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: 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=MwroeMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:08:50ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_12_Questions/Comments325--Week 12 Questions/Comments2009-04-09T04:03:31Z<p>Mwroe: </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 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 />
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</div>Mwroehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--Week 10 Questions/Comments2009-03-26T03:43:28Z<p>Mwroe: </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 />
I too thought that it was interesting; however, unlike Madison I would not disagree. Just by going off of what Dr. McClurken said in class on Tuesday of the rapid pace in which automobiles were being produced after the invention and adjustments were made to the assembly line. To think that anyone would disagree with the methods of the assembly lines and the speedy way in which it produced equipment is just insane. Who wouldn't want to make a car in 93 minutes instead of seven days? Not only did the assembly line help mass produce cars, it also helped during the wartime effort and has proved vital ever since the Model T.--Marren<br />
<br />
“The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” explored how people adapted to technology in terms how they saw it to be most useful. The car began to be used for a lot more uses than transportation from place to place. So much so, that it became indistinguishable from other pieces of farming technology in rural areas. I was somewhat surprised that the automobile wasn’t readily adapted in the rural areas, especially since the conception is that rural farms are the most isolated and distanced from the expansions in the cities, including technology and access to consumer goods and department stores. On a side note (addressing some of the legislation aimed at preventing the use cars), the image of cars driving behind people waving red flags in Vermont is slightly entertaining. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I saw the reading on "The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States" quite interesting because it really outlined how the car was viewed in terms of usefulness. I would have figured that the rural areas would have accepted and adapted the car not as something fun but a means to connect them to more people to be social and improve their way of life by being able to have some of those things that can only be found in a city. Aislyn<br />
<br />
From the selection of readings about technological acculturation, I liked the prizewinning essay. I never would have guessed that it was written by a 15 year old. It is suppose to portray what the effects of electricity were on the family in the early 20th century. However, it more shows how the electric company wanted people to think about the effects of electricity. Since it was a contest, people were writing in and describing images of electricity in the home in ways that they thought would be positive for the company (it’s one of those, tell them what you think they want to hear, even if you disagree). Given the prompt was to write about how it “adds to the happiness of the family” obviously people are going to take it a certain direction. I would only wonder how the essays were published in the original sources, was it explained as an essay aimed to address this particular prompt? Or was it used as more of an advertising tool? To suggest something like “see, even the children see a more positive family dynamic, so if you’re not going to do it for yourself, do it for your children…” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Nye 133-137 Nye's article describes the growing gap between the social classes during the 1920s. "[T]he automobile had created a gap between those who drove and those who rode." (133) I find that more and more, new technologies are for the privileged not for all Americans. Thinking about it today - who has the new I-phone? The people who can afford it. Basically new technology does intensify the awareness of who can afford what new gadget (for today, and apparently in the 1920s as well). --Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with Elle in terms of comparing today's technology with the 1920s; however, I would disagree with the fact that Ford wanted his automobiles to be affordable and even encouraged his workers to buy a car for their family. In other words what I am trying to say is the car was a way to close the social gaps created by finances in the 1920s and cars seemed to be more affordable then where as in today's society it is not the fact that you have a car in which you are judged on but rather what type of car. The same goes for other sorts of technology (I-phones, IPODS, computers, etc.)--Marren<br />
<br />
Nye's article was a good one because he does illustrate the growing gap of the social classes during the 1920's. Not for nothing I can see the gap between the social classes in the 21st century with all sorts of technology.It shows a gap in financial gaps, as well as social classes, and geographic areas are seperated, so the car as well as many others seperate and have a huge impact of life. Aislyn <br />
<br />
My Life and Work, 1929 - Henry Ford The way that Ford describes the Model T is somewhat disturbing to me. Simplicity being the key - I didn't realize a car could run with only 4 main parts - he may be oversimplifying for us (undoubtedly), but the intentions of car producers and marketers has definitely shifted. Imagine if this statement were still true today - "The parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buyy new ones than to have old ones repaired..." (315) Maybe I am just a little bitter about some recent car problems, but wouldn't it be nice if people could still use the words "cheap" and "new car parts" in the same sentence? The assembly line came up several times too and all I could think about was the dis-assembly line (euw). -- Elle<br />
<br />
I was really impress by how the new technologies made the car parts as well as the cars cheaper so that more American could afford them. This really seemed like the one way that new technology was available to most. Yet there were some places and groups that were excluded from being able to purchase the cars. Today it seems that the new technologies are only available to the select few. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
Full Social History of American Technology - There is definitely a trend that new technology tends to deskill the laborers involved with the old process. For example - the sphygmomanometer vs. the finger - some felt that by adding this new technology, it was taking away from the importance of fine-tuning skills learned to be a doctor. While this is true (in my opinion) it also makes the profession more technical and standardized - which helps everyone in the long run. --Elle<br />
<br />
The short Nye reading was really interesting to me because it showed the political sociological, and economic reasons for the rise of the automobile. One reason that stuck out for me was the fact that riders did not accept the "zone system of payment," which Europeans used (134). Why Europeans like it but not Americans. Anyway, the reading described more about why one piece of technology is chosen over another and specifically discussed the automobile. Just another reason to not believe technological determinism. --Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
Social Reconstruction- The "anti-auto crusade" discussed in the beginning of the article is very entertaining. The laws, such as the one from Vermont that "required a person to carry a red flag and walk ahead of the car," and the personal attacks on motorists in states all over the country surprised me and made me think about all of the opposition new technology takes (i.e.electricity). I also found it interesting that one law addressed scaring carriage horses. My horse absolutely hates cars and almost kicked his foot through a driver's side window when someone sped past us, so I can only imagine what those horses thought of the weird machinery. Funny how opposition can be seen in politics, social settings, and the environment.--Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's "My Life and Work, 1929". In it, Ford describes the process of developing the ideas behind the Model T, as well as the execution of its production. Throughout its development, you can clearly see the ideas of previous American inventors embedded in the creation of the Model T. Eli Whitney and John Hall's systems of interchangeable parts, the American System of Manufacturing, and Taylor's Scientific Management are all ideas utilized by Ford to create the Model T. - Lon<br />
<br />
Reading about Henry Ford's "My Life and Work" was good because through out the reading I saw how he improved on the ideas of others, which is a good thing. I am not at all a fan of Henry Ford because what I have learned in another class. As a person he was not so good, but what he accomplished for industry was wonderful. Aislyn<br />
The 15 year old girl's essay "How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family" is a clear demonstration of how electricity and electrical appliances effectively changed American's day to day lives. It is also an example of how people saw electricity not only as a technological development, but progress for society overall. Fern Van Bramer asserts that through electricity, Americans can now enjoy both happier, and efficient lives. For Van Bramer, the past is literally seen in the dark, while the future is flooded with light and warmth. - Lon<br />
<br />
<br />
The encyclopedia article from 1926 about mass production seems to be informative, but perhaps skeptical? The article first explains what mass production is, “the focusing upon a manufacturing project of the principles of power accuracy, economy, system, continuity and speed”. Next, the article lists the effects of mass production on society:<br />
1. Increase in industrial control, as distinguished from financial control<br />
2. Highest standard of quality ever attained in output of great quantities. <br />
3. Wide variety of single-purpose machines.<br />
4. The physical load is lifted off men and placed on machines. <br />
Finally, the article makes an interesting ending argument about the need for skilled labor. It seems almost out of place! The article states, “the need for skilled and creative genius is greater under mass production than without it,” then goes on to say, “it has been debated whether there is less or more skills as a consequence of mass production. The present writer’s opinion is that there is more”. Based off of this, I get the feeling that the encyclopedia was almost trying to cover their butt. As we have discussed in class, the rise of mass production meant the decline in skilled workers. It seems as though the author of this article knew this too, but was reluctant to say it. Rather, the argument was justified by a generalization/opinion that in modern times, every field of work requires knowledge and responsibility. Does this suggest that there is no longer a distinction between skilled and unskilled workers? Everyone is just a worker? And what does that mean for the worker? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the essay, How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family, to be hilarious! The argument of this prizewinning essay states, “if more wives and mothers would only understand that money spent in beautifying their homes is the truest form of economy, fewer fathers and sons would be paying for the bright lights in unwholesome places”. The argument is that light from electricity would motivate men to come home rather than go to “unwholesome places” which allure them solely based off of their bright lights! Rather, Women should embrace electricity so the men can come home to them where they can have a home cooked meal waiting! Very indicative of the time, did people really buy into this!? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
