then I questioned Taylor’s description of soldiering. Were the workers really that lazy? Was he exaggerating to so his own system of scientific management, which essentially turned humans into automatons, would be accepted? Taylor’s comments on the laborers reminds me of Henry Ford’s comment during the Great Depression about most men being uninterested in a hard day’s work. Harsh. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Transitioning these ideas into the context of the modern world, I found it surprising that this issue of worker productivity has not come into the forefront of national politics in the wake of fierce global competition. In the preface to this article, the publisher mentioned that Taylor's ideas led to a government ban on the monitoring of time utilization. I'm curious if government policy regarding this has changed since that era. - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Frederick's The New Housekeeping ==<br />
I found Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" particularly interesting. Frederick argues that by approaching a woman's housework in a scientific manner, she will become 'liberated'. Improving the efficiency of her work would thus remove drudgery from her everyday life. However, I couldn't help but think the exact opposite. By forcing a woman to adhere to rules, regulations, and schedules in her everyday life, doesn't that constrain her within the home even further? By applying scientific management to simple housework, it removes a woman's ability to think and act on her own without being restricted. Frederick also claims that women are "fleeing from housework into professions and outside work" and "refusing to assume the burdens of motherhood". However, I think a woman would rather have the choice between working inside or outside of the home. Applying scientific management to their everyday home lives would further restrain these women to the home. -Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
I was thinking the same thing about using the scientific method in the home and how that would take away one of women's only freedom to take care of her home how she wants to. Yes being efficient and getting things done is great and may give some free time to explore other interests, but keeping on a shedule would become boring and if it were me I would end up stopping it. I can see it as having a positive effect on the workplace where there is many people and alot of work to be done. I have myself planned out the next day's agenda for the custodians I used to lead, so they knew exactly what was to be done in how much time. It worked out, and made me see who was slacking and who was good.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
I do not totally agree with Aislyn's statement though I can not totally disagree either. Efficiency and schedules are both good things in their own manner. One can live their life by a schedule and still be efficient, although many times people do not agree. For example with your custodians, if you gave them a list of 5 things to do and they had 8 hours to do them and they got the list done in 6 hours, would that be categorized as being efficient or as being careless, and not spending too much time on each assignment from the list. With that being said, I do not think that a person should have to live their life by the same schedule day in and day out because than it risks workers becoming bored and not doing as well of a job, this is why changing assignments is not a bad thing because it mixes the schedule up and does not allow workers to fall into a routine which bores them.--Marren<br />
<br />
Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" was interesing. Frederick believed that using scientific management to perform simple household tasks would make everyday life within the household run smooth. The fact that she took time out of her day to figure out how many minutes it took her to complete daily tasks is interesting. Was the use of scientific management in everyday task supposed to give a mother more time with her child? What exactly was it supposed to do other than have a person finish cooking and cleaning as quickly as possible? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Frederick's application of the scientific method of housekeeping is an intriguing topic. It is true that decreasing the amount of wasted time in daily cleaning and maintenance tasks could lead to increased production. Yet the scientific method fails to account for the human element within the equation. It's highly unlikely that an increase in time will lead to one being willing to work longer and harder. Some individuals are highly motivated to accomplish their assigned tasks and do enjoy their "jobs," yet it seems more likely that increased free time will lend itself to an increase in time lavished upon the self and his or her family. Other articles and documents that we've read affirm that workers generally only work as hard as they need in order for their families to survive. Thus, while Frederick's application of the scientific method of efficiency is intriguing and could yield great results in an idealized world, it may have had little impact on the daily lives of women. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
Frederick’s essay about employing scientific management in the household just makes you feel bad for those poor middle-class folks, doesn’t it? Those lucky lower-class families didn’t have to worry about keeping up appearances and entertaining friends. Of course, something tells me that rather than being plagued by the drudgery of constant household chores and wasted motions (and having enough time to think about it for that matter), lower-class women were more worried about earning a living, where their next meal was coming from, keeping a roof over their heads, and other basic survival needs. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Other documents of Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
I find myself in agreement with the articles against Taylorism. In the "Aresenal Workers Strike, 1913," Maurice Bowen writes that the use of a stop watch "is humiliating and savors too much of the slave driver." I agree with this statement. Forcing people to work at their maximum limit for long hours will not necessarily make for better wages for the employees. - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
To be fair Melissa, I think workers' rights were pretty low on the totem pole at this time. As is stated in point two on page 280, everything these workers did was standardized, and "common laborers are used." The shop owners simply wanted a means of cheap labor. I think they were probably counting on their workers breaking down and not meeting the bonus. And really, if workers underperformed, it is not as though their job was so specialized as to make them necessary. Every worker at the factory was expendable. Not to say that this was right, but I guess just...explaining the rationale? -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
While "Indian Canoe Makers vs. An Efficiency Expert" is about the change in factories to make things run quicker etc. I feel it is also a document that describes the decline of traditional customs, in this case for Native Americans. When a traditional craft like canoe making, quilting, instrument making etc is made in factories and taken out of their original setting, cultures that were associated with them start to decline as well or get replaced. Often times, as seen in the article, the new product is not made to the same standards as it originally was. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I don't know what it was about the Laundress article, but for some reason it just kind of made me laugh. It all seems like such common sense information, like shortening the walk and using a cordless iron so you're not so limited. It all just makes sense so it kind of makes me wonder, why didn't people think of this before? I know it's kind of a ridiculous question, but I mean, it all seems like such basic stuff. I guess it's that whole "hindsight is 20/20" thing. -Kelly W.</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--Week 5 Questions/Comments2009-02-12T07:04:41Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking ==<br />
This was interesting because in Switzerland women have been part of making watches for generations and getting paid a nice living, but in England women were not used in the process until later. It's good to see at least in some places women are needed in industry and get good money for it. It was also interesting that women were preferred over men because they have small hands and are patient, but still don't compare to men in all other areas including pay, skill level, etc. Even though the reading says at one point women could do equally well with men, they still are not regarded as equal.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
The reasons in this article for why men were paid better than women are very antiquated but do reflect the times: they do more difficult work (even though it was stated above that in Switzerland and France women did the same jobs), are more "ingenious", more "thoughtful and contriving", it is the custom to pay women less. It is also of note that America was the only country at the time to have mechanized their watchmaking. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I wasn't surprised in the least that women were paid less than the men. This "custom" is one that occurred more often than not in every industry, not just watchmaking. I guess it is a good point though that young women at this time were married off and then quit their jobs - thus, investing in training these young women was a waste of time and money. From a business prospective this does make sense. -Elle<br />
<br />
I found it crazy to see the differences between how European vs. American women are treated when it comes to watch making, I think it really shows the role of women in culture. In Europe, women are preferred to men in the watch making industry, they are said to require less training and to be more intelligent than their male counterparts. In America, women are treated horribly and quite ironically. I say that because women are seen as not intelligent and not strong. This is the justification for paying them only half of what males get paid. However, women are required to work the same hours as males and are required to do equal work. I find that infuriating. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To be blatantly honest, in agreeing with Elle, I too was not surprised by the lack of pay for the women compared to the men. Also I feel that training these young women was a waste because more often than not they would leave their jobs once they were married. Nonetheless, I do not agree that women should have gotten less pay than men, especially because so many places preferred women over men do in large part to their smaller hands, higher level of patience, as well as the fact that generally women are less careless than men are. As it normally is for women when looking back at times, it is extremely frustrating to see how women were either treated or worse, not even given opportunities to get jobs.--Marren<br />
<br />
I think my favorite line was "The principal objection to employing women is that they are very apt to marry just as they become skillful enough to be reliable." Really? I'm not surprised in the least that women in American factories were treated as garbage and were though to be easily replaced (which, sadly they were.) I liked how in Switzerland they were respected for their abilities because of their more feminine features and delicate touch. Put them in a factory in America and they're obviously going to run off an marry. Ridiculous but sadly the theory of the time. Poor women. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men ==<br />
The essay “Machines as the Measure of Men” uses technology and science as a gauge to compare civilizations. Adas argues that technology is the basis that leads a country into global superiority and hegemony. Technological advancement becomes the dividing point between different races and classes and people strive to label the growing gap between the dichotomies of civilized and poorly developed people or countries. But there are different kinds of technology and advancement, some can be in regards to industry or efficiency, others strictly leisure, medical, or cultural. Some are more overlooked than others. I feel like the essay also, ultimately, divides technological progress into a west vs. the rest dichotomy. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Good comment Jessica. I am going to harp on the same sort of thing from this article. I didn't think about technological superiority giving a country a leg up in colonization of other less technologically advanced countries, but this article proves otherwise. Yes, it makes sense that the less developed/industrialized countries will probably want to buy goods from the industrial power houses, but I didn't think about the fact that they could also be forced/coerced into doing so. -Elle<br />
<br />
I truly enjoyed this essay I found it very insightful and hypocritical when it came to the European’s views of their superiority. Europeans and Americans saw themselves as the “lords of humankind” they decided that they were superior to all other nations due to their scientific and technological achievements. They also believed that the measurement of scientific and technological achievement is the gauge by which non-western societies might be evaluated, classified, and ranked. When I read this I thought to myself, “isn’t that cultural”. I was happy to see that a few paragraphs later, it was stated that this gauge was culture bound and biased. The essay went on to talk about how writers at that time followed ideology, and how the railroad because the key symbol of superiority. I really liked this sentence, I think it is very telling, “The assumption that it was desirable for humans to master nature and that the scientifically minded and inventive Europeans were best at doing so led many authors to the conviction that it was the destiny and duty of the Europeans to expand into and develop regions occupied by less advanced peoples” (227). Based off this ideology, I found it really funny when the essay made a turn to show that once the Chinese and Japanese developed their science and technology, they were still considered inferior! In fact, the Europeans were afraid that the Chinese would capitalize off their new technologies and take jobs from the Europeans. I think Jacques Novicov had it right when he said that industrial achievements of the Japanese demonstrated that they were the European’s equals. However, Europeans refuse to accept this, they argue that they are imitating Europeans and will never reason logically like a European. I find this essay truly representative of western thought. Is it just me, or do we still hold this ideology of superiority true to this day? I personally think that we still, to some extent, measure superiority based off of science and technology. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
While there were many aspects of Adas' article that I found intriguing, I'd like to focus on the historic timeline that he addresses. For centuries the Chinese and Arabian cultures were the most technologically advanced civilizations. The former remained isolated while that later expanded under the guise of religious evangelism. As the technological and scientific advances of these cultures reached Europe, the "Age of Exploration," and "Industrial Revolution" among other trends jump-started European advancement until these nations became technologically superior to the "eastern world" which became inherently "backward" from the European perspective. Recent technological advancements through industrialization and the rise of the "Age of Technology" in the 21st century have enabled these "backward" countries to now outdo the "western world" of Europe and the United States. Yet, it seems that each of these periods of "advancement" came at the steep price of losing valuable cultural identity traits. This begs the question of whether or not technological advancement truly leads to a better, superior way of life or whether it leads to the corrosion of cultural values and principles. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
== Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management ==<br />
The problem of greater National Efficiency is always a problem from the workplace to the government (i think anyway). I can't blame some workers for slacking when the people who are not doing much are getting paid the same, but I guess the question is how do you get everyone working together at the same rate of production? I would think "initiative and incentive" plans would work, but some people would get pissed because they may be doing their best and still not get incentives and that may cause an uneasy tension at work. Planning out all work is ok, and does work because I have done it. It does get boring and there are ways to get around or cut corners on the everyday, and make management think all is getting done. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how new ways of management, a non-mechanical idea, could have just as large of an impact on the workplace as the development of something more concrete. Although, he points out many times that in the new system “the management must take over and perform much of the work which is now left the men; almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could,” (273). So if the management is taking on all these new responsibilities in directing their employees, what did they do before? <br />
Also, the source “An Engineering Student Instructs a Laundress” kinds of points out how little changes in procedures can make a big difference in time management and efficiency. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The way Frederick Winslow Taylor described the system of “soldiering” or loafing certainly makes it seem like the workers were extremely lazy. As someone who can appreciate hard work, I automatically had an adverse reaction to that, thinking that owners weren’t asking for too much when they expected their workers to actually do their jobs and be paid accordingly. But then I questioned Taylor’s description of soldiering. Were the workers really that lazy? Was he exaggerating to so his own system of scientific management, which essentially turned humans into automatons, would be accepted? Taylor’s comments on the laborers reminds me of Henry Ford’s comment during the Great Depression about most men being uninterested in a hard day’s work. Harsh. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Transitioning these ideas into the context of the modern world, I found it surprising that this issue of worker productivity has not come into the forefront of national politics in the wake of fierce global competition. In the preface to this article, the publisher mentioned that Taylor's ideas led to a government ban on the monitoring of time utilization. I'm curious if government policy regarding this has changed since that era. - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Frederick's The New Housekeeping ==<br />
I found Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" particularly interesting. Frederick argues that by approaching a woman's housework in a scientific manner, she will become 'liberated'. Improving the efficiency of her work would thus remove drudgery from her everyday life. However, I couldn't help but think the exact opposite. By forcing a woman to adhere to rules, regulations, and schedules in her everyday life, doesn't that constrain her within the home even further? By applying scientific management to simple housework, it removes a woman's ability to think and act on her own without being restricted. Frederick also claims that women are "fleeing from housework into professions and outside work" and "refusing to assume the burdens of motherhood". However, I think a woman would rather have the choice between working inside or outside of the home. Applying scientific management to their everyday home lives would further restrain these women to the home. -Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
I was thinking the same thing about using the scientific method in the home and how that would take away one of women's only freedom to take care of her home how she wants to. Yes being efficient and getting things done is great and may give some free time to explore other interests, but keeping on a shedule would become boring and if it were me I would end up stopping it. I can see it as having a positive effect on the workplace where there is many people and alot of work to be done. I have myself planned out the next day's agenda for the custodians I used to lead, so they knew exactly what was to be done in how much time. It worked out, and made me see who was slacking and who was good.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
I do not totally agree with Aislyn's statement though I can not totally disagree either. Efficiency and schedules are both good things in their own manner. One can live their life by a schedule and still be efficient, although many times people do not agree. For example with your custodians, if you gave them a list of 5 things to do and they had 8 hours to do them and they got the list done in 6 hours, would that be categorized as being efficient or as being careless, and not spending too much time on each assignment from the list. With that being said, I do not think that a person should have to live their life by the same schedule day in and day out because than it risks workers becoming bored and not doing as well of a job, this is why changing assignments is not a bad thing because it mixes the schedule up and does not allow workers to fall into a routine which bores them.--Marren<br />
<br />
Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" was interesing. Frederick believed that using scientific management to perform simple household tasks would make everyday life within the household run smooth. The fact that she took time out of her day to figure out how many minutes it took her to complete daily tasks is interesting. Was the use of scientific management in everyday task supposed to give a mother more time with her child? What exactly was it supposed to do other than have a person finish cooking and cleaning as quickly as possible? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Frederick's application of the scientific method of housekeeping is an intriguing topic. It is true that decreasing the amount of wasted time in daily cleaning and maintenance tasks could lead to increased production. Yet the scientific method fails to account for the human element within the equation. It's highly unlikely that an increase in time will lead to one being willing to work longer and harder. Some individuals are highly motivated to accomplish their assigned tasks and do enjoy their "jobs," yet it seems more likely that increased free time will lend itself to an increase in time lavished upon the self and his or her family. Other articles and documents that we've read affirm that workers generally only work as hard as they need in order for their families to survive. Thus, while Frederick's application of the scientific method of efficiency is intriguing and could yield great results in an idealized world, it may have had little impact on the daily lives of women. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
Frederick’s essay about employing scientific management in the household just makes you feel bad for those poor middle-class folks, doesn’t it? Those lucky lower-class families didn’t have to worry about keeping up appearances and entertaining friends. Of course, something tells me that rather than being plagued by the drudgery of constant household chores and wasted motions (and having enough time to think about it for that matter), lower-class women were more worried about earning a living, where their next meal was coming from, keeping a roof over their heads, and other basic survival needs. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Other documents of Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
I find myself in agreement with the articles against Taylorism. In the "Aresenal Workers Strike, 1913," Maurice Bowen writes that the use of a stop watch "is humiliating and savors too much of the slave driver." I agree with this statement. Forcing people to work at their maximum limit for long hours will not necessarily make for better wages for the employees. - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
While "Indian Canoe Makers vs. An Efficiency Expert" is about the change in factories to make things run quicker etc. I feel it is also a document that describes the decline of traditional customs, in this case for Native Americans. When a traditional craft like canoe making, quilting, instrument making etc is made in factories and taken out of their original setting, cultures that were associated with them start to decline as well or get replaced. Often times, as seen in the article, the new product is not made to the same standards as it originally was. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I don't know what it was about the Laundress article, but for some reason it just kind of made me laugh. It all seems like such common sense information, like shortening the walk and using a cordless iron so you're not so limited. It all just makes sense so it kind of makes me wonder, why didn't people think of this before? I know it's kind of a ridiculous question, but I mean, it all seems like such basic stuff. I guess it's that whole "hindsight is 20/20" thing. -Kelly W.</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--Week 5 Questions/Comments2009-02-12T07:04:12Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking ==<br />
This was interesting because in Switzerland women have been part of making watches for generations and getting paid a nice living, but in England women were not used in the process until later. It's good to see at least in some places women are needed in industry and get good money for it. It was also interesting that women were preferred over men because they have small hands and are patient, but still don't compare to men in all other areas including pay, skill level, etc. Even though the reading says at one point women could do equally well with men, they still are not regarded as equal.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
The reasons in this article for why men were paid better than women are very antiquated but do reflect the times: they do more difficult work (even though it was stated above that in Switzerland and France women did the same jobs), are more "ingenious", more "thoughtful and contriving", it is the custom to pay women less. It is also of note that America was the only country at the time to have mechanized their watchmaking. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I wasn't surprised in the least that women were paid less than the men. This "custom" is one that occurred more often than not in every industry, not just watchmaking. I guess it is a good point though that young women at this time were married off and then quit their jobs - thus, investing in training these young women was a waste of time and money. From a business prospective this does make sense. -Elle<br />
<br />
I found it crazy to see the differences between how European vs. American women are treated when it comes to watch making, I think it really shows the role of women in culture. In Europe, women are preferred to men in the watch making industry, they are said to require less training and to be more intelligent than their male counterparts. In America, women are treated horribly and quite ironically. I say that because women are seen as not intelligent and not strong. This is the justification for paying them only half of what males get paid. However, women are required to work the same hours as males and are required to do equal work. I find that infuriating. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To be blatantly honest, in agreeing with Elle, I too was not surprised by the lack of pay for the women compared to the men. Also I feel that training these young women was a waste because more often than not they would leave their jobs once they were married. Nonetheless, I do not agree that women should have gotten less pay than men, especially because so many places preferred women over men do in large part to their smaller hands, higher level of patience, as well as the fact that generally women are less careless than men are. As it normally is for women when looking back at times, it is extremely frustrating to see how women were either treated or worse, not even given opportunities to get jobs.--Marren<br />
<br />
I think my favorite line was "The principal objection to employing women is that they are very apt to marry just as they become skillful enough to be reliable." Really? I'm not surprised in the least that women in American factories were treated as garbage and were though to be easily replaced (which, sadly they were.) I liked how in Switzerland they were respected for their abilities because of their more feminine features and delicate touch. Put them in a factory in America and they're obviously going to run off an marry. Ridiculous but sadly the theory of the time. Poor women. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men ==<br />
The essay “Machines as the Measure of Men” uses technology and science as a gauge to compare civilizations. Adas argues that technology is the basis that leads a country into global superiority and hegemony. Technological advancement becomes the dividing point between different races and classes and people strive to label the growing gap between the dichotomies of civilized and poorly developed people or countries. But there are different kinds of technology and advancement, some can be in regards to industry or efficiency, others strictly leisure, medical, or cultural. Some are more overlooked than others. I feel like the essay also, ultimately, divides technological progress into a west vs. the rest dichotomy. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Good comment Jessica. I am going to harp on the same sort of thing from this article. I didn't think about technological superiority giving a country a leg up in colonization of other less technologically advanced countries, but this article proves otherwise. Yes, it makes sense that the less developed/industrialized countries will probably want to buy goods from the industrial power houses, but I didn't think about the fact that they could also be forced/coerced into doing so. -Elle<br />
<br />
I truly enjoyed this essay I found it very insightful and hypocritical when it came to the European’s views of their superiority. Europeans and Americans saw themselves as the “lords of humankind” they decided that they were superior to all other nations due to their scientific and technological achievements. They also believed that the measurement of scientific and technological achievement is the gauge by which non-western societies might be evaluated, classified, and ranked. When I read this I thought to myself, “isn’t that cultural”. I was happy to see that a few paragraphs later, it was stated that this gauge was culture bound and biased. The essay went on to talk about how writers at that time followed ideology, and how the railroad because the key symbol of superiority. I really liked this sentence, I think it is very telling, “The assumption that it was desirable for humans to master nature and that the scientifically minded and inventive Europeans were best at doing so led many authors to the conviction that it was the destiny and duty of the Europeans to expand into and develop regions occupied by less advanced peoples” (227). Based off this ideology, I found it really funny when the essay made a turn to show that once the Chinese and Japanese developed their science and technology, they were still considered inferior! In fact, the Europeans were afraid that the Chinese would capitalize off their new technologies and take jobs from the Europeans. I think Jacques Novicov had it right when he said that industrial achievements of the Japanese demonstrated that they were the European’s equals. However, Europeans refuse to accept this, they argue that they are imitating Europeans and will never reason logically like a European. I find this essay truly representative of western thought. Is it just me, or do we still hold this ideology of superiority true to this day? I personally think that we still, to some extent, measure superiority based off of science and technology. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
While there were many aspects of Adas' article that I found intriguing, I'd like to focus on the historic timeline that he addresses. For centuries the Chinese and Arabian cultures were the most technologically advanced civilizations. The former remained isolated while that later expanded under the guise of religious evangelism. As the technological and scientific advances of these cultures reached Europe, the "Age of Exploration," and "Industrial Revolution" among other trends jump-started European advancement until these nations became technologically superior to the "eastern world" which became inherently "backward" from the European perspective. Recent technological advancements through industrialization and the rise of the "Age of Technology" in the 21st century have enabled these "backward" countries to now outdo the "western world" of Europe and the United States. Yet, it seems that each of these periods of "advancement" came at the steep price of losing valuable cultural identity traits. This begs the question of whether or not technological advancement truly leads to a better, superior way of life or whether it leads to the corrosion of cultural values and principles. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
== Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management ==<br />
The problem of greater National Efficiency is always a problem from the workplace to the government (i think anyway). I can't blame some workers for slacking when the people who are not doing much are getting paid the same, but I guess the question is how do you get everyone working together at the same rate of production? I would think "initiative and incentive" plans would work, but some people would get pissed because they may be doing their best and still not get incentives and that may cause an uneasy tension at work. Planning out all work is ok, and does work because I have done it. It does get boring and there are ways to get around or cut corners on the everyday, and make management think all is getting done. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how new ways of management, a non-mechanical idea, could have just as large of an impact on the workplace as the development of something more concrete. Although, he points out many times that in the new system “the management must take over and perform much of the work which is now left the men; almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could,” (273). So if the management is taking on all these new responsibilities in directing their employees, what did they do before? <br />
Also, the source “An Engineering Student Instructs a Laundress” kinds of points out how little changes in procedures can make a big difference in time management and efficiency. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The way Frederick Winslow Taylor described the system of “soldiering” or loafing certainly makes it seem like the workers were extremely lazy. As someone who can appreciate hard work, I automatically had an adverse reaction to that, thinking that owners weren’t asking for too much when they expected their workers to actually do their jobs and be paid accordingly. But then I questioned Taylor’s description of soldiering. Were the workers really that lazy? Was he exaggerating to so his own system of scientific management, which essentially turned humans into automatons, would be accepted? Taylor’s comments on the laborers reminds me of Henry Ford’s comment during the Great Depression about most men being uninterested in a hard day’s work. Harsh. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Transitioning these ideas into the context of the modern world, I found it surprising that this issue of worker productivity has not come into the forefront of national politics in the wake of fierce global competition. In the preface to this article, the published mentioned that Taylor's ideas led to a government ban on the monitoring of time utilization. I'm curious if government policy regarding this has changed since that era. - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Frederick's The New Housekeeping ==<br />
I found Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" particularly interesting. Frederick argues that by approaching a woman's housework in a scientific manner, she will become 'liberated'. Improving the efficiency of her work would thus remove drudgery from her everyday life. However, I couldn't help but think the exact opposite. By forcing a woman to adhere to rules, regulations, and schedules in her everyday life, doesn't that constrain her within the home even further? By applying scientific management to simple housework, it removes a woman's ability to think and act on her own without being restricted. Frederick also claims that women are "fleeing from housework into professions and outside work" and "refusing to assume the burdens of motherhood". However, I think a woman would rather have the choice between working inside or outside of the home. Applying scientific management to their everyday home lives would further restrain these women to the home. -Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
I was thinking the same thing about using the scientific method in the home and how that would take away one of women's only freedom to take care of her home how she wants to. Yes being efficient and getting things done is great and may give some free time to explore other interests, but keeping on a shedule would become boring and if it were me I would end up stopping it. I can see it as having a positive effect on the workplace where there is many people and alot of work to be done. I have myself planned out the next day's agenda for the custodians I used to lead, so they knew exactly what was to be done in how much time. It worked out, and made me see who was slacking and who was good.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
I do not totally agree with Aislyn's statement though I can not totally disagree either. Efficiency and schedules are both good things in their own manner. One can live their life by a schedule and still be efficient, although many times people do not agree. For example with your custodians, if you gave them a list of 5 things to do and they had 8 hours to do them and they got the list done in 6 hours, would that be categorized as being efficient or as being careless, and not spending too much time on each assignment from the list. With that being said, I do not think that a person should have to live their life by the same schedule day in and day out because than it risks workers becoming bored and not doing as well of a job, this is why changing assignments is not a bad thing because it mixes the schedule up and does not allow workers to fall into a routine which bores them.--Marren<br />
<br />
Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" was interesing. Frederick believed that using scientific management to perform simple household tasks would make everyday life within the household run smooth. The fact that she took time out of her day to figure out how many minutes it took her to complete daily tasks is interesting. Was the use of scientific management in everyday task supposed to give a mother more time with her child? What exactly was it supposed to do other than have a person finish cooking and cleaning as quickly as possible? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Frederick's application of the scientific method of housekeeping is an intriguing topic. It is true that decreasing the amount of wasted time in daily cleaning and maintenance tasks could lead to increased production. Yet the scientific method fails to account for the human element within the equation. It's highly unlikely that an increase in time will lead to one being willing to work longer and harder. Some individuals are highly motivated to accomplish their assigned tasks and do enjoy their "jobs," yet it seems more likely that increased free time will lend itself to an increase in time lavished upon the self and his or her family. Other articles and documents that we've read affirm that workers generally only work as hard as they need in order for their families to survive. Thus, while Frederick's application of the scientific method of efficiency is intriguing and could yield great results in an idealized world, it may have had little impact on the daily lives of women. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
Frederick’s essay about employing scientific management in the household just makes you feel bad for those poor middle-class folks, doesn’t it? Those lucky lower-class families didn’t have to worry about keeping up appearances and entertaining friends. Of course, something tells me that rather than being plagued by the drudgery of constant household chores and wasted motions (and having enough time to think about it for that matter), lower-class women were more worried about earning a living, where their next meal was coming from, keeping a roof over their heads, and other basic survival needs. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Other documents of Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
I find myself in agreement with the articles against Taylorism. In the "Aresenal Workers Strike, 1913," Maurice Bowen writes that the use of a stop watch "is humiliating and savors too much of the slave driver." I agree with this statement. Forcing people to work at their maximum limit for long hours will not necessarily make for better wages for the employees. - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
While "Indian Canoe Makers vs. An Efficiency Expert" is about the change in factories to make things run quicker etc. I feel it is also a document that describes the decline of traditional customs, in this case for Native Americans. When a traditional craft like canoe making, quilting, instrument making etc is made in factories and taken out of their original setting, cultures that were associated with them start to decline as well or get replaced. Often times, as seen in the article, the new product is not made to the same standards as it originally was. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I don't know what it was about the Laundress article, but for some reason it just kind of made me laugh. It all seems like such common sense information, like shortening the walk and using a cordless iron so you're not so limited. It all just makes sense so it kind of makes me wonder, why didn't people think of this before? I know it's kind of a ridiculous question, but I mean, it all seems like such basic stuff. I guess it's that whole "hindsight is 20/20" thing. -Kelly W.</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments325--Week 3 Questions/Comments2009-01-29T07:48:01Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Cross-Document Questions */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
While I was reading about the slaves, freemen, and women workers I started to think about some of my own jobs and the treatments I have had to endure in the 20th century. I could not imagine what it was like to work under those harsh conditions. Funny enough though piece work and sweat shops are still around today and people are still exploited. Sucks but it is true. People still fight for better hours, pay, and working conditions as did those back many years. Machines or new technology seemed to be a scary concept for the skilled craftsmen or artisan. It also seemed sometimes as new machines were introduced more problems for the worker arose. Aislyn<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that most of the readings implied that the rapid expansion of technology often was paired with a decrease in (or at least a new strain on) workers rights. This is embodied in the Harper's Ferry piece with the class struggle, and also in the Beaten in Blatimore Shipyard dealing with racial tensions. This rapid growth in technology really ended up dehumanizing the workers. As mentioned in Gender and Papermaking pg 161, there was a new pressure for workers to keep a fast pace, and there was a decrease in conditions. - Elle <br />
