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
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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=LlesueurMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:31:09ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_12_Questions/Comments325--Week 12 Questions/Comments2009-04-09T12:48:02Z<p>Llesueur: </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<br />
<br />
I found Edison's idea of the new modern housewife fascinating. Edison claimed electricity would transform the housewife into a "Domestic Engineer" rather than a "Domestic Laborer". He even thought that electrification of the household would force women's nervous system and brains to evolve to be equal to men's. You can see the increasing standards for women - with electricity they now have to be "engineers". - Lon</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--Week 10 Questions/Comments2009-03-25T15:37:54Z<p>Llesueur: </p>
<hr />
<div>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 />
“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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--Week 10 Questions/Comments2009-03-25T15:31:12Z<p>Llesueur: </p>
<hr />
<div>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 />
“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 />
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 />
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 />
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.</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_8_Questions/Comments325--Week 8 Questions/Comments2009-03-12T04:25:39Z<p>Llesueur: /* 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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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.</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_8_Questions/Comments325--Week 8 Questions/Comments2009-03-12T04:18:22Z<p>Llesueur: /* Venus Green, Personal Service in the Bell System */</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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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.</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--Week 6 Questions/Comments2009-02-19T04:36:27Z<p>Llesueur: </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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--Week 6 Questions/Comments2009-02-19T04:36:09Z<p>Llesueur: </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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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.</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--Week 5 Questions/Comments2009-02-11T17:37:17Z<p>Llesueur: /* Frederick's The New Housekeeping */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management ==<br />
<br />
<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 />
== Other documents of Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_4_Questions/Comments325--Week 4 Questions/Comments2009-02-05T01:16:56Z<p>Llesueur: /* Charles Dew, Slave Ironworkers in Virginia */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Danly, The Railroad in American Art ==<br />
<br />
<br />
From Susan Danly’s article tracing the railroad in American art, it seems like art was definitely used as one of the primary sources of propaganda and advertising during this time. It mentions how painters were often asked to paint the scenic lure of the railroad as well as how nature and industry kind of combined into this idealistic view of how people could use and overcome sources of nature. One that stood out to me as a show of this idealized harmonization between nature and the industrial railroad was “The Delaware Water Gap” which implied the railroad as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
“…to float upon this tide” seems to be a good example of how technology and development are only necessary when they are deemed so by society. The author points out how only a few years ago (previous to 1870) the land was more natural and not as controlled by people and technology. Those who lived there did so contently. However, with the prospect of the railroad and higher level of “civilization” that has been reached, it is far less desirable to live how the pioneers once did “with his axe and rifle as his sole companions,” (198). In the time that this author is writing, in order to be successful, technology has become a necessity. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Danly's article really made me think about differing opinions on the integration of the railroad. The railroad can be seen as "progress of capitalism," but not everyone wanted this. Various artists and Americans reacted in different ways in regards to embracing or criticizing the railroad's implementation. I think it important to remember when talking about these technological inventions that they were not always immediately accepted. -Elle<br />
<br />
I have little experience interpreting art, let alone introducing it as a learning tool for historical purposes. Susan Danly's writing style in this piece made it easy to match the historical thought to the art that was portrayed at the time. This is great interdisciplinary literature and I gained more understanding about art and history. The reading also related well to the primary documents in our text book. The culture shift and reaction to it was clearly portrayed in news articles and art forms, which shows the passionate opinions the American public had on industrialization and mechanization. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found that Danly's writing on the art and it's relationship to history was interesting and important. I have done quite a bit of art analysis in the past, but she does explain it well and I got some new ideas about it. I agree with Kirsten when she says that the culture shift was portrayed through the art and other media. It's a good way for people all over to see how everyone in the nation feels. Aislyn<br />
<br />
== Charles Dew, Slave Ironworkers in Virginia ==<br />
<br />