When we learn about Henry Ford and his development of the assembly line and how it brought a lot of progress to American manufacturing it is easy to forget the common people working in the factories. In "Detroit Motors" by Edmund Wilson, a man named Bert describes his experiences working for Ford. The workers are forced to work very long hours, have very short lunch breaks and are kept in a constant fear of loosing their jobs. It seems that in an effort to maximize production not much attention was given to those doing the actual work. This shouldn't be a very big surprise however, since employee rights wasn't considered even a possibility at that point. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Charles Madison's Seven Years of Automotive Servitude also helps to bring to light how Ford's advertisers got the best of many seeking work in his factories. When Charles tried to get a job under the $5-$7/day system he was surprised to learn that it came with fine print. Its kind of a shame that he didn't stay in the drafting room as he could have worked his way up but just like my brother he quit and later came crawling back. The juxtaposition of the harsh "hell" like conditions of Ford and the nicer, slower Dodge are interesting. Ford, being a way more popular company in terms of sales, shows how one can't be nice and slow to get ahead in any industry. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I found the passage from Henry Ford's autobiography, "My Life and Work, 1929," very interesting because Ford describes the development of the Model T and assembly line manufacturing process as scientific. Ford's research team made it their goal to reduce the amount of time that it took one to complete a given task. They valued production, and to some degree worker comfort, enough to repeatedly shut down operations in order to make tasks easier. It's interesting to note that while Ford paid his workers well and allowed them the mobility they desired in switching jobs, he was adamant that work had to be done by the book or else the factory would descend into utter chaos. While it may be true that some people legitimately preferred to not have to think while working, it seems unlikely that unskilled work satisfied every factory worker. After all, Ford himself claimed that he could never do the jobs of his employees. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The document on "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion, 1934" is a good example of how the notion of unskilled, assembly line labor permeated all venues of American industry after Ford adopted the principles. It was clever of the company to show its female employees that using the assembly fixtures and improved bins greatly increased their production while reducing the amount of energy they exerted in their work. Did other companies and industries use similar tactics in training their employees in not only how to do their work, but in "proving" that their way was so much better than thinking for one's self? -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
There’s a lot to be said about Henry Ford, but let’s keep it simple. He was pretty much a jerk. His autobiography certainly shows some of these jerkass qualities. The fact that he was terrified of repetitive labor himself but imposed it on his workers says a lot. He seemed to believe that being a creative man made him unsuitable for that kind of work, while the ordinary working majority actually <i>craved</i> a job without physical or mental exertion. Also, Ford may have offered his employees high wages, and he may have given jobs to immigrants and African Americans, but there were so many strings attached before anyone got anything. For instance, before being accepted for the Five Dollar Day plan, Ford’s Sociological Department first investigated workers at home. The department encouraged the “right” way of life, which included good morals, sobriety, family values, etc. The department also aimed for the Americanization of immigrants. For instance, it was required that they speak English at all times. With his Sociological Department, Ford expanded control over his laborers from the workplace only over into their personal lives. There was a reason Hitler considered this fellow a hero. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see how amateur involvement with the radio actually led to government restriction. The federal government didn’t have much of a place in quickly consolidated technological systems like electricity and telephony. What was the reason that large companies didn’t consolidate radio technology and stations right away? Why were amateurs allowed to become so involved and knowledgeable in radio technology? Even young boys were encouraged to make their own, despite the interference that they could cause on commercial and navy stations. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's account of how things went down in the assembly plants and then reading Charles Sorensen's account of the assembly line. The impression that Ford's article made for me was that he was the main thinker for the changes that we made to accommodate to the efficiency of the assembly line so that mass production would work to the best of its ability; while Sorensen's article explained that the idea of the assembly line was taken from previous ways of moving pieces to work on and that the ideas were a joint effort. "[Ford] was glorified as the originator of the mass production idea. Far from it; he just grew into it, like the rest of us" (321). -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Another thing that I found interesting was Ford's insistence that the average worker could work mind numbing activities day in and day out and be alright with it only because they didn't want to move up in the hierarchy that is job positions. I found the points that he made about the workers in the factory were belittling. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was in the passage by Henry Ford titled "My Life and Work," he writes "the parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buy new ones than to have old ones repaired." The cars he was building would not last forever and would inevitably need repairs or replacements. He made it cheaper to buy new parts, so customers would buy new parts from Ford instead of going to a repair shop. Even after a person purchased a car, the company could still make money from the sale of replacement parts. This demonstrates Ford's shrewd business skills because he was guaranteeing the success of the company. -- Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
In class we discussed Ford and Professor said how Ford encouraged the term "Fordism," and James J. Flink's "Modern Times" addresses the term. He describes the term and is read with a negative tone, thats how i perceived it. He opens with the end to skilled workers and then in the definition, says "apprenticeship required for becoming a competent craftsman" were no longer necessary. It shows with just those sentences, how the workplace went from a prestigious job/ability to where anyone could do it. I realize it is more efficient, but it seems the workers lost their ability to contribute to the end product, it was now a fixed result. Also, the lunch break, 15 min, is just ridiculous. Flink goes on to explain the workplace conditions. There were "gang labor spies and thugs": to keep control of the workers. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
In this week's readings "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion" is another document where women are bring used in the workplace (from the watch texts). I like that it describes the need for training girls, and the steps through it. --Maggie Wroe</div>Mwroehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_8_Questions/Comments325--Week 8 Questions/Comments2009-03-12T06:20:29Z<p>Mwroe: /* 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 />
Could the gendering of the telephone operating be due to the ability of managers to pay women less wages, rather than their customer service skills? - Lon<br />
<br />
Katherine M Schmitt's memoir was an interesting read. I liked how she explained the telephone as a "temperamental child" and how she nursed it to maturity. The memoir also serves to show this moment in time that technologies to us were viewed as new and exciting and "hanging in the balance." Society today would be so different if telephones didn't make it. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Along with Katherine M. Schmitt's memoir, I found the "Rules for Operating Room Employees" and the different telephone advertisements interesting. I can't really imagine picking up a phone and there being another conversation on it from people next door and so the telephone courtesy advertisement was silly to me. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I liked the parts of Schmitt's memoir that focused on her friends. Her friends were so weirded out by the idea of someone working for the telephone industry. I particularly liked the part where the friend thought she must hear "such horrible things" over the phone. I empathize with that. It's weird to think of an operator having the ability to listen in to all the calls. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
Katherine Schmitt article, "Memoir of a Telephone Operator," was a eye opening read. I would have never guess an invention to change society, who be looked as an "impractical toy." As Katherine explains, what seems like a toy at first grows to something bigger in the long run. Even though it was costly investment to have a telephone, I think that the way it grew it is remarkable. Just a few years go by and more and more people are getting into the use of the telephone. At first it started off with a few hundred subscriber who knew each other on a "friend" basis, but later on they had a hard time keeping up with the accelerated amount of people subscribing. One thing I don't understand is, why would they use boys to become operators when they all knew that they boys are still growing and that they have not matured fully. What would make someone think that it would be ok to put a bunch of boys in a room to do some actual hard work? -- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the article by Virginia Penny, A New Employment for Women. I thought it was quite interesting to see the advantages listed of using women as operators. I also was interested to see that some of the women commanded equal wages to men in this field, showing that there wasn't a glass ceiling in that profession. In response to Erin's comment on men not having patience, I would disagree, seeing as working in factories at that time was far more boring than connecting phones and writing messages, seeing as each message was at least different, and took more focus to make sure your hand was not crushed in machinery. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
== Ronell on Thomas Watson ==<br />
When I first read this essay, I kind of laughed at the idea of the telephone belonging to the "spirit world." But after thinking about it a bit, I can understand why this assumption could be made about the telephone when it was first created. This was an invention that allowed people to communicate vocally instantaneously. It was almost like magic, or as Ronell said, like male witchcraft. It's hard to think of these inventions as something so new and mystifying because we're a population that can't imagine life without the telephone. But I guess for people who never experienced something like this before it had to be amazing and almost miraculous. Ronell may have seemed crazy in his little tirade, but I'm sure he wasn't alone in his thinking. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I'm with you on this Kelly, I have been trying to take the non technological determinism way of thinking... not only were there alternatives and many trials and errors before technologies were chosen and put to use/produced etc., there was a great deal of mystery behind new technology. While Ronnell does seem to be a little wacked out (in my opinion), it does make perfect sense that the new technology of the telephone would be hard to comprehend from the get go - hearing voices of people that weren't in proximity became a skill that not only the crazies could acquire. --Elle<br />
<br />
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke is famous for having said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And I think this is largely true for the observers of technology. The strange thing about Ronell's account is that one of the main people working on the technology could see it is otherworldly. At the time, it seems perfectly possible for even someone involved in the sciences to be active in the occult. But Watson knew, for the most part, the processes involved in the function of the telephone. It seems strange that he would even think of attributing its machinations to angels or demons. But there is a way in which this could have seemed like magic. Though he was an electrician, Watson may not have fully understood the atomic level of his craft. He was simply directing forces of nature, such as lighting, in really interesting ways. Put that together with a man trying to send voices and draw pictures over long distances and tinkering with human ears, and it starts to sound like a wizard's workshop. -Sean B.<br />