<br />
I felt that another important aspect about new technology in factories is that it really stripped the laborers of their value - they no longer used or really even owned their own tools - thus they were at the mercy of greedy owners and hence tensions erupted. pg 183. - Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with Elle's point about industry. I was surprised that the more technology thrived and advanced the less attention was paid to the rights of the workers. If I think about it I guess I can understand why this happened; machines are doing the work and now industries care more about the machines rather than the work that runs the machine. It was different when industry relied on skilled workers to perform a task, but once machines began to take over the craftsmen positions, those machines became the focal point of the industry. I guess I never really paid much attention to this topic or issue... -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I think these kinds of claims which Elle and Jimmy discussed have direct allusions to Marxist philosophy arising soon afterwards. People were starting to see the same alienation of labor which Karl Marx preached would bring about the end of capitalism. Perhaps we are seeing signs of communist philosophy's roots in the ideaology of the working man. - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I found there to be an interesting parallel between Harper's Ferry and Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard, in that both pieces seemed to perfectly exemplify the frantic, sometimes hopeless nature of working an industry job. In both instances, it was clear that no one's job was safe, regardless of color. Even in the situation of a worker strike, the shop owners seemed convinced that they would be able to replace any of the workers, and that labor was always replaceable. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==<br />
I think my favorite part about this reading was the surprise on behalf of the factory when the workers began to strike. It just amuses me that they thought their working conditions were wonderful and didn't understand why someone would ever want to strike. But also, I think it's important to note when the General says that the men can be replaced easily as if they were just machines themselves. We learn that they believed that factory workers could be replaced with little to no effort but this is an actual instance when the workers were threatened with it. I'm surprised they held their ground after that. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree, I really like this reading. It really showed the difference of opinions between the workers and those in charge. It is much closer to reality, the boss always seems to think things are better than they really are. The workers really had to fight hard to stand up for themselves so that they would not be replaced.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The only thing more surprising than H.K. Craig's apparent ignorance about the employee unrest, was the revelation that those same employees could be easily replaced (as Kelly pointed out above) just like the machinery. In both of these writings exhibit a desperate struggle to defend their positions as the newly-created middle management. With the new division of labor, came the need to manage that labor. And as these letters show, these managers immediately began defending the system that gives them their standing. -Sean B.<br />
<br />
I disagree with all of you. I think the workers were taking advantage of the system and were not doing their part. The workers were used to the master craftsman system where they were able to work more haphazardly. In the new machine system they could not take large breaks because if one part of the system slows down, it slows the entire process. I think the management was completely correct in their estimation. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==<br />
<br />
I found this piece very depressing and shocking. Douglass remembered the incident in grave detail and I did not enjoy reading the ''fight scene,'' as I will call it. The second to last paragraph gave a little light on the situation as he learned a skilled trade, but the end of the recollection fizzled that out all together. I liked how he compared his situation to that of "the grim-visaged pirate upon the high seas." However, that statement leaves the reader with an even more depressing view of his situation and race relations in 1835. Frederick Douglass of course wrote this for the purpose of shock as well as education and he succeeded. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me the most in Douglass' story was when the white carpenters suddenly decided to abandon their work until Gardner fired the blacks. The idea that blacks would replace poor whites in certain economic spheres undoubtedly contributed to this decision. I find all of this fascinating because in the first few centuries of the existence of the "New World," Europeans generally worked well amongst Native Americans and blacks. Intermarriage was more frequent, and relationships formed through shared experiences (i.e. the workplace). However, as time progressed European-Americans became increasingly fanatical about preserving their ethnic identities as slavery became associated with one's color through legislative acts and as Europeans no longer needed the assistance of Native Americans to survive in the "New World." Although Douglass' incident is not directly related to the trends listed above, he is clearly indirectly effected like so many other blacks and Native Americans through the assertion of the WASP mentality that began to permeate society in the 18th and 19th centuries. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The essay “Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard” by Frederick Douglass shows the importance of skill, even as a slave. His story begins in the shipyard of Mr. Gardner where he was supposed to learn calking, however due to a rushed order by the Mexican government for ships, he ended up doing whatever anyone needed at any given time. The whites feared that once blacks gained a skill, they would take jobs from the whites. Due to this fear, the whites threatened to quit and Douglass ended up badly beaten. <br />
Master Hugh owned Douglas, and when he learned of what happened he allowed Douglas to work for Mr. Price where he was taught calking. In a year he was able to command high wages and sought his own employment. This shows how far a skill could get you at that time. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I may be different from those who already commented on this essay. While I find it depressing, I also find it inspirational to those who were in the same position. I realize that it isn't easy to gain a skill and those who are qualified and willing to give a black or a slave a skill are limited. But at the same time it shows how far a skill can get you, even if you have to give your wages to a master, at least you are making your own work and able to demand a wage and know that you are worth something. Is that not comparable to how it is today? -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I read the other essays just as an assigned reading, but this essay drew my attention much more. The last paragraph Douglas describes how he feels "compelled" to give his master his wages. It is as if no matter the kindness his maters gave him, he felt that they were 'pirates' who stole from him. He felt that this act was immoral. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
In response to Maggie, I felt that when Master Hugh became livid that Douglass was harassed and beaten to an inch of his life, that it wasn't so much for the wrong doing that happened to Douglass as much that he could have lost his slave, the person who worked for him and gave him his weekly earnings. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I just found this reading so depressing. I was however, surprised at the skill that Douglass was able to master, even while the poor white were against him. It still surprises me that they would want to give that much skill to a black person. Wouldnt they rather the poor whites had the skill? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In response to the argument of showing the work skills to blacks over whites, I feel that many people felt that blacks would work harder than the poor whites would at this time since they had just been given these new opportunities. This is why I think they tended to lean more towards the blacks over the poor whites, plus they would not have to treat the black workers as well as they would have to treat the white workers.--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
I think Frederick Douglass’ experience exemplifies why whites were afraid of slaves gaining certain skills. Of course, whites were afraid of having their jobs taken by blacks, and the fact that Douglass was paid the highest wages given to the most experienced calkers after training supports this. However, it was more than just concern for jobs. Douglass touches on that when he writes that the more his condition was improved, the more his desire for freedom grew. By keeping slaves from acquiring trade skills, whites were not only able to protect their jobs, they were also protecting the system of white supremacy that way in place. –- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard showed me that blacks were more skillful than the whites. The blacks were assigned to someone and had to listen to their every command. They were pulled in different directions to run small errands or just to give them a extra hand. I think the blacks were more skillful because they were like the "jack of all trades" when it came to building a ship. Even though they were assigned to someone, they still had to lend a hand elsewhere to someone who called upon them. -- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
Just a quick question since most of my points have already been made here. Were there ever cases of black workers attempting to strike for more rights, or were they too scared to do so? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
As Cash has stated most of the points on this document have been made. However, I'd like to respond to Paul's assertion that "Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard showed me that blacks were more skillful than the whites." The color of an individual's skin had nothing to do with the skills they could possibly attain (I am not addressing privalage or opportunity here, just raw potential). As the article stated, black and white workers labored side by side daily doing the same work for a good amount of time before the white strike took place. It just so happened that Douglas came in during the beginning of a rush order, which prevented him from being taught an individual skill, and instead being assigned as a runner. Also, the article stated that Douglas was a runner along with a group of young white men, the ones who eventually attacked him, thus it is not a job reserved just for a particular race. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the women described in the Gender and Papermaking piece weren't rushed by the new output and machinery (and I don't really understand how that is the case). - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Elle, it seemed that the work that was done by women wasn't necessarily tied directly to the machinery. They sorted and cut rags, so their work was more dependent on quality not quantity. But at the same time I see your point, because in theory the quantity produced by the machines should increase, so you would think they would get behind and the quality would decline as a result. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
When looking at the different technologies that have evolved over time, the selection/rejection process is examined as well as the impact. But, as Judith Mcgaw seems to point out, the human experience is more often left out. We study the impacts of new machines on general social, economic, or political trends. But the creation of machines has different impacts on different individuals as well. Mcgaw points out “improved machines subjected workmen to a more hectic pace, longer hours, and periodic unemployment. Moreover, unlike earlier paper makers, machine tenders and many of their fellow male employees risked being killed or maimed.” I think she also does a good job in addressing the more distinct separations that arise in the male and female work industry as a result of the rise of mechanization. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
What I found to be the most interesting part of this essay was not about gender. On page 160-161 Mcgaw discusses the impact of machines on paper mill workers. She notes, "Machines did not replace workers, reduce their level of skill, or subdivide their tasks." However, the machines did increase output of the small number of skilled laborers. This section of the reading that Jessica also pointed out changed my outlook on mechanization. I feel as if we mostly discuss how mechanization took away the need of skilled workers and made tasks simple only requiring awareness. In contrast, Mcgaw claims that in this profession, mechanization "multiplied jobs for skilled paper workers," who were trained while preforming less skilled tasks. So the mechanization trained new skilled workers and utilized the existing workers. Although Mcgaw continues by discussing the deterioration of work conditions, she also notes that there is some improvement in that as well. This just put a different spin on the topic for me. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
As with Kirsten, I found that the interesting part of this essay dealt not with gender. What I found interesting was the detailed description of the working conditions that the men and women had to deal with in paper mills. The hot damp rooms would breed all sorts of bacteria and fungi, I'm sure of it. On page 162 McGraw writes, "accidents involving paper-making machines, rag cutters, and machine shop tools caused fewer fatalities, but affected more workers, most of whom lost fingers, hands, or arms." This sums up that the working conditions for the paper mill workers were harsh. Dealing with the gender issue of the article, McGraw later writes that men would use the loss of a finger as a way to scale his manliness for he would be able to find ways around his handicap and keep working. That I found interesting. - Melissa Graham <br />
<br />
I found the sections comparing men and women in the paper industry to be the most enlightening. For instance, it is common knowledge that men earned more than women but McGaw provided some numbers. While less than 5% of men working in the mills earned less than $6 per week, 70% of women earned less than that amount. However, women's hours did not go up, nor did their working conditions change from a pre-industrial setting. Men worked alone but women worked in groups. Women's most common danger in the workplace was not from machinery but from working around dangerous substances in the rag room. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Judith McGaw’s article title Gender and Papermaking because she touches on one question that has been in the back of my head for some time. She makes a point to show that we study the impact of inventions on our history. How that machine changed American industry or even our lives today, but we usually look over the impact that invention had on the person who invented it. This is a key to the study of any invention and I think it also sheds more light on the invention itself. – Jimmy Conroy <br />
<br />
The part of this essay that I found most interesting was McGaw's description of the relationships between male employers and employees. So often we associate this area of history with the "us vs. them" mentality and this seems to have become the dominant historical narrative. Yet Smith gives numerous examples of how male employers and employees bonded with one another over notions of manhood, through pranking, and establishing personal "man to man" contracts with one another. While it's undeniable that employers exploited their employees in numerous ways, it would be a mistake to assume that, despite increasing alienation in the factories, men did not value their "skilled" labor that they held in common with one another and that their employers needed in order to maintain factory production. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think the concept of equality based on shared masculinity is interesting. A sense of equality was reached and was not like other boss/worker relationships in which the boss is in a clear position of power and lords it over the employees. It also made protests more individualized. Workers were more likely to have control over their circumstances and to have their issues addressed because of their relative equality, which kept large-scale protests down. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
The situation with the male paper mill workers is interesting to me because it sort of goes against the image of the mistreated, exploited worker I’m used to seeing. Even though new machines made the work more hectic and dangerous and the hours longer, at least early on, the men were highly skilled and proud, and they were able to capitalize on paper demand as a bargaining tool. Most interesting is the relationship between the mill workers and owners. The workers dealt with the owners on equal level, and negotiations and problems were dealt with on a personal level rather than collective level. –- Taylor Brann <br />
<br />
== Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” ==<br />
<br />
In “The Political Economy of Pacing” it seems to me like technology and mechanization were actually detrimental to the amount of work that got accomplished. When these advancements occur, it is so that more can be produced at the same rate. However, unless I’m miss-interpreting the article it sounds like the workers used technology to complete the same amount of work in less time. So counter-intuitively, the mechanization of processes wasn’t as economically advantageous as it could have been given the mindset of the workers utilizing the new equipment. Is that basically what this author is getting at? –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I would agree with you Jessica that the amount of work that got done using machines or some other new technology was close to the same as without it. I supose in the early years you would have a lot of down time with new technology so things did not get done as fast. That really can't be said for now in the 21st century. I would think as new technology came in people would not want to use it correctly, kinda like making the machine look bad, and say see we don't need it in an effort to save their jobs. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I noticed in this essay, along with the counter-intuitive nature mechanization seemed to have at first, was the interactions between employers and employees. Smith compares it to the relationship between slaves and masters in the South, which I guess makes sense as there really was no labor rights at this time. The bosses were still able to work their employees to the bone but workers still were able to determine where they worked or how they worked, apparently much like slaves did, and could get away with it. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised at Smith's argument highlighting slaves' agency in the Slave-Slaveholder relationship. This is my first U.S. History class at UMW, so it may be common knowledge to others, but I had never thought about slaves having negotiating power when it came to their work. However, as Smith explains, it makes perfect sense. Slaves were in large demand, but short supply. By having a "push-and-pull" relationship, slave owners were able to capitalize on free labor without sacrificing their investment. - Lon<br />
<br />
I would like to explore the extent to which slaves exercised their limited agency. Where they aware of their high demand and the large sums owners had invested in them? To what extend did they communicate amongst other slaves in order to get more from their owners? - Lon<br />
<br />
No, Lon, you're not alone in your understanding of slave/owner relationships. I didn't realize, either, that slaves used to negotiate with their masters about their labor; I actually didn't think they had that much power in the slave/master relationship. Was this common? -Kelly W<br />
<br />
In response to Lon's question I think that the answer is that in both the case of slavery and the factory workers, they were aware that they didn't have any direct power, but they manipulated their actions to get the point across. It was a subtle way of obtaining influence, of which both groups were acutely aware. I also agree with Jessica's comment that it seemed as though the only thing the new technology did at first was to create more leisure time for workers. They were producing the same amount at a much faster rate. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I agree with both Kelly, Lon, and Karen. First with Lon that the whole push-pull idea makes perfect sense because the slave labor was based on such a supply and demand still that it does fit together and give the slaves a little piece of the power with their masters. Kelly, from what I understand it did become quite common because after all the more you attempted to keep a slave happy the better work they would do for their masters. Karen is correct in saying that there was no direct power because of the push-pull factor these two groups held over the other one. A lot of this dealt with how each group was treated.--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