The "overwork" system was used by Weaver - he tried to give incentives to slaves that went beyond the minimum amount of production. As skilled laborers, slaves such as Weaver's iron workers were valuable and less easily replaced, so cruel treatment of slaves was less likely. I think this was really interesting that in this case it seems that technology helped the slaves get better treatment and working conditions (or at least an opportunity to make some money). - Elle<br />
<br />
I was rather taken back by the "overwork" system. Taken back meaning that I have not heard much about workers getting "overtime" or "overwork" in my past reading. I think it was a good thing, also the fact that there was not much physical abuse by the owner on the slaves. I guess the job was hard and dangerous enough without the extra abuse. I also was pleased to see that a slave family could do well for itself. It's a shame that others did not follow Weaver's example but not beating the slaves and using positive incentives to get more out of them. I say a happy worker is a productive worker.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
The essay Slave Ironworkers in Virginia reinforces the same idea from Douglass’ essay that having skills as a slave can give you an advantage. A good question that Charles Dew brings up in the last paragraph is which is better, resistance, running away, and confrontation which could lead to being beaten or sold. Or, is it better to maneuver as best you can within the system to have the best possible life despite the physical and psychological confines of enslavement? I think that Douglass’ article would argue that the former would be better because no matter what, you are still a slave, and freedom is the ultimate goal. For Dew’s article, I think that the latter would be the best possible choice. It really goes into the life of Sam William, how he became a skilled ironworker and was able to over produce for his owner and make his own profit. With this, he was able to provide a good life for his family and keep them from being sold. The idea was, if you are a hard worker and you can get incentives there is no reason for you to try to go against your owner, and therefore your owner wont sell your family, and wont physically harm you. I don’t think there is a right or a wrong answer. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how most of Charles Dew's piece makes it seem as though slaves had a good life and then at the end there is a reminder of their condition of forced servitude when William Green runs away and is caught and sold. Some of the slaves, especially Sam Williams, did the best that they could under the given circumstances, and were probably in a better economic situation than if they had been freed, but there is no doubt that freedom would have been preferred. Sam used his leverage to ensure himself a higher standard of living, but this was no replacement for freedom, especially when there were everyday reminders of enslavement. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
Reading Charles Dew's essay made me wonder if this 'pay for overwork' happened in any other types of industry such as maybe garment making for women. I agree with Karen, when she mentioned how Dew makes it seem like slaves, or at least skilled slaves, had a 'good' life at first but then raises the questions about resisting the system versus maneuvering through it. Also the sections about what Sam Williams Jr bought for his family is very interesting not only in the fact that he was able to aquire these items but the pricing of them in 1850s. For instance, the 8 3/4 yds of fabric that he bought for his daughter for 1.75 sounds pretty good considering one is lucky if they find fabric that is $1.75/yard. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Dew's essay presents the idea of positive reinforcement in regard to slave treatment. His final question proposes two options slaves had. They could resist their masters and actively oppose the system they were a part of in order to gain complete freedom, or they could attempt to maneuver within their limited freedoms in order to earn as much freedom as possible. Knowing slavery's eventual outcome, the question is easier to answer, but how would a slave conceptualize his choices during the height of slavery in the South? For some, I'm sure that resistance was the best option. If you could see no end to your life as a slave, actively opposing your master in order to change your surroundings would have been a good choice. However, Dew shows us that by working with your master, rather than against him, slaves were able to create more agency for themselves. For Dew, any form of freedom (gained by 'overwork' earning pay) was better than none at all. - Lon<br />
<br />
== Primary Sources on Steam, Space and a New World Order ==<br />
<br />
The articles about the first railroads really portrayed a controversy over railroads, which seemed to be a double-edged sword for those at the time. The first article spoke about how the steam locomotion was really a basis for our national identity. It cause the nation to be liberalized and bound together by trade and commerce, it was a means of excitement and unity. Charles Fraser brought up another side to this theory. Based off of his article it shows that the idea of the railroad as a unifying and harmonious force is a utopic idea and that there are negative aspects that would come out of it. He specifically speaks of the widening gap between the rich and the poor that was a result of the railroads. He also brings up the fact that the railroads meant the destruction of life and property. Further articles showed how the railroads accelerated the forced removal of Native Americans and the extinction of the buffalo. Do you think that it was worth it? Had canals been chosen as the preferred mode of transportation, would that mean the same repercussions for the Native Americans and the buffalo. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