<br />
It's weird to think of such a famous engineer restoring to "spiritual" remedies to technological malfunctions. Ronell refers to Watson seeking a consult with a medium so as to enlist the spirits in giving their work on the telephone a boost. I find it funny, both that Watson was so disgusted he refused to do so again, and that Bell avoided the project from the beginning. It makes me wonder what Bell thought of Watson, and how their working relationship was, if Ronell is right in indicating that Bell thought Watson's beliefs were quackery. -- Matt S<br />
<br />
== Venus Green, Personal Service in the Bell System ==<br />
<br />
I found Venus Green's explanation of why women were chosen as telephone switchboard operators and why they continued to run said switchboards long after it became technologically possible to move to automated service to be very interesting. Green states that women are more patient than men and can better multitask. More than anything, it appears that the Bell Telephone Company desired to retain the intimacy and personal touch of its telephone communication through live, friendly operators long after its competitors switched to automated connection options. Bell's training manual and managers heavily emphasized the importance of courtesy at all times. In response, customers gave their telephone switchboard operators personal gifts in the same vein that people leave personal gifts or tips for newspaper boys. Bell's commitment to the personal relationship between its company and its clients is remarkable considering that it would have probably been much cheaper to switch over to automated service. Today voicemail and automatic recordings are a normal part of our world. We still find it considerate when businesses employ people to answer their phones or when a businessman answers his own phone. It just goes to show that society's desires in this regard have remained the same as the technology continues to skyrocket. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
Going with what I was saying about women being the chosen people to be involved in the telephone. It was very neat that even when the phone technology was advancing the personal touch was still a vital part in the success. I know I would rather talk to a live person than an atuomated recording, because I feel like my questions/problems are being taken care of right and you also have proof (name of person) is something went wrong. It was interesting that in a time of making money and cornering the market, Bell kept with the live people over switching to an automated system. To me that showed a respect for the workers and the customers.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I agree with Aislyn, I like the personal touch. Even today I hate getting a machine when I am trying to make a call to a company for one reason or another. I do find it amazing the advancement in technology today; the personal touch has been replaced by an automated machine that can understand the voice and transfer the call when needed. To call the computer company or the train station a computer voice asks you several question and based on your response (voice response) transfers your call. I do find it interesting that the automated voice is still female. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Green's article points to a very interesting decision for telephone executives. Instead of adopting automatic systems, the Bell Company continued to hire women as operators. I don't see this as an attempt to maximize customer service, but rather tradition. The occupation was highly gendered due to the inherent feminine qualities of being an operator (patience, multitasking abilities, gentle voices). However, I think the decision to not adopt automated systems was a move to perpetuate this gendered occupation rather than maintain customer service. -- Lon<br />
<br />
I was going to say what Bryan before me said. How Green illustrated what the telephone switchboard companies wanted to advertise to their subjected audience; patience, caring, and personal touch. This is atleast one profession where a woman is desired to do the job. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
== Bruno Latour, Ma Bell’s Road Trip ==<br />
<br />
One of Latour's theme's in "Ma Bell's Road Trip" is change. He points out that when Millikan's physics meet the Bell Company, neither are the same. The Bell Company was now serving people across the continent and Millikan's research was greatly expanded. This is due to the Machiavellian-like alliances made by the telephone company. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
What I liked about Latour's essay was the discussion of alliances and their importance in the creation process. Most people recognize Alexander Graham Bell for the telephone, Eli Whitney for the cotton gin, Henry Bessemer for steel, but what we've learned in this class is that these inventions were not solo projects. All of these men had someone else with them; maybe not a whole team but they sure as hell were not alone. Especially inventors like Thomas Edison. The alliances among scientists and then their willingness to work with other scientists to improve their inventions is something, I think, that is often overlooked. These inventors needed to work together to get their projects to work and then to improve them to improve society. They couldn't do this alone. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I don't really think of science and engineering as an alliance game. This article does bring to light the fact that 1. (as Kelly mentions) it is not prudent/convenient to work alone on projects. 2. It suggests that alliances and group members are not permanent, and that in order for progress to really be made, the invention must withstand weak alliances falling through etc. It is a political game. This reminds me of Edison's Menlo labs - He had already gotten the wealthy investors from previous inventions and had built good alliances and had appropriate resources - like fellow engineers and scientists to work with, but also MONEY to make the process easier. I think one thing that wasn't necessarily stressed when talking about alliances is that funding is also key to success as an inventor of new technologies.<br />
<br />
Bruno's article made me realize that we have advanced so far. As stated in the article, the idea of running a telephone line from the West Coast to the East Coast was almost an impossible feat. We can just jump on the internet now and with the help of social networking we can keep in touch with a blink of an eye. Just to think, that establishing communication few kilometers was a great accomplishment. -Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I found it fascinating the uses of the mechanical repeaters to be fascinating in this article. Additionally I thought it was interesting that one of Bell's employee's ties to science helped the company as a whole develop even further. Finally, I found the transition of small labs and university labs to large corporate funded laboratories to be the most important change that this article pointed out. This transition led the way for many more break throughs in technology and science and has helped shape the world as we know it today. -Brian Brown</div>Mwroehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--Week 5 Questions/Comments2009-02-12T08:07:40Z<p>Mwroe: /* Frederick's The New Housekeeping */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking ==<br />
This was interesting because in Switzerland women have been part of making watches for generations and getting paid a nice living, but in England women were not used in the process until later. It's good to see at least in some places women are needed in industry and get good money for it. It was also interesting that women were preferred over men because they have small hands and are patient, but still don't compare to men in all other areas including pay, skill level, etc. Even though the reading says at one point women could do equally well with men, they still are not regarded as equal.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
The reasons in this article for why men were paid better than women are very antiquated but do reflect the times: they do more difficult work (even though it was stated above that in Switzerland and France women did the same jobs), are more "ingenious", more "thoughtful and contriving", it is the custom to pay women less. It is also of note that America was the only country at the time to have mechanized their watchmaking. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I wasn't surprised in the least that women were paid less than the men. This "custom" is one that occurred more often than not in every industry, not just watchmaking. I guess it is a good point though that young women at this time were married off and then quit their jobs - thus, investing in training these young women was a waste of time and money. From a business prospective this does make sense. -Elle<br />
<br />
I found it crazy to see the differences between how European vs. American women are treated when it comes to watch making, I think it really shows the role of women in culture. In Europe, women are preferred to men in the watch making industry, they are said to require less training and to be more intelligent than their male counterparts. In America, women are treated horribly and quite ironically. I say that because women are seen as not intelligent and not strong. This is the justification for paying them only half of what males get paid. However, women are required to work the same hours as males and are required to do equal work. I find that infuriating. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To be blatantly honest, in agreeing with Elle, I too was not surprised by the lack of pay for the women compared to the men. Also I feel that training these young women was a waste because more often than not they would leave their jobs once they were married. Nonetheless, I do not agree that women should have gotten less pay than men, especially because so many places preferred women over men do in large part to their smaller hands, higher level of patience, as well as the fact that generally women are less careless than men are. As it normally is for women when looking back at times, it is extremely frustrating to see how women were either treated or worse, not even given opportunities to get jobs.--Marren<br />
<br />
I think my favorite line was "The principal objection to employing women is that they are very apt to marry just as they become skillful enough to be reliable." Really? I'm not surprised in the least that women in American factories were treated as garbage and were though to be easily replaced (which, sadly they were.) I liked how in Switzerland they were respected for their abilities because of their more feminine features and delicate touch. Put them in a factory in America and they're obviously going to run off an marry. Ridiculous but sadly the theory of the time. Poor women. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I guess we all know that the glass ceiling still exists, but man, this was a jarring reminder of just how present it was back then. Men "do more difficult work, are more ingenious, more thoughtful and contriving"? Really? Come on now. I think the fact that these women were able to grin and bear it is enough reason for equal pay. Maybe it's just me. -Cash<br />
<br />
In response to Erin's comment, I want to clarify that it did not appear that anyone was claiming that women are more intelligent than men in any context. Claims as to their "equality" (the author specifically mentioned that they were regarded as equal in skill in some tasks, no more), were restricted mostly to their nimble hands and dexterity. As a matter of fact, the article specifically defends the higher wages of men as a sign of their superior ingenuity and thoughtfulness. Women just had small brains. Brains a third the size of us. It's science. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I found this article quite interesting. I disagree with Erin on one key point. The women were not required to do equal work, as the article stated they were doing work that did not require much training and predominantly did "light and simple work". I also wanted to point out in regards to Marren's post, that one of the reasons that women were often times more sought after than men by the factories is because they were cheaper and were less likely to work at the factory for long periods of time, thereby causing the company to need replacements for them. Additionally, in regards to Cash's post, I don't see how this article shows how there is still a glass ceiling today, seeing as it was written around one hundred and fifty years ago. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I liked how this document showed the want for women to work in the swiss watch shop because "women have proved their ability to execute the most delicates parts." Normally reading historical documents, it is the men who are wanted to work in a factory on a specific detail and now it shows Switzerland and France has pushed passed the gender stereotypes where the women stay home and dont belong in the working industry. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men ==<br />