On a completely different topic, yet one that caught my attention, when discussing the labor question on pg. 186, a commissioner in 1841 remarked "the superintendent should be a man of science and well acquainted with the best models of the musket." To play off of our discussion on Tuesday, it appears this is proof that the superior technology of the rifle was not used in government armories or, it seems, anywhere widespread in the arms manufactuing industry so many years after its invention. It did present a question though, could a man be both a man of science and one who favors musket production over the rifle? - Adam Shlossman</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments325--Week 3 Questions/Comments2009-01-29T07:40:50Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
While I was reading about the slaves, freemen, and women workers I started to think about some of my own jobs and the treatments I have had to endure in the 20th century. I could not imagine what it was like to work under those harsh conditions. Funny enough though piece work and sweat shops are still around today and people are still exploited. Sucks but it is true. People still fight for better hours, pay, and working conditions as did those back many years. Machines or new technology seemed to be a scary concept for the skilled craftsmen or artisan. It also seemed sometimes as new machines were introduced more problems for the worker arose. Aislyn<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that most of the readings implied that the rapid expansion of technology often was paired with a decrease in (or at least a new strain on) workers rights. This is embodied in the Harper's Ferry piece with the class struggle, and also in the Beaten in Blatimore Shipyard dealing with racial tensions. This rapid growth in technology really ended up dehumanizing the workers. As mentioned in Gender and Papermaking pg 161, there was a new pressure for workers to keep a fast pace, and there was a decrease in conditions. - Elle <br />
<br />
I felt that another important aspect about new technology in factories is that it really stripped the laborers of their value - they no longer used or really even owned their own tools - thus they were at the mercy of greedy owners and hence tensions erupted. pg 183. - Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with Elle's point about industry. I was surprised that the more technology thrived and advanced the less attention was paid to the rights of the workers. If I think about it I guess I can understand why this happened; machines are doing the work and now industries care more about the machines rather than the work that runs the machine. It was different when industry relied on skilled workers to perform a task, but once machines began to take over the craftsmen positions, those machines became the focal point of the industry. I guess I never really paid much attention to this topic or issue... -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I found there to be an interesting parallel between Harper's Ferry and Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard, in that both pieces seemed to perfectly exemplify the frantic, sometimes hopeless nature of working an industry job. In both instances, it was clear that no one's job was safe, regardless of color. Even in the situation of a worker strike, the shop owners seemed convinced that they would be able to replace any of the workers, and that labor was always replaceable. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==<br />
I think my favorite part about this reading was the surprise on behalf of the factory when the workers began to strike. It just amuses me that they thought their working conditions were wonderful and didn't understand why someone would ever want to strike. But also, I think it's important to note when the General says that the men can be replaced easily as if they were just machines themselves. We learn that they believed that factory workers could be replaced with little to no effort but this is an actual instance when the workers were threatened with it. I'm surprised they held their ground after that. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree, I really like this reading. It really showed the difference of opinions between the workers and those in charge. It is much closer to reality, the boss always seems to think things are better than they really are. The workers really had to fight hard to stand up for themselves so that they would not be replaced.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The only thing more surprising than H.K. Craig's apparent ignorance about the employee unrest, was the revelation that those same employees could be easily replaced (as Kelly pointed out above) just like the machinery. In both of these writings exhibit a desperate struggle to defend their positions as the newly-created middle management. With the new division of labor, came the need to manage that labor. And as these letters show, these managers immediately began defending the system that gives them their standing. -Sean B.<br />
<br />
I disagree with all of you. I think the workers were taking advantage of the system and were not doing their part. The workers were used to the master craftsman system where they were able to work more haphazardly. In the new machine system they could not take large breaks because if one part of the system slows down, it slows the entire process. I think the management was completely correct in their estimation. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==<br />
<br />
I found this piece very depressing and shocking. Douglass remembered the incident in grave detail and I did not enjoy reading the ''fight scene,'' as I will call it. The second to last paragraph gave a little light on the situation as he learned a skilled trade, but the end of the recollection fizzled that out all together. I liked how he compared his situation to that of "the grim-visaged pirate upon the high seas." However, that statement leaves the reader with an even more depressing view of his situation and race relations in 1835. Frederick Douglass of course wrote this for the purpose of shock as well as education and he succeeded. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me the most in Douglass' story was when the white carpenters suddenly decided to abandon their work until Gardner fired the blacks. The idea that blacks would replace poor whites in certain economic spheres undoubtedly contributed to this decision. I find all of this fascinating because in the first few centuries of the existence of the "New World," Europeans generally worked well amongst Native Americans and blacks. Intermarriage was more frequent, and relationships formed through shared experiences (i.e. the workplace). However, as time progressed European-Americans became increasingly fanatical about preserving their ethnic identities as slavery became associated with one's color through legislative acts and as Europeans no longer needed the assistance of Native Americans to survive in the "New World." Although Douglass' incident is not directly related to the trends listed above, he is clearly indirectly effected like so many other blacks and Native Americans through the assertion of the WASP mentality that began to permeate society in the 18th and 19th centuries. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The essay “Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard” by Frederick Douglass shows the importance of skill, even as a slave. His story begins in the shipyard of Mr. Gardner where he was supposed to learn calking, however due to a rushed order by the Mexican government for ships, he ended up doing whatever anyone needed at any given time. The whites feared that once blacks gained a skill, they would take jobs from the whites. Due to this fear, the whites threatened to quit and Douglass ended up badly beaten. <br />
Master Hugh owned Douglas, and when he learned of what happened he allowed Douglas to work for Mr. Price where he was taught calking. In a year he was able to command high wages and sought his own employment. This shows how far a skill could get you at that time. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I may be different from those who already commented on this essay. While I find it depressing, I also find it inspirational to those who were in the same position. I realize that it isn't easy to gain a skill and those who are qualified and willing to give a black or a slave a skill are limited. But at the same time it shows how far a skill can get you, even if you have to give your wages to a master, at least you are making your own work and able to demand a wage and know that you are worth something. Is that not comparable to how it is today? -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I read the other essays just as an assigned reading, but this essay drew my attention much more. The last paragraph Douglas describes how he feels "compelled" to give his master his wages. It is as if no matter the kindness his maters gave him, he felt that they were 'pirates' who stole from him. He felt that this act was immoral. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
In response to Maggie, I felt that when Master Hugh became livid that Douglass was harassed and beaten to an inch of his life, that it wasn't so much for the wrong doing that happened to Douglass as much that he could have lost his slave, the person who worked for him and gave him his weekly earnings. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I just found this reading so depressing. I was however, surprised at the skill that Douglass was able to master, even while the poor white were against him. It still surprises me that they would want to give that much skill to a black person. Wouldnt they rather the poor whites had the skill? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In response to the argument of showing the work skills to blacks over whites, I feel that many people felt that blacks would work harder than the poor whites would at this time since they had just been given these new opportunities. This is why I think they tended to lean more towards the blacks over the poor whites, plus they would not have to treat the black workers as well as they would have to treat the white workers.--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
I think Frederick Douglass’ experience exemplifies why whites were afraid of slaves gaining certain skills. Of course, whites were afraid of having their jobs taken by blacks, and the fact that Douglass was paid the highest wages given to the most experienced calkers after training supports this. However, it was more than just concern for jobs. Douglass touches on that when he writes that the more his condition was improved, the more his desire for freedom grew. By keeping slaves from acquiring trade skills, whites were not only able to protect their jobs, they were also protecting the system of white supremacy that way in place. –- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard showed me that blacks were more skillful than the whites. The blacks were assigned to someone and had to listen to their every command. They were pulled in different directions to run small errands or just to give them a extra hand. I think the blacks were more skillful because they were like the "jack of all trades" when it came to building a ship. Even though they were assigned to someone, they still had to lend a hand elsewhere to someone who called upon them. -- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
Just a quick question since most of my points have already been made here. Were there ever cases of black workers attempting to strike for more rights, or were they too scared to do so? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
As Cash has stated most of the points on this document have been made. However, I'd like to respond to Paul's assertion that "Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard showed me that blacks were more skillful than the whites." The color of an individual's skin had nothing to do with the skills they could possibly attain (I am not addressing privalage or opportunity here, just raw potential). As the article stated, black and white workers labored side by side daily doing the same work for a good amount of time before the white strike took place. It just so happened that Douglas came in during the beginning of a rush order, which prevented him from being taught an individual skill, and instead being assigned as a runner. Also, the article stated that Douglas was a runner along with a group of young white men, the ones who eventually attacked him, thus it is not a job reserved just for a particular race. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the women described in the Gender and Papermaking piece weren't rushed by the new output and machinery (and I don't really understand how that is the case). - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Elle, it seemed that the work that was done by women wasn't necessarily tied directly to the machinery. They sorted and cut rags, so their work was more dependent on quality not quantity. But at the same time I see your point, because in theory the quantity produced by the machines should increase, so you would think they would get behind and the quality would decline as a result. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
When looking at the different technologies that have evolved over time, the selection/rejection process is examined as well as the impact. But, as Judith Mcgaw seems to point out, the human experience is more often left out. We study the impacts of new machines on general social, economic, or political trends. But the creation of machines has different impacts on different individuals as well. Mcgaw points out “improved machines subjected workmen to a more hectic pace, longer hours, and periodic unemployment. Moreover, unlike earlier paper makers, machine tenders and many of their fellow male employees risked being killed or maimed.” I think she also does a good job in addressing the more distinct separations that arise in the male and female work industry as a result of the rise of mechanization. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
What I found to be the most interesting part of this essay was not about gender. On page 160-161 Mcgaw discusses the impact of machines on paper mill workers. She notes, "Machines did not replace workers, reduce their level of skill, or subdivide their tasks." However, the machines did increase output of the small number of skilled laborers. This section of the reading that Jessica also pointed out changed my outlook on mechanization. I feel as if we mostly discuss how mechanization took away the need of skilled workers and made tasks simple only requiring awareness. In contrast, Mcgaw claims that in this profession, mechanization "multiplied jobs for skilled paper workers," who were trained while preforming less skilled tasks. So the mechanization trained new skilled workers and utilized the existing workers. Although Mcgaw continues by discussing the deterioration of work conditions, she also notes that there is some improvement in that as well. This just put a different spin on the topic for me. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
As with Kirsten, I found that the interesting part of this essay dealt not with gender. What I found interesting was the detailed description of the working conditions that the men and women had to deal with in paper mills. The hot damp rooms would breed all sorts of bacteria and fungi, I'm sure of it. On page 162 McGraw writes, "accidents involving paper-making machines, rag cutters, and machine shop tools caused fewer fatalities, but affected more workers, most of whom lost fingers, hands, or arms." This sums up that the working conditions for the paper mill workers were harsh. Dealing with the gender issue of the article, McGraw later writes that men would use the loss of a finger as a way to scale his manliness for he would be able to find ways around his handicap and keep working. That I found interesting. - Melissa Graham <br />
<br />
I found the sections comparing men and women in the paper industry to be the most enlightening. For instance, it is common knowledge that men earned more than women but McGaw provided some numbers. While less than 5% of men working in the mills earned less than $6 per week, 70% of women earned less than that amount. However, women's hours did not go up, nor did their working conditions change from a pre-industrial setting. Men worked alone but women worked in groups. Women's most common danger in the workplace was not from machinery but from working around dangerous substances in the rag room. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Judith McGaw’s article title Gender and Papermaking because she touches on one question that has been in the back of my head for some time. She makes a point to show that we study the impact of inventions on our history. How that machine changed American industry or even our lives today, but we usually look over the impact that invention had on the person who invented it. This is a key to the study of any invention and I think it also sheds more light on the invention itself. – Jimmy Conroy <br />
<br />
The part of this essay that I found most interesting was McGaw's description of the relationships between male employers and employees. So often we associate this area of history with the "us vs. them" mentality and this seems to have become the dominant historical narrative. Yet Smith gives numerous examples of how male employers and employees bonded with one another over notions of manhood, through pranking, and establishing personal "man to man" contracts with one another. While it's undeniable that employers exploited their employees in numerous ways, it would be a mistake to assume that, despite increasing alienation in the factories, men did not value their "skilled" labor that they held in common with one another and that their employers needed in order to maintain factory production. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think the concept of equality based on shared masculinity is interesting. A sense of equality was reached and was not like other boss/worker relationships in which the boss is in a clear position of power and lords it over the employees. It also made protests more individualized. Workers were more likely to have control over their circumstances and to have their issues addressed because of their relative equality, which kept large-scale protests down. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
The situation with the male paper mill workers is interesting to me because it sort of goes against the image of the mistreated, exploited worker I’m used to seeing. Even though new machines made the work more hectic and dangerous and the hours longer, at least early on, the men were highly skilled and proud, and they were able to capitalize on paper demand as a bargaining tool. Most interesting is the relationship between the mill workers and owners. The workers dealt with the owners on equal level, and negotiations and problems were dealt with on a personal level rather than collective level. –- Taylor Brann <br />
<br />
== Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” ==<br />
<br />
In “The Political Economy of Pacing” it seems to me like technology and mechanization were actually detrimental to the amount of work that got accomplished. When these advancements occur, it is so that more can be produced at the same rate. However, unless I’m miss-interpreting the article it sounds like the workers used technology to complete the same amount of work in less time. So counter-intuitively, the mechanization of processes wasn’t as economically advantageous as it could have been given the mindset of the workers utilizing the new equipment. Is that basically what this author is getting at? –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I would agree with you Jessica that the amount of work that got done using machines or some other new technology was close to the same as without it. I supose in the early years you would have a lot of down time with new technology so things did not get done as fast. That really can't be said for now in the 21st century. I would think as new technology came in people would not want to use it correctly, kinda like making the machine look bad, and say see we don't need it in an effort to save their jobs. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I noticed in this essay, along with the counter-intuitive nature mechanization seemed to have at first, was the interactions between employers and employees. Smith compares it to the relationship between slaves and masters in the South, which I guess makes sense as there really was no labor rights at this time. The bosses were still able to work their employees to the bone but workers still were able to determine where they worked or how they worked, apparently much like slaves did, and could get away with it. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised at Smith's argument highlighting slaves' agency in the Slave-Slaveholder relationship. This is my first U.S. History class at UMW, so it may be common knowledge to others, but I had never thought about slaves having negotiating power when it came to their work. However, as Smith explains, it makes perfect sense. Slaves were in large demand, but short supply. By having a "push-and-pull" relationship, slave owners were able to capitalize on free labor without sacrificing their investment. - Lon<br />
<br />
I would like to explore the extent to which slaves exercised their limited agency. Where they aware of their high demand and the large sums owners had invested in them? To what extend did they communicate amongst other slaves in order to get more from their owners? - Lon<br />
<br />
No, Lon, you're not alone in your understanding of slave/owner relationships. I didn't realize, either, that slaves used to negotiate with their masters about their labor; I actually didn't think they had that much power in the slave/master relationship. Was this common? -Kelly W<br />
<br />