In the Editorial about Railroads and Missionaries, I found what the writer said to be interesting and slightly ironic. He is putting down the religious folks who feel money (apparently American money) should be directed to the conversion of the world instead of building things like railroads. The writer points out that without technology being developed, like the railroad, missionaries would not be able to reach their audiences, which is a good point. However, he takes it a step further in saying that 'railroads and railroads alone' are what will civilize India and China and bring 'proper' Christianity to people etc. This is where the writer starts grasping as railroads bringing missionaries and Bibles probably wouldn't singlehandedly stop massacres from occurring. In fact, as the next excerpt on buffalo and the railroad points out, railroads and other technology can actually help to start massacres. In this instance, railroads brought whites to Native American land and helped to destroy entire ways of life. Obviously there is the question of to what end should progress be pushed in the whole early American technology phase.- Lauren Milner</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments325--Week 3 Questions/Comments2009-01-29T03:57:00Z<p>Llesueur: /* 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
<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 />
== 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 />
== 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</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--Week 2 Questions/Comments2009-01-21T23:20:50Z<p>Llesueur: </p>
<hr />
<div>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 />
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 />
<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 />
<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 />
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 />
<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 />
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 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 />
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 />
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 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 />
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</div>Llesueurhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_1_Questions/Comments325--Week 1 Questions/Comments2009-01-14T20:54:33Z<p>Llesueur: </p>
<hr />
<div>I think the reading sucked..... -- Dr. M<br />
<br />
No, I think the reading was brilliant -- Kelly<br />
<br />
<br />
The essays collected in chapter one attempt to define the term “technology” from different angles. Marx traces the perception technology from one of mechanical arts to a more general and abstract use that categorizes progress. What allowed for the transition in how technology is perceived today? – Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In the article, “Do Artifacts Have Politics” the author discusses the importance of considering social and cultural implications of technology within the context of the time in which it was developed. The example of the bridges constructed in New York show how the upper classes benefited from the overpasses and how intentionally other social classes were not included. It’s a good example, but it seems like a similar pattern naturally emerges with any new technology. When first developed, it may be hard for most people to enjoy the benefits. So, my question is, when looking at the social implications of technology does it necessarily have to be the best and newest form in order to be considered a technological advancement or should it be one that is more widely benefited by a larger number of people? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I first want to say, is it me or is the text a little wordy? Seems to me this could be explained a little more easily. Anyway to answer what Jessica said in my opinion progress seems to always be measured by technological advances. In History as I have been thinking about it, our achievement has been linked to some sort of tech advance. I think the transition of mechanical arts to technology came from greed. Like the tomato picking in California, replace the worker with a machine you don't have to pay. Anyway to make money the better, and with the industrial revolution we became a capitalist nation. Now in the 21st century I think we rely on computers, cell phones, calculators, etc way to much. Don't get me wrong I love my computer and phone just as much as the next guy, but I also feel that we have come a long way really fast and that is not always the best. Also maybe why the transition happen is because it's more marketable, everyone can have a piece of technology it's not just for the rich as in early days. I may have made no sence but I am just thinking out loud...Aislyn Cathers<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how technology has been perceived over the years. What actually is considered to be technology is a very complex question, it seems that each generation has there own idea of technology and it is every changing. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I found Winner's article very relevant to today. Everything is developed for a reason and typically only benefits the upper class when first introduced. It reminds me of the Ipod, when it first came out I did not know really anyone with one except celebrities, but as objects become more popular and technology improves new and better devices appear and those older ones that seemed so out of reach now become readily available for the majority. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think Langdon Winner's presentation of technology as a political tool is fascinating. However, I think his example of Robert Moses' overpasses being used as a cultural and social divide is an exception rather than a rule. To me, new technology is created for the improvement a single function or group of functions. Normally, it is not designed to specifically alienate certain classes or races of people. -- Laurence (Lon) LeSueur<br />
<br />
Although some technological developments do have some sort of political impact, the motivation for their invention is far different. Certain technological developments aren't created with politics in mind, they're created to improve the world by making it more efficient or pleasant. --Lon LeSueur</div>Llesueur 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