The essay “Machines as the Measure of Men” uses technology and science as a gauge to compare civilizations. Adas argues that technology is the basis that leads a country into global superiority and hegemony. Technological advancement becomes the dividing point between different races and classes and people strive to label the growing gap between the dichotomies of civilized and poorly developed people or countries. But there are different kinds of technology and advancement, some can be in regards to industry or efficiency, others strictly leisure, medical, or cultural. Some are more overlooked than others. I feel like the essay also, ultimately, divides technological progress into a west vs. the rest dichotomy. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Good comment Jessica. I am going to harp on the same sort of thing from this article. I didn't think about technological superiority giving a country a leg up in colonization of other less technologically advanced countries, but this article proves otherwise. Yes, it makes sense that the less developed/industrialized countries will probably want to buy goods from the industrial power houses, but I didn't think about the fact that they could also be forced/coerced into doing so. -Elle<br />
<br />
I truly enjoyed this essay I found it very insightful and hypocritical when it came to the European’s views of their superiority. Europeans and Americans saw themselves as the “lords of humankind” they decided that they were superior to all other nations due to their scientific and technological achievements. They also believed that the measurement of scientific and technological achievement is the gauge by which non-western societies might be evaluated, classified, and ranked. When I read this I thought to myself, “isn’t that cultural”. I was happy to see that a few paragraphs later, it was stated that this gauge was culture bound and biased. The essay went on to talk about how writers at that time followed ideology, and how the railroad because the key symbol of superiority. I really liked this sentence, I think it is very telling, “The assumption that it was desirable for humans to master nature and that the scientifically minded and inventive Europeans were best at doing so led many authors to the conviction that it was the destiny and duty of the Europeans to expand into and develop regions occupied by less advanced peoples” (227). Based off this ideology, I found it really funny when the essay made a turn to show that once the Chinese and Japanese developed their science and technology, they were still considered inferior! In fact, the Europeans were afraid that the Chinese would capitalize off their new technologies and take jobs from the Europeans. I think Jacques Novicov had it right when he said that industrial achievements of the Japanese demonstrated that they were the European’s equals. However, Europeans refuse to accept this, they argue that they are imitating Europeans and will never reason logically like a European. I find this essay truly representative of western thought. Is it just me, or do we still hold this ideology of superiority true to this day? I personally think that we still, to some extent, measure superiority based off of science and technology. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
While there were many aspects of Adas' article that I found intriguing, I'd like to focus on the historic timeline that he addresses. For centuries the Chinese and Arabian cultures were the most technologically advanced civilizations. The former remained isolated while that later expanded under the guise of religious evangelism. As the technological and scientific advances of these cultures reached Europe, the "Age of Exploration," and "Industrial Revolution" among other trends jump-started European advancement until these nations became technologically superior to the "eastern world" which became inherently "backward" from the European perspective. Recent technological advancements through industrialization and the rise of the "Age of Technology" in the 21st century have enabled these "backward" countries to now outdo the "western world" of Europe and the United States. Yet, it seems that each of these periods of "advancement" came at the steep price of losing valuable cultural identity traits. This begs the question of whether or not technological advancement truly leads to a better, superior way of life or whether it leads to the corrosion of cultural values and principles. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
== Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management ==<br />
The problem of greater National Efficiency is always a problem from the workplace to the government (i think anyway). I can't blame some workers for slacking when the people who are not doing much are getting paid the same, but I guess the question is how do you get everyone working together at the same rate of production? I would think "initiative and incentive" plans would work, but some people would get pissed because they may be doing their best and still not get incentives and that may cause an uneasy tension at work. Planning out all work is ok, and does work because I have done it. It does get boring and there are ways to get around or cut corners on the everyday, and make management think all is getting done. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how new ways of management, a non-mechanical idea, could have just as large of an impact on the workplace as the development of something more concrete. Although, he points out many times that in the new system “the management must take over and perform much of the work which is now left the men; almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could,” (273). So if the management is taking on all these new responsibilities in directing their employees, what did they do before? <br />
Also, the source “An Engineering Student Instructs a Laundress” kinds of points out how little changes in procedures can make a big difference in time management and efficiency. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The way Frederick Winslow Taylor described the system of “soldiering” or loafing certainly makes it seem like the workers were extremely lazy. As someone who can appreciate hard work, I automatically had an adverse reaction to that, thinking that owners weren’t asking for too much when they expected their workers to actually do their jobs and be paid accordingly. But then I questioned Taylor’s description of soldiering. Were the workers really that lazy? Was he exaggerating to so his own system of scientific management, which essentially turned humans into automatons, would be accepted? Taylor’s comments on the laborers reminds me of Henry Ford’s comment during the Great Depression about most men being uninterested in a hard day’s work. Harsh. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Transitioning these ideas into the context of the modern world, I found it surprising that this issue of worker productivity has not come into the forefront of national politics in the wake of fierce global competition. In the preface to this article, the publisher mentioned that Taylor's ideas led to a government ban on the monitoring of time utilization. I'm curious if government policy regarding this has changed since that era. - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Frederick's The New Housekeeping ==<br />
I found Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" particularly interesting. Frederick argues that by approaching a woman's housework in a scientific manner, she will become 'liberated'. Improving the efficiency of her work would thus remove drudgery from her everyday life. However, I couldn't help but think the exact opposite. By forcing a woman to adhere to rules, regulations, and schedules in her everyday life, doesn't that constrain her within the home even further? By applying scientific management to simple housework, it removes a woman's ability to think and act on her own without being restricted. Frederick also claims that women are "fleeing from housework into professions and outside work" and "refusing to assume the burdens of motherhood". However, I think a woman would rather have the choice between working inside or outside of the home. Applying scientific management to their everyday home lives would further restrain these women to the home. -Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
I was thinking the same thing about using the scientific method in the home and how that would take away one of women's only freedom to take care of her home how she wants to. Yes being efficient and getting things done is great and may give some free time to explore other interests, but keeping on a shedule would become boring and if it were me I would end up stopping it. I can see it as having a positive effect on the workplace where there is many people and alot of work to be done. I have myself planned out the next day's agenda for the custodians I used to lead, so they knew exactly what was to be done in how much time. It worked out, and made me see who was slacking and who was good.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
I do not totally agree with Aislyn's statement though I can not totally disagree either. Efficiency and schedules are both good things in their own manner. One can live their life by a schedule and still be efficient, although many times people do not agree. For example with your custodians, if you gave them a list of 5 things to do and they had 8 hours to do them and they got the list done in 6 hours, would that be categorized as being efficient or as being careless, and not spending too much time on each assignment from the list. With that being said, I do not think that a person should have to live their life by the same schedule day in and day out because than it risks workers becoming bored and not doing as well of a job, this is why changing assignments is not a bad thing because it mixes the schedule up and does not allow workers to fall into a routine which bores them.--Marren<br />
<br />
Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" was interesing. Frederick believed that using scientific management to perform simple household tasks would make everyday life within the household run smooth. The fact that she took time out of her day to figure out how many minutes it took her to complete daily tasks is interesting. Was the use of scientific management in everyday task supposed to give a mother more time with her child? What exactly was it supposed to do other than have a person finish cooking and cleaning as quickly as possible? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Frederick's application of the scientific method of housekeeping is an intriguing topic. It is true that decreasing the amount of wasted time in daily cleaning and maintenance tasks could lead to increased production. Yet the scientific method fails to account for the human element within the equation. It's highly unlikely that an increase in time will lead to one being willing to work longer and harder. Some individuals are highly motivated to accomplish their assigned tasks and do enjoy their "jobs," yet it seems more likely that increased free time will lend itself to an increase in time lavished upon the self and his or her family. Other articles and documents that we've read affirm that workers generally only work as hard as they need in order for their families to survive. Thus, while Frederick's application of the scientific method of efficiency is intriguing and could yield great results in an idealized world, it may have had little impact on the daily lives of women. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