In response to Lon's question I think that the answer is that in both the case of slavery and the factory workers, they were aware that they didn't have any direct power, but they manipulated their actions to get the point across. It was a subtle way of obtaining influence, of which both groups were acutely aware. I also agree with Jessica's comment that it seemed as though the only thing the new technology did at first was to create more leisure time for workers. They were producing the same amount at a much faster rate. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I agree with both Kelly, Lon, and Karen. First with Lon that the whole push-pull idea makes perfect sense because the slave labor was based on such a supply and demand still that it does fit together and give the slaves a little piece of the power with their masters. Kelly, from what I understand it did become quite common because after all the more you attempted to keep a slave happy the better work they would do for their masters. Karen is correct in saying that there was no direct power because of the push-pull factor these two groups held over the other one. A lot of this dealt with how each group was treated.--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
On a completely different topic, yet one that caught my attention, when discussing the labor question on pg. 186, a commissioner in 1841 remarked "the superintendent should be a man of science and well acquainted with the best models of the musket." To play off of our discussion on Tuesday, it appears this is proof that the superior technology of the rifle was not used in government armories or, it seems, anywhere widespread in the arms manufactuing industry so many years after its invention. It did present a question though, could a man be both a man of science and one who favors musket production over the rifle? - Adam Shlossman</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--Week 2 Questions/Comments2009-01-22T06:02:34Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Rules and Regulations/Textiles/Working Conditions in Industries */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Native Americans and Technology Transfer ==<br />
<br />
I found Kupperman’s article to be interesting in that it compares what the perception of technology would be between the English and the Native American’s. It is clear that the English felt that their technology was superior and that they did not consider the agriculture which they took from the Native Americans to be something of a technological advance. Though their way of life clearly depended on the settled agriculture they took from the Native Americans, they were very reluctant to credit the people who introduced these methods. Instead they believed it was a product of their land, an almost inevitability, and it took the English tools and “industrious men” to turn the land into something profitable. It seems that the difference that arises is in how one interprets agriculture as a form of technology. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
The article “…much good might they receive from the English,” talked about how the Native American’s first perceived the new technologies as they were introduced by the English. It kind of gives you an idea about how different technologies may be received differently as they are transferred from one society to another. It also reminded me of a movie I watched in a sociology class, “The God’s must be crazy,” which was about the culture shock of finding a coke bottle in the desert. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The Europeans who wrote about Native Americans respected the technology that the Natives had developed, but it was generally thought that Europeans had superior technology. However, the colonists were basically surviving off of food from the Indians. In the introduction of Kupperman's essay, the question is asked how European technology could be glorified while at the same time acknowledging that survival depended on the crucial aid of the Native Americans, especially with agricultural methods. I thought it was interesting that Europeans could maintain their position of superiority and I speculate that it might have something to do with the racial or cultural differences. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found the subject of European, in particular the English, superiority in the first reading section interesting. I have done more research on the settlement of Latin America and saw many differences and similarities between the two. In William Wood’s excerpt, he describes the Indians as being lazy and “fettered in the chains of idleness.” He believed that with the addition of English aid and modeling, the Indians would be “more industrious.” The lazy attributes of the Indians were described in Latin American sources as well. One thing I do not believe they mention in the readings is slavery. How did slavery play a part in the colonization and the technological advancements or changes of North America? <br />
Playing off that and Karen’s comment, there is also no mention of racial differences between the Europeans and the Native Americans. Although it may not have been considered an important addition to this book, I believe that those differences drive advancements in various cultures. Religious differences are mentioned, but only to show the Indians becoming more European and “cured” of superstitions (p. 30). I also find it interesting that the differences are not mentioned in Karen Kupperman’s essay. I just feel that the Europeans obviously found themselves superior and were not going to admit the whole extent to which the Indians improved their technology.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I was absolutely fascinated with the fact that Native Americans seemed to value and appreciate technology more so than their colonial counterparts. In Governor Nicholas Denys on the Micmac, the Native Americans were said to give up valuable furs and robes in exchange for relatively simple European technology. While, I am not surprised that colonists took advantage of them, but my interest came from the Native American satisfaction with these transactions. This account provides a unique account of the Western "fascination and fast paced adoption of ingenuity"'s independent presence in a culture rooted in much different values. I think it speaks to technology as a part of the human condition -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I think Religion is an important part as Kirsten mentioned - particularly the burial tradition described in _____. I think it is important to notice the superiority complex that the English had in all aspects of life - religion, technology, civilization, etc. Something that I felt came through in most of these first readings is that there is a clear correlation (at least to the authors of these pieces) between modern technology and civilized society. The "savages" had intricate old methods of carving out a canoe that worked perfectly well for them. The english clearly looked down on these boats and "could scarcely sit without a fearful tottering." Overall - it seemed apparent that (in the eyes of the english) the english were new, good, and civilized, while the indians were simply outdated and silly in their ways. --Elle W<br />
<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read about European technology intertwining with Native American technology and vice versa. Canoes were adapted into the European culture and firearms adapted into Native culture. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I find it funny that one of the explorers writes about how foolish the Indians were to be living on iron mines without even realizing it. He goes on to say how “disadvantageous [their] ignorance and inconsiderate contempt of the useful arts is (34).” Obviously, he considers European technology to be superior, but then he sings the praises of the canoe. He talks about how light and quick and just plain amazing they are, yet he avoids praising the Indians who invented it. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The technological area of the culture clash that took place is one that rarely seems to been specifically concentrated on. It is interesting to note the ways in which European descriptions of Native American technologies seemed to fit their agenda. As was mentioned, the Europeans seemed to be able to divorce the technology they found from the people who made them, even when describing how they are made. This allowed them to extol the virtues of canoes on the North American continent while still condemning the Native Americans for not creating some of the marvels of European technology. They could then use the canoe, corn farming, and many other technologies but believe the people they came from where inferior. --Sean Brock<br />
<br />
== French ==<br />
<br />
My favorite essay out of the reading was Henry French's essay about tools and how they were used by people. I really enjoyed how he showed that the person and the task are very important when choosing the tool to be used. He continues on in his essay to tell how tools evolved by people using them for different jobs; this later led to the formation of industries that replicated the tools that were being made by individuals and later sold to many. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Another essay I found interesting was Irishmen and Spades by Henry French. He makes a good point in that different people work best with different tools for the same task. There is also a difference in the tools used for different locations. It seems as though there was lots of controversy about how to make tools better: if it was lighter, wider, if it was straight, if it was made out of iron, and so on. I think what I am getting is that people are always trying to make things easier and tools are constantly being changed, and manipulated to accomplish different tasks more easily. Based off of this, it is easy to see how large-scale factories eventually came into being. This caused a shift from producing for yourself, as described in A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, to producing for a market leading to increased trade and larger corporations. This shift is shown in Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures” but from this comes even more obstacles and an evolution into even more problems. With the rise of factories you have more problems as described in “Amelia,” Some of the Beauties of Our Factory System—Otherwise, Lowell Slavery. Based off of this reading I can see how technology makes things easier for some but often have repercussions for others. My mind goes to the shutting down of factories at home and the exploitation of workers abroad and the constant wars that are going on for resources. It makes me wonder if we are any better off today or if it is a continuous cycle. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I don't think I agree with what others have said about the French essay on Irishmen and Spades. Just because someone has never used a certain tool before doesn't mean they will automatically not be able to learn how. It is a bit unsettling that people would market specific tools to specific nationalities.-- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I agree with Lauren here, after all elderly people who grew up in a non computer, non cell phone era, uncolored television have learned how to not only use some of these newer technologies so why could someone not learn to use a tool. Being someone who works construction over the summer, I can personally attest to the argument that someone could pick up a tool and by watching someone use it teach themselves. I do not fully disagree that it would be challenging; however, I believe that it is unjust to give so little credit to these men working.--Sean Marren <br />
<br />
In response to the ongoing discussion about French's "Irishmen and Spades, 1859" I'd like to offer an idea that I think has already been inferred a bit in previous posts. While some people naturally do work better with tools best suited to their physical stature or to the specific environment they're working in, it seems natural to me that French, writing in 1859, would naturally have certain presuppositions and stereotypes of "Old World" immigrants. Irish immigrants and Irish Americans fought in the Civil War to protect their new homeland (North or South) in part to show that they were U.S. citizens. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that French may have presuppositions as to which tool is most efficient in the hands of people of different ancestries. A lot of it reinforces communal identity of what it means to be Irish, Scottish, etc. in the face of persecution for not being "American" and in attempts to retain communal heritage as socialization occurs. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I thought that "Irishmen and Spades: 1859" and "A Gentleman Farmer on Common Farmer's Tools: 1822" worked very well together. French explains in "Irishmen" that the spade was seen as incredibly vital to the farming of the time and location, tying into the supply and demand explanations of "Gentleman Farmer." The latter article also gave an interesting view on how farming seemed to be very by-the-book, down to the author explaining that there are specific tools to use for specific tasks. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Marx's "The Machine" ==<br />
<br />
In Leo Marx’s essay “The Machine” he is a clear advocate of the use of machine technology in the United States. He uses a speech delivered by Coxe to bring up many benefits of industrialization and argues why he believes it is a necessary aspect of American economy and politics. He argues that in order to maintain American independence the machine is necessary to increase self-sufficiency. He even goes on to say how the machine is this “root metaphor of being” and how it can be linked to the system of our constitutional government. I think it’s an interesting point because it shows how a machine doesn’t necessarily have to be something technical or mechanical but rather a system of how different parts work together to accomplish something. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be incredibly eye opening and it truly shows the progression of technologies and the affects it had on the population. The essay on page 63 by Edmund S. Morgan, A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, shows how much work and how many people were required to have a self-sufficient plantation. What is daunting is the Plantation Accounting from 1784 on page 64. It shows how difficult things were. You needed certain tools in order to make certain other tools. With this, you need increased labor which leads to the necessity for slave labor as well as skilled labor to produce the necessities.<br />
<br />
Leo Marx's essay was an enjoyable read. The essay was used to describe how the technological advancements that occured when America finally got their independence. Some founding fathers as well as some independent people of America were at first very sceptical with whole idea of machines and the thought of industrialization. Jefferson viewed machines as "human spirit liberation," but saw factories as "feudal oppression." -- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
== Midwife's Tale ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the Midwife's Tale. The fact that midwives made up a large part of the community's healthcare, not just with obstetrics, in the 18th and 19th century is something that is overlooked. Though scorned by many male doctors, midwives were needed for their homeopathic remedies, such as using herbs and common vegetables to cure a patient's ills, contrasting with the doctor's elaborate medicinal remedies. The irony of this is midwives were perhaps more sensible in their treatments than the so-called professionals of the day. This makes sense as many of the most basic tools that doctors use today, like the stethoscope, hadn't been invented. It was also nice to read about how one of the midwives attended autopsies and such, this of course being well before the Victorian age of restricting women due to their delicate natures. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I think it would have been really cool to be a midwife. Not that I would be able to stomach it, of course. But women put so much trust in them to deliver their children, the most precious thing to them in the world, and it's just miraculous how much they were able to do without the technology we have today. They were able to create remedies and medications with simple herbs and spices and seemed so advanced, almost, for their time period. They knew a lot more than I think we give them credit for. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the "Midwife's Tale" for the same reasons as Lauren. The extent of a midwife's knowledge is extraordinary. The paragraph in the middle of page 81 describes the job effectively and shows the range of knowledge Lauren mentioned. It states, a midwife "medicates the mysteries of birth, procreation, illness, and death. They touched the untouchable, handled excrement and vomit as well as milk, swaddled the dead as well as the new born..." Throughout the reading, I was surprised at their responsibilities, ability to multi-task, knowledge of medicines, and the cooperation with their communities and patients.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
== Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" and Edmund Morgan==<br />
<br />
<br />
My favorite essay this week was Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina." When we think about slavery, we generally associate it more so with plantation slavery in the 1800s working out in fields planting, weeding, and harvesting (unskilled labor). Yet this was not the universal case then, and especially not earlier on in the 1600 and 1700s. The notion that slaves were actually skilled laborers who had specific jobs that were vital to the success of their master's plantation makes a lot of sense to me- though I never considered it in great detail before. I think that the most interesting part of Wood's essay was his discussion on how many times slaves became apprentices (often to whites) for skilled labor and were then sold at higher prices to other plantations because of the specific skills that they had acquired. Again, it makes sense that whites would mention their slaves' skills at the slavery block, but it's something that I hadn't thought that much about prior to reading Wood's essay. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I really liked the essay of "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" because it proves how often people misjudge slave labor and consider them unskilled workers. Like the author noted, they were far from unskilled and without their know-how the early colonial period would have been far from what it ended up as. The colonists wouldn't have had any of the crucial knowledge they needed to cultivate crops like rice without the help of their slaves. - Kelly W<br />
<br />
The essay by Edmund S Morgan was very suprising to me. The plantation owner had everything he needed to keep the plantation alive right in his own backyard. The ideas to leave nothing behind and make it somehow useful, like the way the the plantation owner killed his livestock for food and then used the rest of the parts from the slaughtered animal and use it to make clothing out of. --Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I guess this is where my definition of technology might not be broad enough - slavery and techniques of planting/fishing, etc.? My idea of technology is pretty close minded and modern I think. I found it interested when Wood talks about the law against developing/finding blends of poisonous herbs. I think this is an interesting example of technology - since I think of tools and mechanical apparatuses, not herbs or skilled labor. This is definitely something I'd like to develop further. Someone please enlighten me. -- Elle<br />
<br />
== Rules and Regulations/Textiles/Working Conditions in Industries ==<br />
<br />
I found the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company, 1846 alarming. The prohibition of talking (with exception to work related topics) was especially shocking. It makes me wonder why workers weren't aware or more proactive about obtaining better rights? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The dichotomy between workers conditions and the development of new technology is fascinating. Although the products these workers make improve other people's lives (like the textile Mill 'Almira' worked in Massachusetts), the technology itself has put workers in bad conditions. Without this technology, are the workers better off? Or are conditions in other industries (like agriculture) just as bad as the conditions put forth by the development of mass industry? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The article on the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company was interesting. I found most of the rules were very restricting but the others like "no spirituous liquors, smoking, or any kind of amusement, will be allowed in the workshops or yards." The part about liquor and smoking makes sense for a conducive working environment. My question I suppose would be what exactly would "any [other] kind of amusement" be? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Did anyone else think the overly serious tone of "Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company: 1846" was a little self-parodic? No talking permitted except on subjects relating to their work? I understand wanting to make sure your employees are serious about their jobs, but this whole article just seemed like overkill to me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I’m trying to decide if the editors were being sarcastic when they wrote, “Almira’s criticism [of the textile mills in Lowell] is perhaps more muted” than Amelia’s. “Muted” isn’t exactly the word I would use to describe what Almira writes. It’s obviously propaganda for the company, particularly since it was published in the company’s paper. Amelia’s account is much more unpleasant (and more in line with what I’ve read about 1840s working conditions), and makes me wonder if Almira got a nice little bonus for writing that the joys of working in Lowell far outweigh the disadvantages. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It seemed having been endowed with what I believe is an instinct of the human condition, the desire to seek what one does possess, I found "Almira" Weights Discontent a humbling look at discontent before the era of worker demands seeing results. Ellen had to come to grips with the harsh reality of life in Western Society. Once you give a days hard labor, you are entitled to satisfaction from that work if not leisure to follow. What Ellen came to discover is she was perhaps in the best case scenario in an industry that needed to see major reform to come. Is anyone else still dissatisfied with this reformed industrial system that exists even still today? - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Agreed. Propaganda is what I thought of as well when reading this account, it seemed like a very brainwashed insistence that factory life was indeed better than the alternatives. Not sure I agree given the previous history lessons i've had about Lowell. <br />
-- Elle<br />
<br />
== Cross Article Observations ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that the issue of pride is evident in several of the articles. A culture takes pride in its technological advancements, taking credit and guarding the secrets of innovation closely. In the Irishmen and Spades article, the idea is expressed that the Irish spade is superior to any other and that none but an Irishmen could use it effectively. They take pride in the tool that they have developed and scorn other's attempts to use it. In Kupperman's article, Europeans refuse to acknowledge that Native Americans had developed equal technology to there own. People want their culture to be seen as superior and since technology is often a measure of success, each society wants to think that their accomplishments are the most innovative. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
To look at the readings as a whole, I really enjoyed how the advancements of technology and tools in general led to the formation of what we call American technology today. It is also interesting to think how different would our lives be today without these advancements in the technologies of the early Colonists and Native American's. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
After looking at all of the articles as a whole I would have to agree with what Jimmy has said and would also like to add that I think that is sad how reliant we have become on technology. When there is a cell phone tower down people freak out like it is Armageddon. It just makes one thing, is it possible that our society as a whole has become so technologically advanced that we can not function without the use of what we consider everyday technology such as a computer, cell phone, blackberry?--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
After reading all the articles I thought about them in an idea together. I focused, in my mind, on the olden way of thinking to get something done. In Alexander Hamilton's essay "Report on Manufactures" he stressed how he wanted the US to adopt the idea of an industrious economy and lists the benefits. In the essay " Native American Technology" Karen Kupperman says the growth of a nation depends on technology, and yet goes onto say the natives were not industrious and were prosperous. I liked reading the old-time thoughts of the people from the time before the industrial revolution, before technology became the obsession. I realize people are always inventing the 'new and improved' model and have been forever, but in the 19th Century is where the 'obsession' took off to the entire nation, which is what influences us now. -- Maggie Wroe</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--Week 2 Questions/Comments2009-01-22T04:59:11Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Native Americans and Technology Transfer */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Native Americans and Technology Transfer ==<br />
<br />
I found Kupperman’s article to be interesting in that it compares what the perception of technology would be between the English and the Native American’s. It is clear that the English felt that their technology was superior and that they did not consider the agriculture which they took from the Native Americans to be something of a technological advance. Though their way of life clearly depended on the settled agriculture they took from the Native Americans, they were very reluctant to credit the people who introduced these methods. Instead they believed it was a product of their land, an almost inevitability, and it took the English tools and “industrious men” to turn the land into something profitable. It seems that the difference that arises is in how one interprets agriculture as a form of technology. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
The article “…much good might they receive from the English,” talked about how the Native American’s first perceived the new technologies as they were introduced by the English. It kind of gives you an idea about how different technologies may be received differently as they are transferred from one society to another. It also reminded me of a movie I watched in a sociology class, “The God’s must be crazy,” which was about the culture shock of finding a coke bottle in the desert. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The Europeans who wrote about Native Americans respected the technology that the Natives had developed, but it was generally thought that Europeans had superior technology. However, the colonists were basically surviving off of food from the Indians. In the introduction of Kupperman's essay, the question is asked how European technology could be glorified while at the same time acknowledging that survival depended on the crucial aid of the Native Americans, especially with agricultural methods. I thought it was interesting that Europeans could maintain their position of superiority and I speculate that it might have something to do with the racial or cultural differences. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found the subject of European, in particular the English, superiority in the first reading section interesting. I have done more research on the settlement of Latin America and saw many differences and similarities between the two. In William Wood’s excerpt, he describes the Indians as being lazy and “fettered in the chains of idleness.” He believed that with the addition of English aid and modeling, the Indians would be “more industrious.” The lazy attributes of the Indians were described in Latin American sources as well. One thing I do not believe they mention in the readings is slavery. How did slavery play a part in the colonization and the technological advancements or changes of North America? <br />
Playing off that and Karen’s comment, there is also no mention of racial differences between the Europeans and the Native Americans. Although it may not have been considered an important addition to this book, I believe that those differences drive advancements in various cultures. Religious differences are mentioned, but only to show the Indians becoming more European and “cured” of superstitions (p. 30). I also find it interesting that the differences are not mentioned in Karen Kupperman’s essay. I just feel that the Europeans obviously found themselves superior and were not going to admit the whole extent to which the Indians improved their technology.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I was absolutely fascinated with the fact that Native Americans seemed to value and appreciate technology more so than their colonial counterparts. In Governor Nicholas Denys on the Micmac, the Native Americans were said to give up valuable furs and robes in exchange for relatively simple European technology. While, I am not surprised that colonists took advantage of them, but my interest came from the Native American satisfaction with these transactions. This account provides a unique account of the Western "fascination and fast paced adoption of ingenuity"'s independent presence in a culture rooted in much different values. I think it speaks to technology as a part of the human condition -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I think Religion is an important part as Kirsten mentioned - particularly the burial tradition described in _____. I think it is important to notice the superiority complex that the English had in all aspects of life - religion, technology, civilization, etc. Something that I felt came through in most of these first readings is that there is a clear correlation (at least to the authors of these pieces) between modern technology and civilized society. The "savages" had intricate old methods of carving out a canoe that worked perfectly well for them. The english clearly looked down on these boats and "could scarcely sit without a fearful tottering." Overall - it seemed apparent that (in the eyes of the english) the english were new, good, and civilized, while the indians were simply outdated and silly in their ways. --Elle W<br />
<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read about European technology intertwining with Native American technology and vice versa. Canoes were adapted into the European culture and firearms adapted into Native culture. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I find it funny that one of the explorers writes about how foolish the Indians were to be living on iron mines without even realizing it. He goes on to say how “disadvantageous [their] ignorance and inconsiderate contempt of the useful arts is (34).” Obviously, he considers European technology to be superior, but then he sings the praises of the canoe. He talks about how light and quick and just plain amazing they are, yet he avoids praising the Indians who invented it. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== French ==<br />
<br />
My favorite essay out of the reading was Henry French's essay about tools and how they were used by people. I really enjoyed how he showed that the person and the task are very important when choosing the tool to be used. He continues on in his essay to tell how tools evolved by people using them for different jobs; this later led to the formation of industries that replicated the tools that were being made by individuals and later sold to many. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Another essay I found interesting was Irishmen and Spades by Henry French. He makes a good point in that different people work best with different tools for the same task. There is also a difference in the tools used for different locations. It seems as though there was lots of controversy about how to make tools better: if it was lighter, wider, if it was straight, if it was made out of iron, and so on. I think what I am getting is that people are always trying to make things easier and tools are constantly being changed, and manipulated to accomplish different tasks more easily. Based off of this, it is easy to see how large-scale factories eventually came into being. This caused a shift from producing for yourself, as described in A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, to producing for a market leading to increased trade and larger corporations. This shift is shown in Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures” but from this comes even more obstacles and an evolution into even more problems. With the rise of factories you have more problems as described in “Amelia,” Some of the Beauties of Our Factory System—Otherwise, Lowell Slavery. Based off of this reading I can see how technology makes things easier for some but often have repercussions for others. My mind goes to the shutting down of factories at home and the exploitation of workers abroad and the constant wars that are going on for resources. It makes me wonder if we are any better off today or if it is a continuous cycle. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I don't think I agree with what others have said about the French essay on Irishmen and Spades. Just because someone has never used a certain tool before doesn't mean they will automatically not be able to learn how. It is a bit unsettling that people would market specific tools to specific nationalities.-- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I agree with Lauren here, after all elderly people who grew up in a non computer, non cell phone era, uncolored television have learned how to not only use some of these newer technologies so why could someone not learn to use a tool. Being someone who works construction over the summer, I can personally attest to the argument that someone could pick up a tool and by watching someone use it teach themselves. I do not fully disagree that it would be challenging; however, I believe that it is unjust to give so little credit to these men working.--Sean Marren <br />
<br />
In response to the ongoing discussion about French's "Irishmen and Spades, 1859" I'd like to offer an idea that I think has already been inferred a bit in previous posts. While some people naturally do work better with tools best suited to their physical stature or to the specific environment they're working in, it seems natural to me that French, writing in 1859, would naturally have certain presuppositions and stereotypes of "Old World" immigrants. Irish immigrants and Irish Americans fought in the Civil War to protect their new homeland (North or South) in part to show that they were U.S. citizens. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that French may have presuppositions as to which tool is most efficient in the hands of people of different ancestries. A lot of it reinforces communal identity of what it means to be Irish, Scottish, etc. in the face of persecution for not being "American" and in attempts to retain communal heritage as socialization occurs. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I thought that "Irishmen and Spades: 1859" and "A Gentleman Farmer on Common Farmer's Tools: 1822" worked very well together. French explains in "Irishmen" that the spade was seen as incredibly vital to the farming of the time and location, tying into the supply and demand explanations of "Gentleman Farmer." The latter article also gave an interesting view on how farming seemed to be very by-the-book, down to the author explaining that there are specific tools to use for specific tasks. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Marx's "The Machine" ==<br />
<br />
In Leo Marx’s essay “The Machine” he is a clear advocate of the use of machine technology in the United States. He uses a speech delivered by Coxe to bring up many benefits of industrialization and argues why he believes it is a necessary aspect of American economy and politics. He argues that in order to maintain American independence the machine is necessary to increase self-sufficiency. He even goes on to say how the machine is this “root metaphor of being” and how it can be linked to the system of our constitutional government. I think it’s an interesting point because it shows how a machine doesn’t necessarily have to be something technical or mechanical but rather a system of how different parts work together to accomplish something. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be incredibly eye opening and it truly shows the progression of technologies and the affects it had on the population. The essay on page 63 by Edmund S. Morgan, A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, shows how much work and how many people were required to have a self-sufficient plantation. What is daunting is the Plantation Accounting from 1784 on page 64. It shows how difficult things were. You needed certain tools in order to make certain other tools. With this, you need increased labor which leads to the necessity for slave labor as well as skilled labor to produce the necessities. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Midwife's Tale ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the Midwife's Tale. The fact that midwives made up a large part of the community's healthcare, not just with obstetrics, in the 18th and 19th century is something that is overlooked. Though scorned by many male doctors, midwives were needed for their homeopathic remedies, such as using herbs and common vegetables to cure a patient's ills, contrasting with the doctor's elaborate medicinal remedies. The irony of this is midwives were perhaps more sensible in their treatments than the so-called professionals of the day. This makes sense as many of the most basic tools that doctors use today, like the stethoscope, hadn't been invented. It was also nice to read about how one of the midwives attended autopsies and such, this of course being well before the Victorian age of restricting women due to their delicate natures. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I think it would have been really cool to be a midwife. Not that I would be able to stomach it, of course. But women put so much trust in them to deliver their children, the most precious thing to them in the world, and it's just miraculous how much they were able to do without the technology we have today. They were able to create remedies and medications with simple herbs and spices and seemed so advanced, almost, for their time period. They knew a lot more than I think we give them credit for. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the "Midwife's Tale" for the same reasons as Lauren. The extent of a midwife's knowledge is extraordinary. The paragraph in the middle of page 81 describes the job effectively and shows the range of knowledge Lauren mentioned. It states, a midwife "medicates the mysteries of birth, procreation, illness, and death. They touched the untouchable, handled excrement and vomit as well as milk, swaddled the dead as well as the new born..." Throughout the reading, I was surprised at their responsibilities, ability to multi-task, knowledge of medicines, and the cooperation with their communities and patients.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
== Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" and Edmund Morgan==<br />
<br />
<br />
My favorite essay this week was Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina." When we think about slavery, we generally associate it more so with plantation slavery in the 1800s working out in fields planting, weeding, and harvesting (unskilled labor). Yet this was not the universal case then, and especially not earlier on in the 1600 and 1700s. The notion that slaves were actually skilled laborers who had specific jobs that were vital to the success of their master's plantation makes a lot of sense to me- though I never considered it in great detail before. I think that the most interesting part of Wood's essay was his discussion on how many times slaves became apprentices (often to whites) for skilled labor and were then sold at higher prices to other plantations because of the specific skills that they had acquired. Again, it makes sense that whites would mention their slaves' skills at the slavery block, but it's something that I hadn't thought that much about prior to reading Wood's essay. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I really liked the essay of "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" because it proves how often people misjudge slave labor and consider them unskilled workers. Like the author noted, they were far from unskilled and without their know-how the early colonial period would have been far from what it ended up as. The colonists wouldn't have had any of the crucial knowledge they needed to cultivate crops like rice without the help of their slaves. - Kelly W<br />
<br />
The essay by Edmund S Morgan was very suprising to me. The plantation owner had everything he needed to keep the plantation alive right in his own backyard. The ideas to leave nothing behind and make it somehow useful, like the way the the plantation owner killed his livestock for food and then used the rest of the parts from the slaughtered animal and use it to make clothing out of. --Paul Kim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules and Regulations/Textiles/Working Conditions in Industries ==<br />
<br />
I found the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company, 1846 alarming. The prohibition of talking (with exception to work related topics) was especially shocking. It makes me wonder why workers weren't aware or more proactive about obtaining better rights? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The dichotomy between workers conditions and the development of new technology is fascinating. Although the products these workers make improve other people's lives (like the textile Mill 'Almira' worked in Massachusetts), the technology itself has put workers in bad conditions. Without this technology, are the workers better off? Or are conditions in other industries (like agriculture) just as bad as the conditions put forth by the development of mass industry? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The article on the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company was interesting. I found most of the rules were very restricting but the others like "no spirituous liquors, smoking, or any kind of amusement, will be allowed in the workshops or yards." The part about liquor and smoking makes sense for a conducive working environment. My question I suppose would be what exactly would "any [other] kind of amusement" be? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Did anyone else think the overly serious tone of "Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company: 1846" was a little self-parodic? No talking permitted except on subjects relating to their work? I understand wanting to make sure your employees are serious about their jobs, but this whole article just seemed like overkill to me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I’m trying to decide if the editors were being sarcastic when they wrote, “Almira’s criticism [of the textile mills in Lowell] is perhaps more muted” than Amelia’s. “Muted” isn’t exactly the word I would use to describe what Almira writes. It’s obviously propaganda for the company, particularly since it was published in the company’s paper. Amelia’s account is much more unpleasant (and more in line with what I’ve read about 1840s working conditions), and makes me wonder if Almira got a nice little bonus for writing that the joys of working in Lowell far outweigh the disadvantages. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Cross Article Observations ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that the issue of pride is evident in several of the articles. A culture takes pride in its technological advancements, taking credit and guarding the secrets of innovation closely. In the Irishmen and Spades article, the idea is expressed that the Irish spade is superior to any other and that none but an Irishmen could use it effectively. They take pride in the tool that they have developed and scorn other's attempts to use it. In Kupperman's article, Europeans refuse to acknowledge that Native Americans had developed equal technology to there own. People want their culture to be seen as superior and since technology is often a measure of success, each society wants to think that their accomplishments are the most innovative. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