Frederick’s essay about employing scientific management in the household just makes you feel bad for those poor middle-class folks, doesn’t it? Those lucky lower-class families didn’t have to worry about keeping up appearances and entertaining friends. Of course, something tells me that rather than being plagued by the drudgery of constant household chores and wasted motions (and having enough time to think about it for that matter), lower-class women were more worried about earning a living, where their next meal was coming from, keeping a roof over their heads, and other basic survival needs. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found this article silly in some parts, yet very intelligent in others. In regards to some of Frederick's comments, they seemed somewhat trivial and self absorbed, particularly when referring to other classes. However, Mr. Watson did raise a valid point in addressing the complaints of some women about not having free time. His idea's would most certainly reduce the time taken to do tasks and would allow for more free time for women. In response to Lon and Aislyn, I would point out that the husbands of many of these women worked in factories, where they had one task and one task only that they performed for ten hours or more a day. At least some of these women could have different tasks to do and if they were able to finish them quickly enough, have free time to pursue their own interests. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
This is another document displaying the beginnings of women rights and a women actually speaking out in a class assigned text, i have rarely noticed them. "I won't have you men doing all the great and noble things!" Such a valuable line, for a reader. -- Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
== Other documents of Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
I find myself in agreement with the articles against Taylorism. In the "Aresenal Workers Strike, 1913," Maurice Bowen writes that the use of a stop watch "is humiliating and savors too much of the slave driver." I agree with this statement. Forcing people to work at their maximum limit for long hours will not necessarily make for better wages for the employees. - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
To be fair Melissa, I think workers' rights were pretty low on the totem pole at this time. As is stated in point two on page 280, everything these workers did was standardized, and "common laborers are used." The shop owners simply wanted a means of cheap labor. I think they were probably counting on their workers breaking down and not meeting the bonus. And really, if workers underperformed, it is not as though their job was so specialized as to make them necessary. Every worker at the factory was expendable. Not to say that this was right, but I guess just...explaining the rationale? -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
While "Indian Canoe Makers vs. An Efficiency Expert" is about the change in factories to make things run quicker etc. I feel it is also a document that describes the decline of traditional customs, in this case for Native Americans. When a traditional craft like canoe making, quilting, instrument making etc is made in factories and taken out of their original setting, cultures that were associated with them start to decline as well or get replaced. Often times, as seen in the article, the new product is not made to the same standards as it originally was. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I don't know what it was about the Laundress article, but for some reason it just kind of made me laugh. It all seems like such common sense information, like shortening the walk and using a cordless iron so you're not so limited. It all just makes sense so it kind of makes me wonder, why didn't people think of this before? I know it's kind of a ridiculous question, but I mean, it all seems like such basic stuff. I guess it's that whole "hindsight is 20/20" thing. -Kelly W.</div>Mwroehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--Week 5 Questions/Comments2009-02-12T08:02:55Z<p>Mwroe: /* Virginia Penny – Watchmaking */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking ==<br />
This was interesting because in Switzerland women have been part of making watches for generations and getting paid a nice living, but in England women were not used in the process until later. It's good to see at least in some places women are needed in industry and get good money for it. It was also interesting that women were preferred over men because they have small hands and are patient, but still don't compare to men in all other areas including pay, skill level, etc. Even though the reading says at one point women could do equally well with men, they still are not regarded as equal.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
The reasons in this article for why men were paid better than women are very antiquated but do reflect the times: they do more difficult work (even though it was stated above that in Switzerland and France women did the same jobs), are more "ingenious", more "thoughtful and contriving", it is the custom to pay women less. It is also of note that America was the only country at the time to have mechanized their watchmaking. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I wasn't surprised in the least that women were paid less than the men. This "custom" is one that occurred more often than not in every industry, not just watchmaking. I guess it is a good point though that young women at this time were married off and then quit their jobs - thus, investing in training these young women was a waste of time and money. From a business prospective this does make sense. -Elle<br />
<br />
I found it crazy to see the differences between how European vs. American women are treated when it comes to watch making, I think it really shows the role of women in culture. In Europe, women are preferred to men in the watch making industry, they are said to require less training and to be more intelligent than their male counterparts. In America, women are treated horribly and quite ironically. I say that because women are seen as not intelligent and not strong. This is the justification for paying them only half of what males get paid. However, women are required to work the same hours as males and are required to do equal work. I find that infuriating. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To be blatantly honest, in agreeing with Elle, I too was not surprised by the lack of pay for the women compared to the men. Also I feel that training these young women was a waste because more often than not they would leave their jobs once they were married. Nonetheless, I do not agree that women should have gotten less pay than men, especially because so many places preferred women over men do in large part to their smaller hands, higher level of patience, as well as the fact that generally women are less careless than men are. As it normally is for women when looking back at times, it is extremely frustrating to see how women were either treated or worse, not even given opportunities to get jobs.--Marren<br />
<br />
I think my favorite line was "The principal objection to employing women is that they are very apt to marry just as they become skillful enough to be reliable." Really? I'm not surprised in the least that women in American factories were treated as garbage and were though to be easily replaced (which, sadly they were.) I liked how in Switzerland they were respected for their abilities because of their more feminine features and delicate touch. Put them in a factory in America and they're obviously going to run off an marry. Ridiculous but sadly the theory of the time. Poor women. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I guess we all know that the glass ceiling still exists, but man, this was a jarring reminder of just how present it was back then. Men "do more difficult work, are more ingenious, more thoughtful and contriving"? Really? Come on now. I think the fact that these women were able to grin and bear it is enough reason for equal pay. Maybe it's just me. -Cash<br />
<br />
In response to Erin's comment, I want to clarify that it did not appear that anyone was claiming that women are more intelligent than men in any context. Claims as to their "equality" (the author specifically mentioned that they were regarded as equal in skill in some tasks, no more), were restricted mostly to their nimble hands and dexterity. As a matter of fact, the article specifically defends the higher wages of men as a sign of their superior ingenuity and thoughtfulness. Women just had small brains. Brains a third the size of us. It's science. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I found this article quite interesting. I disagree with Erin on one key point. The women were not required to do equal work, as the article stated they were doing work that did not require much training and predominantly did "light and simple work". I also wanted to point out in regards to Marren's post, that one of the reasons that women were often times more sought after than men by the factories is because they were cheaper and were less likely to work at the factory for long periods of time, thereby causing the company to need replacements for them. Additionally, in regards to Cash's post, I don't see how this article shows how there is still a glass ceiling today, seeing as it was written around one hundred and fifty years ago. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
I liked how this document showed the want for women to work in the swiss watch shop because "women have proved their ability to execute the most delicates parts." Normally reading historical documents, it is the men who are wanted to work in a factory on a specific detail and now it shows Switzerland and France has pushed passed the gender stereotypes where the women stay home and dont belong in the working industry. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men ==<br />
The essay “Machines as the Measure of Men” uses technology and science as a gauge to compare civilizations. Adas argues that technology is the basis that leads a country into global superiority and hegemony. Technological advancement becomes the dividing point between different races and classes and people strive to label the growing gap between the dichotomies of civilized and poorly developed people or countries. But there are different kinds of technology and advancement, some can be in regards to industry or efficiency, others strictly leisure, medical, or cultural. Some are more overlooked than others. I feel like the essay also, ultimately, divides technological progress into a west vs. the rest dichotomy. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Good comment Jessica. I am going to harp on the same sort of thing from this article. I didn't think about technological superiority giving a country a leg up in colonization of other less technologically advanced countries, but this article proves otherwise. Yes, it makes sense that the less developed/industrialized countries will probably want to buy goods from the industrial power houses, but I didn't think about the fact that they could also be forced/coerced into doing so. -Elle<br />
<br />
I truly enjoyed this essay I found it very insightful and hypocritical when it came to the European’s views of their superiority. Europeans and Americans saw themselves as the “lords of humankind” they decided that they were superior to all other nations due to their scientific and technological achievements. They also believed that the measurement of scientific and technological achievement is the gauge by which non-western societies might be evaluated, classified, and ranked. When I read this I thought to myself, “isn’t that cultural”. I was happy to see that a few paragraphs later, it was stated that this gauge was culture bound and biased. The essay went on to talk about how writers at that time followed ideology, and how the railroad because the key symbol of superiority. I really liked this sentence, I think it is very telling, “The assumption that it was desirable for humans to master nature and that the scientifically minded and inventive Europeans were best at doing so led many authors to the conviction that it was the destiny and duty of the Europeans to expand into and develop regions occupied by less advanced peoples” (227). Based off this ideology, I found it really funny when the essay made a turn to show that once the Chinese and Japanese developed their science and technology, they were still considered inferior! In fact, the Europeans were afraid that the Chinese would capitalize off their new technologies and take jobs from the Europeans. I think Jacques Novicov had it right when he said that industrial achievements of the Japanese demonstrated that they were the European’s equals. However, Europeans refuse to accept this, they argue that they are imitating Europeans and will never reason logically like a European. I find this essay truly representative of western thought. Is it just me, or do we still hold this ideology of superiority true to this day? I personally think that we still, to some extent, measure superiority based off of science and technology. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