To look at the readings as a whole, I really enjoyed how the advancements of technology and tools in general led to the formation of what we call American technology today. It is also interesting to think how different would our lives be today without these advancements in the technologies of the early Colonists and Native American's. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
After looking at all of the articles as a whole I would have to agree with what Jimmy has said and would also like to add that I think that is sad how reliant we have become on technology. When there is a cell phone tower down people freak out like it is Armageddon. It just makes one thing, is it possible that our society as a whole has become so technologically advanced that we can not function without the use of what we consider everyday technology such as a computer, cell phone, blackberry?--Sean Marren</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-22T04:51:39Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Readings ==<br />
<br />
== Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
Wow, I never realized that was when they started making women lay down on their backs to give birth. That is like, the absolute worse way to give birth (Except perhaps trying to do it on your stomach...). So because men wanted to break into that field and take over it, midwives were kicked out the door for the most part. To be honest, this is something I've researched a little in the past (the hubby and I have been talking about pregnancies the past year), and lying on your back is the hard way to give birth because of the way your trying to push the baby out, however, with walking around and standing/squatting/sitting gravity works with the body and the baby goes straight out instead of having to do a bit of a curve. At least from what I have read and what my friend who is a doula has explained to me. Then, at that time (and I understand the whole humility/embarassment thing), making women lay down on their back and covered up just seems more dangerous because the person can't see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can't even see, thats just stupidity. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ok, maybe I missed it in the reading, but at what point did society have that epiphany and realize that women and their children were worth saving during childbirth and that women deserved to have the most pain-free birthing (an oxymoron, I know)? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that men wouldn't allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the "power of action" and the "active power of mind," yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.<br />
<br />
Celia, let's remember that American women have only been allowed to vote since 1920. Is their patronizingly small role in medicine really that big of a stretch? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
After reading Scholten's essay, I found it very surprising that childbearing after the American Revolution and into the early 20th century became dominated by male physicians. Scholten argues in her essay that the replacement of female midwives were preferred by most women than male physicians. I also found it interesting and bizarre that American midwifery which had dominated childbearing before the American Revolution nearly disappeared at the advent of new discoveries in medical science. Wouldn't it make sense to allow women to enroll in early 20th century medical schools and participate in childbearing, when they previously were the dominant participants before the American Revolution. All the excuses by male doctors of women making them nervous in the room or their ability to be a distraction was extremely bizarre. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to say that I was incredibly excited about reading this essay because medicine and midwifery in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth incredibly fascinating. (It probably doesn't help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.) So that brings me to Ashley's comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph's comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the "lying-in." Scholten doesn't mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn't until the end of the eighteenth century that obstetric forceps came into widespread use, nearly a century after their initial conception. Such instruments fell into the realm of the doctor rather than the midwife, and women were seen as less able to understand and facilitate the same things that men were, thus women were pushed out of the birthing room. Subsequently, women were made to lie on their backs to allow their male physician to use equipment to examine them, of which the forceps are an example. Personally, I think that such changes were nearly useless at the time, because other than extreme cases the physicians could only do a little more than the midwives. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this essay. It was rather interesting to read about the start of our customs regarding childbirth. I was amazed to find that males quickly took over this profession and women soon preferred to switch over to the more modern practices as medicine improved. It is strange that now many women turn to older practices and choose a midwife over conventional methods of childbirth. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see the transformation childbirth customs through the years, and I have to say, I had no idea that midwives took such a backseat once the physician became a bigger part of childbirth. It almost seems as though they were viewed as superfluous or as an archaic, outdated custom. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
It was also interesting to read that the use of alcohol in birthing reached as far back as it did. My mom (a registered nurse) and I have discussed on multiple occasions that while she was taught the methods of dispensing intravenous alcohol in childbirth, it is a vastly outdated practice, and her delivery of my oldest brother in 1981 was probably one of the last times that IV alcohol was used in such a manner. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree that this was a very interesting article. While I agree that it is unfortunate that midwives and female relations were largely removed from the childbirth process, there were some positive aspects of the move to male physicians such as the belief that it should be made less painful, as Celia already mentioned. Scholten also notes this "implied a new social appreciation of women." I believe that the former practice of referring to pregnant women as "breeding" or "teeming" makes them sound more like cattle then human beings and while it is unfortunate that women were displaced in midwifery, women may have gained some greater appreciation from at least some of the male gender as a result. That said, it doesn't appear that women gained physically from the change, swapping potentially ill-informed midwives with doctors too socially conscious to treat them as proper medicine would dictate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with some of Sarah’s comments. I don’t think that the shift to doctors was a bad thing at all. At some point, a process as serious as childbirth would have come under scientific scrutiny. It is unfortunate, however, that the norms of the time excluded women from the practice. Their hands on experience and knowledge, coupled with scientific advances, could have served as a major catalyst for advancement in the field. Similarly, if society had been ready for male doctors to visually experience the process, advancement may have been more rapid. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
In response to Celia and Cash's comments: I think the essay stated that it was the early 1800s when attempts were made to make childbirth a less painful experience. This coincided with a religious movement and relieving women of suffering related to scripture. I also was surprised to know that women essentially were kicked out of the field. Considering how involved women ''have'' been in medicine, from early nurses through the postbellum era, it seems counterintuitive to exclude women from a field that pertains only to their gender. I agree with Andrew (and Sarah): the knowledge and training men were able to receive coupled with women's experience and acceptance by other women would have would have advanced the field.--Amanda<br />
<br />
What were the roles of Midwives? How did they vary both within the colonies and in comparison to European counterparts? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I think the role of midwives is actually quite fascinating. The amount of reliance and trust women put in them to safely deliver their children is just remarkable, almost like the same amount of faith women put in doctors and medicine (and heavy drugs) today. They were there for more than birth too, which I think is often overlooked, in that they were seen as the person to go to when you had an illness or a disease because they had such an incredible knowledge of herbs and recipes. Whether they knew it or not, they were vital to a society during their "prime" for lack of a better word. I think it's neat that, even though times have changed remarkably in terms of medicine and childbirth go, midwives are still around today. They are still trusted with childbirth today and it's interesting that it's an alternative that never seemed to go away for some people. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I feel like the shift from midwives and a communal birth to a more private birth with a physician is another way of showing the shift to a more personalized and independent lifestyle. I also think that this was another area that men had to be superior over women even though the midwife had been the norm for ages. I do think that these physicians were obviously beneficial to the world of medicine and to saving women and childrens' lives. It is just unfortunate that the women who had been helping other women give birth since, well, pretty much the beginning of time had to take a back seat to men and science. But really, what else is new? - Kari <br />
<br />
<br />
== Paul Johnson ==<br />
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn't help but feel sorry for Abigail and the kids, I was actually happy to read that the daughters changed their names. In a sense this could be an example of women taking control of the household in the end and being a single-parent household (to show that divorces happened and that women still maintained custody of children in some cases). I know the reading said that the case was fairly unique, but I wonder how unique it really was, like... how much of this actually happened but just wasn't recorded anywhere? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I completely agree with you about Greenleaf. The whole time I was reading about it my particular dislike for him grew. I was curious, as well, about how many households were in similar situations. It is interesting to note that Abigal was, initially, very subordinate and wanted a good friend as a husband, something like a companion. But when Greenleaf cast aside his family duties, or responsibilities, she pretty much rolled up her sleeves and became more decisive and domineering. It doesn't seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn't. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M<br />
<br />
I agree, I really found myself not liking Greenleaf while reading this article. I think that many women might have been in similar situations, having to take control of their family when their husband failed to do so. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yet another agreement about Greenleaf. However, I have to say that it appears that Greenleaf didn't have much of an example to go upon to be able to become a useful, productive citizen. From what little we see of his father it seems that they were very similar in their inability to take care of their family. Would not such a dysfunctional family provide a poor role model for the children? It's no wonder that Abigail had to take up the duties that would normally have fallen to her partner. -Lacey<br />
<br />
While I agree with everyone that Greenleaf was far from a model citizen or husband, he was subject to several disadvantages. I think that this narrative illustrates the implications of social pressures and norms of the time period in New England. If you did not own your own land you were at a distinct disadvantage and being the youngest son of 10 children in a splintered family would not have allowed him many opportunities or positive examples, as Lacey mentioned. That said, I do not think that that justifies his actions and his treatment of his family. Also, was anyone else surprised by the statistic that 1 in 3 women were pregnant on their wedding day? I think a lot of people have a false image of very straitlaced, pious New England families, when in fact people were dealing with many of the same issues that are still relevant today. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I, too, agree with everyone about disliking Greenleaf. I think that the situation Abigail was in must have been somewhat common because it mentions in the article that during the late 18th and early 19th century there was a "decline of patriarchal authority". It sounds to me like women wanted to show their husbands they could survive without them by creating their own separate domestic sphere. I really enjoyed reading about how these women were able to adapt to these awful situations and growing from them to become independent. - Kari<br />
<br />
As the first male student in the class to post on this particular essay, I did not feel the same dislike for Greenleaf until after reading that Greenleaf Patch became a drunkard and stole money earned from his wife in children. I think a couple points have not been introduced in these blog entries that may alter one's opinion of Greenleaf. In the introduction Paul Johnson indicates that the story is reconstructed from distant impersonal and fragmentary sources, the majority being government documents. It's interesting that there was no indication of written diaries from either of the family members or local people about Greenleaf and Abigail Patch. Paul Johnson also indicates that increasing numbers of men owned no land in the New England area. Is it possible that the economic instability of Greenleaf's family may have shaped his personality and his future actions? -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
I think that Greenleaf was a loser. The significance of this lies in its parallels to modern society. Mintz & Kellog spoke of the model family, one with strong moral convictions and community ties. However, they failed to comment on unconventional families in NE. In today’s society, there are hundreds of family templates. Nuclear, single parent, extended live-in, etc. The same went for colonial NE. Although M&K forgot about unconventional family types, it does not mean they did not exist. NE, like modern society, was not a fairy-tale. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
To Joseph's question: yes, definitely, it's possible and likely. I didn't react in the same way to Greenleaf, but found this essay as a supplement to the Mintz& Kellogg readings. Their ideas of family so far seem to be shaped by the middle of the road or exceptional (in terms of wealth and standing) families. Here's something that discusses early pregnancies, debt, alcoholism and divorce! This essay makes up for something missing thus far from our textbook. I noted though that debt of Greenleaf's era was passed in the family. Today we find debt still a problem, but more the presence of debt in one's own life, not from that of his father. The Patch family also shows us the idea of lineage and marring the "good family name." I think this is why this class starts where it does, in the late 1700s. Before families were settled and assumed identities in their communities, the idea of the "good family name" was nonexistent.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I also have to defend Joe a little here. We have to consider Greenleaf in the context of the era and how problems espeically financial in nature become generational. However, I too can understand the concern about Greenleaf's actions. - Stephen<br />
<br />
First of all, "Mayo Greenleaf Patch?" Really? I almost feel bad for him with a name like that. However, I have a hard time getting past the fact that he was a failed patriarch, essentially. It was a time when the father was in charge of the family and was the provider and he had a difficult time doing that job. Although it could be a total "girl power" moment because this situation allowed Abigail and the others like her to become independent and wear the pants, unfortunately that's not how things were done in the 18th and 19th century. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I was really impressed by Johnson's methodology. The way he used records of censuses, taxes, and court cases to figure out the story of these people's lives is very cool. One part that jumped out at me is when Greenleaf's mother-in-law said that her "children" were taking all of her furniture, Johnson was able to figure out that she could ONLY be talking about Greenleaf and Abigail. Another part I was impressed with was how Johnson used the tax record of Greenleaf housing the school teacher as proof that he was a trusted member of the community. I mean, that makes sense and doesn't seem like a huge leap, but when you think that all that this guy had in front of him were a bunch of government records, I think it is very impressive that he was able to infer so much about Greenleaf's character and personal life. I guess historians like Johnson have to get creative in how they use their sources. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==<br />
<br />
He said that past generations have faced much difficulty and sacrificed things to ensure that future generations could live happily with more freedom. Specifically he mentioned the American Revolution, Civil War, westward expansion and immigrating to America. He also said that parents need to continue to nurture children and instill the values of honesty, loyalty and patriotism so that our country can become an even better place. Families are definitely a key part of correcting society's problems. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was definitely a speech using family as an allegory for the entire nation. Government was painted as a head of the family, willing to help and reach out to those it cares for, as long as those who need caring for are willing to work for what they receive. He mentioned the importance of ancestry and recognizing our immigrant heritage, as well as ensuring that our values are not lost. Most importantly, I thought, was his inclusion of both beliefs and NON-beliefs. I am not sure if Obama was the first President to overtly mention atheism, but I think it sent a great message that regardless of what you do or do not believe in, you will not be discriminated against. It was truly a powerful speech. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
He talked about the progression of American society through the lens of the family. He specifically discussed generational progression. In so many words, Obama said that the hard work and sacrifice of past generations have made possible the radical change our country is experiencing. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
President Obama's speech also reinforced Mintz and Kellogg's point that the American family, once a self-sufficient unit, is now dependent on social programs. For instance, in his speech, Obama mentioned the need to improve health care, better our schools and colleges, and provide for retirees, all things that were once responsibilities of families. He also, as others have previously mentioned, spoke of the importance our actions have on future generations. Lastly, he applauded the self-sacrifice of future generations of Americans which have allowed us, their descendants, to live in a great and free nation. His speech clearly made the case that the family is still very important to society. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
President Obama spoke directly about the generation Kennedy appealed to for service to their country, reminding us that this country was built on the backs of the different groups he mentioned. I think he alluded to the sense of "family" in a bigger sense, that if everyone pitches in and unites and helps one another, our common goals will be met.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I think one of the most specific examples of President Obama's speech that spoke directly to families was that a parents willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate. I think that this particularly reflects the argument of Mintz and Kellogg that New England families after the American Revolution took a more caring approach to children that would mold their lives in the direction they preferred. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans." i think the concept of considering these matters in the realm of another generation of the AMERICAN family, is intresting. However I think another family theme can be found in considering how our concepts of American style living/governing is pased through our families. - Stephen<br />
<br />
It seemed that he discussed the responsibility one holds towards his country as very similar to the relationship of a child to his parents. The government, or nation in this case, is the giving parent that, when in need of help from the child in times of sickness or dispair would expect the same to be given willingly. These are the duties that "we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly". He is saying perhaps the American family should feel this very sense of pride towards responsibility. Wait, I'm not in this class. Where's the Technology wiki? - Adam Shlossman</div>Adamshlossmanhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-22T04:50:07Z<p>Adamshlossman: /* Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Readings ==<br />
<br />
== Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
Wow, I never realized that was when they started making women lay down on their backs to give birth. That is like, the absolute worse way to give birth (Except perhaps trying to do it on your stomach...). So because men wanted to break into that field and take over it, midwives were kicked out the door for the most part. To be honest, this is something I've researched a little in the past (the hubby and I have been talking about pregnancies the past year), and lying on your back is the hard way to give birth because of the way your trying to push the baby out, however, with walking around and standing/squatting/sitting gravity works with the body and the baby goes straight out instead of having to do a bit of a curve. At least from what I have read and what my friend who is a doula has explained to me. Then, at that time (and I understand the whole humility/embarassment thing), making women lay down on their back and covered up just seems more dangerous because the person can't see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can't even see, thats just stupidity. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ok, maybe I missed it in the reading, but at what point did society have that epiphany and realize that women and their children were worth saving during childbirth and that women deserved to have the most pain-free birthing (an oxymoron, I know)? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that men wouldn't allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the "power of action" and the "active power of mind," yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.<br />
<br />
Celia, let's remember that American women have only been allowed to vote since 1920. Is their patronizingly small role in medicine really that big of a stretch? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
After reading Scholten's essay, I found it very surprising that childbearing after the American Revolution and into the early 20th century became dominated by male physicians. Scholten argues in her essay that the replacement of female midwives were preferred by most women than male physicians. I also found it interesting and bizarre that American midwifery which had dominated childbearing before the American Revolution nearly disappeared at the advent of new discoveries in medical science. Wouldn't it make sense to allow women to enroll in early 20th century medical schools and participate in childbearing, when they previously were the dominant participants before the American Revolution. All the excuses by male doctors of women making them nervous in the room or their ability to be a distraction was extremely bizarre. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to say that I was incredibly excited about reading this essay because medicine and midwifery in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth incredibly fascinating. (It probably doesn't help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.) So that brings me to Ashley's comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph's comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the "lying-in." Scholten doesn't mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn't until the end of the eighteenth century that obstetric forceps came into widespread use, nearly a century after their initial conception. Such instruments fell into the realm of the doctor rather than the midwife, and women were seen as less able to understand and facilitate the same things that men were, thus women were pushed out of the birthing room. Subsequently, women were made to lie on their backs to allow their male physician to use equipment to examine them, of which the forceps are an example. Personally, I think that such changes were nearly useless at the time, because other than extreme cases the physicians could only do a little more than the midwives. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this essay. It was rather interesting to read about the start of our customs regarding childbirth. I was amazed to find that males quickly took over this profession and women soon preferred to switch over to the more modern practices as medicine improved. It is strange that now many women turn to older practices and choose a midwife over conventional methods of childbirth. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see the transformation childbirth customs through the years, and I have to say, I had no idea that midwives took such a backseat once the physician became a bigger part of childbirth. It almost seems as though they were viewed as superfluous or as an archaic, outdated custom. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
It was also interesting to read that the use of alcohol in birthing reached as far back as it did. My mom (a registered nurse) and I have discussed on multiple occasions that while she was taught the methods of dispensing intravenous alcohol in childbirth, it is a vastly outdated practice, and her delivery of my oldest brother in 1981 was probably one of the last times that IV alcohol was used in such a manner. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree that this was a very interesting article. While I agree that it is unfortunate that midwives and female relations were largely removed from the childbirth process, there were some positive aspects of the move to male physicians such as the belief that it should be made less painful, as Celia already mentioned. Scholten also notes this "implied a new social appreciation of women." I believe that the former practice of referring to pregnant women as "breeding" or "teeming" makes them sound more like cattle then human beings and while it is unfortunate that women were displaced in midwifery, women may have gained some greater appreciation from at least some of the male gender as a result. That said, it doesn't appear that women gained physically from the change, swapping potentially ill-informed midwives with doctors too socially conscious to treat them as proper medicine would dictate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with some of Sarah’s comments. I don’t think that the shift to doctors was a bad thing at all. At some point, a process as serious as childbirth would have come under scientific scrutiny. It is unfortunate, however, that the norms of the time excluded women from the practice. Their hands on experience and knowledge, coupled with scientific advances, could have served as a major catalyst for advancement in the field. Similarly, if society had been ready for male doctors to visually experience the process, advancement may have been more rapid. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
In response to Celia and Cash's comments: I think the essay stated that it was the early 1800s when attempts were made to make childbirth a less painful experience. This coincided with a religious movement and relieving women of suffering related to scripture. I also was surprised to know that women essentially were kicked out of the field. Considering how involved women ''have'' been in medicine, from early nurses through the postbellum era, it seems counterintuitive to exclude women from a field that pertains only to their gender. I agree with Andrew (and Sarah): the knowledge and training men were able to receive coupled with women's experience and acceptance by other women would have would have advanced the field.--Amanda<br />
<br />
What were the roles of Midwives? How did they vary both within the colonies and in comparison to European counterparts? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I think the role of midwives is actually quite fascinating. The amount of reliance and trust women put in them to safely deliver their children is just remarkable, almost like the same amount of faith women put in doctors and medicine (and heavy drugs) today. They were there for more than birth too, which I think is often overlooked, in that they were seen as the person to go to when you had an illness or a disease because they had such an incredible knowledge of herbs and recipes. Whether they knew it or not, they were vital to a society during their "prime" for lack of a better word. I think it's neat that, even though times have changed remarkably in terms of medicine and childbirth go, midwives are still around today. They are still trusted with childbirth today and it's interesting that it's an alternative that never seemed to go away for some people. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I feel like the shift from midwives and a communal birth to a more private birth with a physician is another way of showing the shift to a more personalized and independent lifestyle. I also think that this was another area that men had to be superior over women even though the midwife had been the norm for ages. I do think that these physicians were obviously beneficial to the world of medicine and to saving women and childrens' lives. It is just unfortunate that the women who had been helping other women give birth since, well, pretty much the beginning of time had to take a back seat to men and science. But really, what else is new? - Kari <br />
<br />
<br />
== Paul Johnson ==<br />
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn't help but feel sorry for Abigail and the kids, I was actually happy to read that the daughters changed their names. In a sense this could be an example of women taking control of the household in the end and being a single-parent household (to show that divorces happened and that women still maintained custody of children in some cases). I know the reading said that the case was fairly unique, but I wonder how unique it really was, like... how much of this actually happened but just wasn't recorded anywhere? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I completely agree with you about Greenleaf. The whole time I was reading about it my particular dislike for him grew. I was curious, as well, about how many households were in similar situations. It is interesting to note that Abigal was, initially, very subordinate and wanted a good friend as a husband, something like a companion. But when Greenleaf cast aside his family duties, or responsibilities, she pretty much rolled up her sleeves and became more decisive and domineering. It doesn't seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn't. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M<br />
<br />
I agree, I really found myself not liking Greenleaf while reading this article. I think that many women might have been in similar situations, having to take control of their family when their husband failed to do so. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yet another agreement about Greenleaf. However, I have to say that it appears that Greenleaf didn't have much of an example to go upon to be able to become a useful, productive citizen. From what little we see of his father it seems that they were very similar in their inability to take care of their family. Would not such a dysfunctional family provide a poor role model for the children? It's no wonder that Abigail had to take up the duties that would normally have fallen to her partner. -Lacey<br />
<br />
While I agree with everyone that Greenleaf was far from a model citizen or husband, he was subject to several disadvantages. I think that this narrative illustrates the implications of social pressures and norms of the time period in New England. If you did not own your own land you were at a distinct disadvantage and being the youngest son of 10 children in a splintered family would not have allowed him many opportunities or positive examples, as Lacey mentioned. That said, I do not think that that justifies his actions and his treatment of his family. Also, was anyone else surprised by the statistic that 1 in 3 women were pregnant on their wedding day? I think a lot of people have a false image of very straitlaced, pious New England families, when in fact people were dealing with many of the same issues that are still relevant today. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I, too, agree with everyone about disliking Greenleaf. I think that the situation Abigail was in must have been somewhat common because it mentions in the article that during the late 18th and early 19th century there was a "decline of patriarchal authority". It sounds to me like women wanted to show their husbands they could survive without them by creating their own separate domestic sphere. I really enjoyed reading about how these women were able to adapt to these awful situations and growing from them to become independent. - Kari<br />
<br />
As the first male student in the class to post on this particular essay, I did not feel the same dislike for Greenleaf until after reading that Greenleaf Patch became a drunkard and stole money earned from his wife in children. I think a couple points have not been introduced in these blog entries that may alter one's opinion of Greenleaf. In the introduction Paul Johnson indicates that the story is reconstructed from distant impersonal and fragmentary sources, the majority being government documents. It's interesting that there was no indication of written diaries from either of the family members or local people about Greenleaf and Abigail Patch. Paul Johnson also indicates that increasing numbers of men owned no land in the New England area. Is it possible that the economic instability of Greenleaf's family may have shaped his personality and his future actions? -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
I think that Greenleaf was a loser. The significance of this lies in its parallels to modern society. Mintz & Kellog spoke of the model family, one with strong moral convictions and community ties. However, they failed to comment on unconventional families in NE. In today’s society, there are hundreds of family templates. Nuclear, single parent, extended live-in, etc. The same went for colonial NE. Although M&K forgot about unconventional family types, it does not mean they did not exist. NE, like modern society, was not a fairy-tale. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
To Joseph's question: yes, definitely, it's possible and likely. I didn't react in the same way to Greenleaf, but found this essay as a supplement to the Mintz& Kellogg readings. Their ideas of family so far seem to be shaped by the middle of the road or exceptional (in terms of wealth and standing) families. Here's something that discusses early pregnancies, debt, alcoholism and divorce! This essay makes up for something missing thus far from our textbook. I noted though that debt of Greenleaf's era was passed in the family. Today we find debt still a problem, but more the presence of debt in one's own life, not from that of his father. The Patch family also shows us the idea of lineage and marring the "good family name." I think this is why this class starts where it does, in the late 1700s. Before families were settled and assumed identities in their communities, the idea of the "good family name" was nonexistent.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I also have to defend Joe a little here. We have to consider Greenleaf in the context of the era and how problems espeically financial in nature become generational. However, I too can understand the concern about Greenleaf's actions. - Stephen<br />
<br />
First of all, "Mayo Greenleaf Patch?" Really? I almost feel bad for him with a name like that. However, I have a hard time getting past the fact that he was a failed patriarch, essentially. It was a time when the father was in charge of the family and was the provider and he had a difficult time doing that job. Although it could be a total "girl power" moment because this situation allowed Abigail and the others like her to become independent and wear the pants, unfortunately that's not how things were done in the 18th and 19th century. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I was really impressed by Johnson's methodology. The way he used records of censuses, taxes, and court cases to figure out the story of these people's lives is very cool. One part that jumped out at me is when Greenleaf's mother-in-law said that her "children" were taking all of her furniture, Johnson was able to figure out that she could ONLY be talking about Greenleaf and Abigail. Another part I was impressed with was how Johnson used the tax record of Greenleaf housing the school teacher as proof that he was a trusted member of the community. I mean, that makes sense and doesn't seem like a huge leap, but when you think that all that this guy had in front of him were a bunch of government records, I think it is very impressive that he was able to infer so much about Greenleaf's character and personal life. I guess historians like Johnson have to get creative in how they use their sources. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==<br />
<br />
He said that past generations have faced much difficulty and sacrificed things to ensure that future generations could live happily with more freedom. Specifically he mentioned the American Revolution, Civil War, westward expansion and immigrating to America. He also said that parents need to continue to nurture children and instill the values of honesty, loyalty and patriotism so that our country can become an even better place. Families are definitely a key part of correcting society's problems. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was definitely a speech using family as an allegory for the entire nation. Government was painted as a head of the family, willing to help and reach out to those it cares for, as long as those who need caring for are willing to work for what they receive. He mentioned the importance of ancestry and recognizing our immigrant heritage, as well as ensuring that our values are not lost. Most importantly, I thought, was his inclusion of both beliefs and NON-beliefs. I am not sure if Obama was the first President to overtly mention atheism, but I think it sent a great message that regardless of what you do or do not believe in, you will not be discriminated against. It was truly a powerful speech. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
He talked about the progression of American society through the lens of the family. He specifically discussed generational progression. In so many words, Obama said that the hard work and sacrifice of past generations have made possible the radical change our country is experiencing. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
President Obama's speech also reinforced Mintz and Kellogg's point that the American family, once a self-sufficient unit, is now dependent on social programs. For instance, in his speech, Obama mentioned the need to improve health care, better our schools and colleges, and provide for retirees, all things that were once responsibilities of families. He also, as others have previously mentioned, spoke of the importance our actions have on future generations. Lastly, he applauded the self-sacrifice of future generations of Americans which have allowed us, their descendants, to live in a great and free nation. His speech clearly made the case that the family is still very important to society. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
President Obama spoke directly about the generation Kennedy appealed to for service to their country, reminding us that this country was built on the backs of the different groups he mentioned. I think he alluded to the sense of "family" in a bigger sense, that if everyone pitches in and unites and helps one another, our common goals will be met.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I think one of the most specific examples of President Obama's speech that spoke directly to families was that a parents willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate. I think that this particularly reflects the argument of Mintz and Kellogg that New England families after the American Revolution took a more caring approach to children that would mold their lives in the direction they preferred. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans." i think the concept of considering these matters in the realm of another generation of the AMERICAN family, is intresting. However I think another family theme can be found in considering how our concepts of American style living/governing is pased through our families. - Stephen<br />
<br />
It seemed that he discussed the responsibility one holds towards his country as very similar to the relationship of a child to his parents. The government, or nation in this case, is the giving parent that, when in need of help from the child in times of sickness or dispair would expect the same to be given willingly. These are the duties that "we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly". He is saying perhaps the American family should feel this very sense of pride towards responsibility. - Adam Shlossman</div>Adamshlossman Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38