While there were many aspects of Adas' article that I found intriguing, I'd like to focus on the historic timeline that he addresses. For centuries the Chinese and Arabian cultures were the most technologically advanced civilizations. The former remained isolated while that later expanded under the guise of religious evangelism. As the technological and scientific advances of these cultures reached Europe, the "Age of Exploration," and "Industrial Revolution" among other trends jump-started European advancement until these nations became technologically superior to the "eastern world" which became inherently "backward" from the European perspective. Recent technological advancements through industrialization and the rise of the "Age of Technology" in the 21st century have enabled these "backward" countries to now outdo the "western world" of Europe and the United States. Yet, it seems that each of these periods of "advancement" came at the steep price of losing valuable cultural identity traits. This begs the question of whether or not technological advancement truly leads to a better, superior way of life or whether it leads to the corrosion of cultural values and principles. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
== Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management ==<br />
The problem of greater National Efficiency is always a problem from the workplace to the government (i think anyway). I can't blame some workers for slacking when the people who are not doing much are getting paid the same, but I guess the question is how do you get everyone working together at the same rate of production? I would think "initiative and incentive" plans would work, but some people would get pissed because they may be doing their best and still not get incentives and that may cause an uneasy tension at work. Planning out all work is ok, and does work because I have done it. It does get boring and there are ways to get around or cut corners on the everyday, and make management think all is getting done. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how new ways of management, a non-mechanical idea, could have just as large of an impact on the workplace as the development of something more concrete. Although, he points out many times that in the new system “the management must take over and perform much of the work which is now left the men; almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could,” (273). So if the management is taking on all these new responsibilities in directing their employees, what did they do before? <br />
Also, the source “An Engineering Student Instructs a Laundress” kinds of points out how little changes in procedures can make a big difference in time management and efficiency. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The way Frederick Winslow Taylor described the system of “soldiering” or loafing certainly makes it seem like the workers were extremely lazy. As someone who can appreciate hard work, I automatically had an adverse reaction to that, thinking that owners weren’t asking for too much when they expected their workers to actually do their jobs and be paid accordingly. But then I questioned Taylor’s description of soldiering. Were the workers really that lazy? Was he exaggerating to so his own system of scientific management, which essentially turned humans into automatons, would be accepted? Taylor’s comments on the laborers reminds me of Henry Ford’s comment during the Great Depression about most men being uninterested in a hard day’s work. Harsh. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Transitioning these ideas into the context of the modern world, I found it surprising that this issue of worker productivity has not come into the forefront of national politics in the wake of fierce global competition. In the preface to this article, the publisher mentioned that Taylor's ideas led to a government ban on the monitoring of time utilization. I'm curious if government policy regarding this has changed since that era. - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Frederick's The New Housekeeping ==<br />
I found Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" particularly interesting. Frederick argues that by approaching a woman's housework in a scientific manner, she will become 'liberated'. Improving the efficiency of her work would thus remove drudgery from her everyday life. However, I couldn't help but think the exact opposite. By forcing a woman to adhere to rules, regulations, and schedules in her everyday life, doesn't that constrain her within the home even further? By applying scientific management to simple housework, it removes a woman's ability to think and act on her own without being restricted. Frederick also claims that women are "fleeing from housework into professions and outside work" and "refusing to assume the burdens of motherhood". However, I think a woman would rather have the choice between working inside or outside of the home. Applying scientific management to their everyday home lives would further restrain these women to the home. -Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
I was thinking the same thing about using the scientific method in the home and how that would take away one of women's only freedom to take care of her home how she wants to. Yes being efficient and getting things done is great and may give some free time to explore other interests, but keeping on a shedule would become boring and if it were me I would end up stopping it. I can see it as having a positive effect on the workplace where there is many people and alot of work to be done. I have myself planned out the next day's agenda for the custodians I used to lead, so they knew exactly what was to be done in how much time. It worked out, and made me see who was slacking and who was good.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
I do not totally agree with Aislyn's statement though I can not totally disagree either. Efficiency and schedules are both good things in their own manner. One can live their life by a schedule and still be efficient, although many times people do not agree. For example with your custodians, if you gave them a list of 5 things to do and they had 8 hours to do them and they got the list done in 6 hours, would that be categorized as being efficient or as being careless, and not spending too much time on each assignment from the list. With that being said, I do not think that a person should have to live their life by the same schedule day in and day out because than it risks workers becoming bored and not doing as well of a job, this is why changing assignments is not a bad thing because it mixes the schedule up and does not allow workers to fall into a routine which bores them.--Marren<br />
<br />
Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" was interesing. Frederick believed that using scientific management to perform simple household tasks would make everyday life within the household run smooth. The fact that she took time out of her day to figure out how many minutes it took her to complete daily tasks is interesting. Was the use of scientific management in everyday task supposed to give a mother more time with her child? What exactly was it supposed to do other than have a person finish cooking and cleaning as quickly as possible? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Frederick's application of the scientific method of housekeeping is an intriguing topic. It is true that decreasing the amount of wasted time in daily cleaning and maintenance tasks could lead to increased production. Yet the scientific method fails to account for the human element within the equation. It's highly unlikely that an increase in time will lead to one being willing to work longer and harder. Some individuals are highly motivated to accomplish their assigned tasks and do enjoy their "jobs," yet it seems more likely that increased free time will lend itself to an increase in time lavished upon the self and his or her family. Other articles and documents that we've read affirm that workers generally only work as hard as they need in order for their families to survive. Thus, while Frederick's application of the scientific method of efficiency is intriguing and could yield great results in an idealized world, it may have had little impact on the daily lives of women. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
Frederick’s essay about employing scientific management in the household just makes you feel bad for those poor middle-class folks, doesn’t it? Those lucky lower-class families didn’t have to worry about keeping up appearances and entertaining friends. Of course, something tells me that rather than being plagued by the drudgery of constant household chores and wasted motions (and having enough time to think about it for that matter), lower-class women were more worried about earning a living, where their next meal was coming from, keeping a roof over their heads, and other basic survival needs. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found this article silly in some parts, yet very intelligent in others. In regards to some of Frederick's comments, they seemed somewhat trivial and self absorbed, particularly when referring to other classes. However, Mr. Watson did raise a valid point in addressing the complaints of some women about not having free time. His idea's would most certainly reduce the time taken to do tasks and would allow for more free time for women. In response to Lon and Aislyn, I would point out that the husbands of many of these women worked in factories, where they had one task and one task only that they performed for ten hours or more a day. At least some of these women could have different tasks to do and if they were able to finish them quickly enough, have free time to pursue their own interests. -Brian Brown<br />
<br />
== Other documents of Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
I find myself in agreement with the articles against Taylorism. In the "Aresenal Workers Strike, 1913," Maurice Bowen writes that the use of a stop watch "is humiliating and savors too much of the slave driver." I agree with this statement. Forcing people to work at their maximum limit for long hours will not necessarily make for better wages for the employees. - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
To be fair Melissa, I think workers' rights were pretty low on the totem pole at this time. As is stated in point two on page 280, everything these workers did was standardized, and "common laborers are used." The shop owners simply wanted a means of cheap labor. I think they were probably counting on their workers breaking down and not meeting the bonus. And really, if workers underperformed, it is not as though their job was so specialized as to make them necessary. Every worker at the factory was expendable. Not to say that this was right, but I guess just...explaining the rationale? -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
While "Indian Canoe Makers vs. An Efficiency Expert" is about the change in factories to make things run quicker etc. I feel it is also a document that describes the decline of traditional customs, in this case for Native Americans. When a traditional craft like canoe making, quilting, instrument making etc is made in factories and taken out of their original setting, cultures that were associated with them start to decline as well or get replaced. Often times, as seen in the article, the new product is not made to the same standards as it originally was. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I don't know what it was about the Laundress article, but for some reason it just kind of made me laugh. It all seems like such common sense information, like shortening the walk and using a cordless iron so you're not so limited. It all just makes sense so it kind of makes me wonder, why didn't people think of this before? I know it's kind of a ridiculous question, but I mean, it all seems like such basic stuff. I guess it's that whole "hindsight is 20/20" thing. -Kelly W.</div>Mwroehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_4_Questions/Comments325--Week 4 Questions/Comments2009-02-05T03:27:26Z<p>Mwroe: /* Primary Sources on Steam, Space and a New World Order */</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 />
I agree with Danly's conclusion that the railroad has come to represent a deeply held longing for a picture frame view into the beauty and uncertainty of American nature, while also representing the destruction of the Indians and the spread of many social and environmental problems. Artwork changed over time as these ideas ebbed and flowed throughout American consciousness. Thus it seems that many people used art to express these notions as the railroad represented different definitions of what is "America" or "American." -Bryan Lees<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 />
This article defiantly shed more light on the concept introduced in Douglass' essay. It can be a good thing to have certain skills as a slave. However, having a skill can not always be a good thing. In this particular article, having a skill really seemed to benefit Dew. I wonder how many other cases were similar to this one? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
This may seem kind of naive but I never thought about the different forms of punishment based on slave skill. Normally when we're taught about slavery and the ways masters punished them when they misbehaved or something you automatically think of whipping or beatings. But realizing how valuable skilled slaves were and how detrimental it could be if you harmed a skilled slave is something I had never thought of. It makes sense to want to try to keep them on your good side so that they remain a financial asset. -Kelly W.<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<br />
<br />
The Plenty Coups memoir stuck out to me the most out of all of the articles. You see a lot happening in that one trip east -- you get a glimpse at how horrible road conditions were during early travel (especially out west) when Plenty Coups mentions the muddy ground after/during the rainstorm, and how much quicker it seemed to be on a train than in a coach. Although it was maybe going only 25mph, it obviously was much more convenient and that is evident in Plenty Coups discussion of "outdistancing the birds." But you can also see how the railroad almost became a tool for the white population of America to expand westward. It was a machine that entranced the Native American population (much like rifles earlier on) and it was almost a way to manipulate them into saying "sure thing, go ahead and rip my tribe to bits and build track on my land." It's interesting to see how much was actually going on at this time and what all resulted from this railroad craze. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
These essays about RR expansion gave my thoughts a different view on this time in American history. In class on tuesday gave me the impression that all was well with the RR expansion and that there were really no negative effects. Either I didnt focus on them or wasnt listening to it. The Plenty Coups Travels to Washington took my attention the most. The Native Americans were aware of what was going on and had an open mind towards it, but then in the end the Americans ruined it. It is more than an issue with the technological growth but as well as a disappointment to the Americans taking it so far. They had plenty of land, but took what belonged to someone else. I feel terrible for the Native American to work with the President on an issue and keep the agreement, but for the President not to follow through with his word is a disgrace. --Maggie Wroe</div>Mwroehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments325--Week 3 Questions/Comments2009-01-29T02:41:51Z<p>Mwroe: /* Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore */</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 />
<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 />
== 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 />
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 />
<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</div>Mwroehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--Week 2 Questions/Comments2009-01-22T05:19:00Z<p>Mwroe: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Native Americans and Technology Transfer ==<br />
<br />
I found Kupperman’s article to be interesting in that it compares what the perception of technology would be between the English and the Native American’s. It is clear that the English felt that their technology was superior and that they did not consider the agriculture which they took from the Native Americans to be something of a technological advance. Though their way of life clearly depended on the settled agriculture they took from the Native Americans, they were very reluctant to credit the people who introduced these methods. Instead they believed it was a product of their land, an almost inevitability, and it took the English tools and “industrious men” to turn the land into something profitable. It seems that the difference that arises is in how one interprets agriculture as a form of technology. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
The article “…much good might they receive from the English,” talked about how the Native American’s first perceived the new technologies as they were introduced by the English. It kind of gives you an idea about how different technologies may be received differently as they are transferred from one society to another. It also reminded me of a movie I watched in a sociology class, “The God’s must be crazy,” which was about the culture shock of finding a coke bottle in the desert. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The Europeans who wrote about Native Americans respected the technology that the Natives had developed, but it was generally thought that Europeans had superior technology. However, the colonists were basically surviving off of food from the Indians. In the introduction of Kupperman's essay, the question is asked how European technology could be glorified while at the same time acknowledging that survival depended on the crucial aid of the Native Americans, especially with agricultural methods. I thought it was interesting that Europeans could maintain their position of superiority and I speculate that it might have something to do with the racial or cultural differences. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found the subject of European, in particular the English, superiority in the first reading section interesting. I have done more research on the settlement of Latin America and saw many differences and similarities between the two. In William Wood’s excerpt, he describes the Indians as being lazy and “fettered in the chains of idleness.” He believed that with the addition of English aid and modeling, the Indians would be “more industrious.” The lazy attributes of the Indians were described in Latin American sources as well. One thing I do not believe they mention in the readings is slavery. How did slavery play a part in the colonization and the technological advancements or changes of North America? <br />
Playing off that and Karen’s comment, there is also no mention of racial differences between the Europeans and the Native Americans. Although it may not have been considered an important addition to this book, I believe that those differences drive advancements in various cultures. Religious differences are mentioned, but only to show the Indians becoming more European and “cured” of superstitions (p. 30). I also find it interesting that the differences are not mentioned in Karen Kupperman’s essay. I just feel that the Europeans obviously found themselves superior and were not going to admit the whole extent to which the Indians improved their technology.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I was absolutely fascinated with the fact that Native Americans seemed to value and appreciate technology more so than their colonial counterparts. In Governor Nicholas Denys on the Micmac, the Native Americans were said to give up valuable furs and robes in exchange for relatively simple European technology. While, I am not surprised that colonists took advantage of them, but my interest came from the Native American satisfaction with these transactions. This account provides a unique account of the Western "fascination and fast paced adoption of ingenuity"'s independent presence in a culture rooted in much different values. I think it speaks to technology as a part of the human condition -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I think Religion is an important part as Kirsten mentioned - particularly the burial tradition described in _____. I think it is important to notice the superiority complex that the English had in all aspects of life - religion, technology, civilization, etc. Something that I felt came through in most of these first readings is that there is a clear correlation (at least to the authors of these pieces) between modern technology and civilized society. The "savages" had intricate old methods of carving out a canoe that worked perfectly well for them. The english clearly looked down on these boats and "could scarcely sit without a fearful tottering." Overall - it seemed apparent that (in the eyes of the english) the english were new, good, and civilized, while the indians were simply outdated and silly in their ways. --Elle W<br />
<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read about European technology intertwining with Native American technology and vice versa. Canoes were adapted into the European culture and firearms adapted into Native culture. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I find it funny that one of the explorers writes about how foolish the Indians were to be living on iron mines without even realizing it. He goes on to say how “disadvantageous [their] ignorance and inconsiderate contempt of the useful arts is (34).” Obviously, he considers European technology to be superior, but then he sings the praises of the canoe. He talks about how light and quick and just plain amazing they are, yet he avoids praising the Indians who invented it. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== French ==<br />
<br />
My favorite essay out of the reading was Henry French's essay about tools and how they were used by people. I really enjoyed how he showed that the person and the task are very important when choosing the tool to be used. He continues on in his essay to tell how tools evolved by people using them for different jobs; this later led to the formation of industries that replicated the tools that were being made by individuals and later sold to many. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Another essay I found interesting was Irishmen and Spades by Henry French. He makes a good point in that different people work best with different tools for the same task. There is also a difference in the tools used for different locations. It seems as though there was lots of controversy about how to make tools better: if it was lighter, wider, if it was straight, if it was made out of iron, and so on. I think what I am getting is that people are always trying to make things easier and tools are constantly being changed, and manipulated to accomplish different tasks more easily. Based off of this, it is easy to see how large-scale factories eventually came into being. This caused a shift from producing for yourself, as described in A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, to producing for a market leading to increased trade and larger corporations. This shift is shown in Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures” but from this comes even more obstacles and an evolution into even more problems. With the rise of factories you have more problems as described in “Amelia,” Some of the Beauties of Our Factory System—Otherwise, Lowell Slavery. Based off of this reading I can see how technology makes things easier for some but often have repercussions for others. My mind goes to the shutting down of factories at home and the exploitation of workers abroad and the constant wars that are going on for resources. It makes me wonder if we are any better off today or if it is a continuous cycle. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I don't think I agree with what others have said about the French essay on Irishmen and Spades. Just because someone has never used a certain tool before doesn't mean they will automatically not be able to learn how. It is a bit unsettling that people would market specific tools to specific nationalities.-- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I agree with Lauren here, after all elderly people who grew up in a non computer, non cell phone era, uncolored television have learned how to not only use some of these newer technologies so why could someone not learn to use a tool. Being someone who works construction over the summer, I can personally attest to the argument that someone could pick up a tool and by watching someone use it teach themselves. I do not fully disagree that it would be challenging; however, I believe that it is unjust to give so little credit to these men working.--Sean Marren <br />
<br />
In response to the ongoing discussion about French's "Irishmen and Spades, 1859" I'd like to offer an idea that I think has already been inferred a bit in previous posts. While some people naturally do work better with tools best suited to their physical stature or to the specific environment they're working in, it seems natural to me that French, writing in 1859, would naturally have certain presuppositions and stereotypes of "Old World" immigrants. Irish immigrants and Irish Americans fought in the Civil War to protect their new homeland (North or South) in part to show that they were U.S. citizens. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that French may have presuppositions as to which tool is most efficient in the hands of people of different ancestries. A lot of it reinforces communal identity of what it means to be Irish, Scottish, etc. in the face of persecution for not being "American" and in attempts to retain communal heritage as socialization occurs. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I thought that "Irishmen and Spades: 1859" and "A Gentleman Farmer on Common Farmer's Tools: 1822" worked very well together. French explains in "Irishmen" that the spade was seen as incredibly vital to the farming of the time and location, tying into the supply and demand explanations of "Gentleman Farmer." The latter article also gave an interesting view on how farming seemed to be very by-the-book, down to the author explaining that there are specific tools to use for specific tasks. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Marx's "The Machine" ==<br />
<br />
In Leo Marx’s essay “The Machine” he is a clear advocate of the use of machine technology in the United States. He uses a speech delivered by Coxe to bring up many benefits of industrialization and argues why he believes it is a necessary aspect of American economy and politics. He argues that in order to maintain American independence the machine is necessary to increase self-sufficiency. He even goes on to say how the machine is this “root metaphor of being” and how it can be linked to the system of our constitutional government. I think it’s an interesting point because it shows how a machine doesn’t necessarily have to be something technical or mechanical but rather a system of how different parts work together to accomplish something. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be incredibly eye opening and it truly shows the progression of technologies and the affects it had on the population. The essay on page 63 by Edmund S. Morgan, A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, shows how much work and how many people were required to have a self-sufficient plantation. What is daunting is the Plantation Accounting from 1784 on page 64. It shows how difficult things were. You needed certain tools in order to make certain other tools. With this, you need increased labor which leads to the necessity for slave labor as well as skilled labor to produce the necessities.<br />
<br />
Leo Marx's essay was an enjoyable read. The essay was used to describe how the technological advancements that occured when America finally got their independence. Some founding fathers as well as some independent people of America were at first very sceptical with whole idea of machines and the thought of industrialization. Jefferson viewed machines as "human spirit liberation," but saw factories as "feudal oppression." -- Paul Kim<br />
<br />
== Midwife's Tale ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the Midwife's Tale. The fact that midwives made up a large part of the community's healthcare, not just with obstetrics, in the 18th and 19th century is something that is overlooked. Though scorned by many male doctors, midwives were needed for their homeopathic remedies, such as using herbs and common vegetables to cure a patient's ills, contrasting with the doctor's elaborate medicinal remedies. The irony of this is midwives were perhaps more sensible in their treatments than the so-called professionals of the day. This makes sense as many of the most basic tools that doctors use today, like the stethoscope, hadn't been invented. It was also nice to read about how one of the midwives attended autopsies and such, this of course being well before the Victorian age of restricting women due to their delicate natures. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I think it would have been really cool to be a midwife. Not that I would be able to stomach it, of course. But women put so much trust in them to deliver their children, the most precious thing to them in the world, and it's just miraculous how much they were able to do without the technology we have today. They were able to create remedies and medications with simple herbs and spices and seemed so advanced, almost, for their time period. They knew a lot more than I think we give them credit for. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the "Midwife's Tale" for the same reasons as Lauren. The extent of a midwife's knowledge is extraordinary. The paragraph in the middle of page 81 describes the job effectively and shows the range of knowledge Lauren mentioned. It states, a midwife "medicates the mysteries of birth, procreation, illness, and death. They touched the untouchable, handled excrement and vomit as well as milk, swaddled the dead as well as the new born..." Throughout the reading, I was surprised at their responsibilities, ability to multi-task, knowledge of medicines, and the cooperation with their communities and patients.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
== Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" and Edmund Morgan==<br />
<br />
<br />
My favorite essay this week was Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina." When we think about slavery, we generally associate it more so with plantation slavery in the 1800s working out in fields planting, weeding, and harvesting (unskilled labor). Yet this was not the universal case then, and especially not earlier on in the 1600 and 1700s. The notion that slaves were actually skilled laborers who had specific jobs that were vital to the success of their master's plantation makes a lot of sense to me- though I never considered it in great detail before. I think that the most interesting part of Wood's essay was his discussion on how many times slaves became apprentices (often to whites) for skilled labor and were then sold at higher prices to other plantations because of the specific skills that they had acquired. Again, it makes sense that whites would mention their slaves' skills at the slavery block, but it's something that I hadn't thought that much about prior to reading Wood's essay. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I really liked the essay of "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" because it proves how often people misjudge slave labor and consider them unskilled workers. Like the author noted, they were far from unskilled and without their know-how the early colonial period would have been far from what it ended up as. The colonists wouldn't have had any of the crucial knowledge they needed to cultivate crops like rice without the help of their slaves. - Kelly W<br />
<br />
The essay by Edmund S Morgan was very suprising to me. The plantation owner had everything he needed to keep the plantation alive right in his own backyard. The ideas to leave nothing behind and make it somehow useful, like the way the the plantation owner killed his livestock for food and then used the rest of the parts from the slaughtered animal and use it to make clothing out of. --Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I guess this is where my definition of technology might not be broad enough - slavery and techniques of planting/fishing, etc.? My idea of technology is pretty close minded and modern I think. I found it interested when Wood talks about the law against developing/finding blends of poisonous herbs. I think this is an interesting example of technology - since I think of tools and mechanical apparatuses, not herbs or skilled labor. This is definitely something I'd like to develop further. Someone please enlighten me. -- Elle<br />
<br />
== Rules and Regulations/Textiles/Working Conditions in Industries ==<br />
<br />
I found the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company, 1846 alarming. The prohibition of talking (with exception to work related topics) was especially shocking. It makes me wonder why workers weren't aware or more proactive about obtaining better rights? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The dichotomy between workers conditions and the development of new technology is fascinating. Although the products these workers make improve other people's lives (like the textile Mill 'Almira' worked in Massachusetts), the technology itself has put workers in bad conditions. Without this technology, are the workers better off? Or are conditions in other industries (like agriculture) just as bad as the conditions put forth by the development of mass industry? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The article on the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company was interesting. I found most of the rules were very restricting but the others like "no spirituous liquors, smoking, or any kind of amusement, will be allowed in the workshops or yards." The part about liquor and smoking makes sense for a conducive working environment. My question I suppose would be what exactly would "any [other] kind of amusement" be? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Did anyone else think the overly serious tone of "Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company: 1846" was a little self-parodic? No talking permitted except on subjects relating to their work? I understand wanting to make sure your employees are serious about their jobs, but this whole article just seemed like overkill to me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I’m trying to decide if the editors were being sarcastic when they wrote, “Almira’s criticism [of the textile mills in Lowell] is perhaps more muted” than Amelia’s. “Muted” isn’t exactly the word I would use to describe what Almira writes. It’s obviously propaganda for the company, particularly since it was published in the company’s paper. Amelia’s account is much more unpleasant (and more in line with what I’ve read about 1840s working conditions), and makes me wonder if Almira got a nice little bonus for writing that the joys of working in Lowell far outweigh the disadvantages. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Cross Article Observations ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that the issue of pride is evident in several of the articles. A culture takes pride in its technological advancements, taking credit and guarding the secrets of innovation closely. In the Irishmen and Spades article, the idea is expressed that the Irish spade is superior to any other and that none but an Irishmen could use it effectively. They take pride in the tool that they have developed and scorn other's attempts to use it. In Kupperman's article, Europeans refuse to acknowledge that Native Americans had developed equal technology to there own. People want their culture to be seen as superior and since technology is often a measure of success, each society wants to think that their accomplishments are the most innovative. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
To look at the readings as a whole, I really enjoyed how the advancements of technology and tools in general led to the formation of what we call American technology today. It is also interesting to think how different would our lives be today without these advancements in the technologies of the early Colonists and Native American's. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
After looking at all of the articles as a whole I would have to agree with what Jimmy has said and would also like to add that I think that is sad how reliant we have become on technology. When there is a cell phone tower down people freak out like it is Armageddon. It just makes one thing, is it possible that our society as a whole has become so technologically advanced that we can not function without the use of what we consider everyday technology such as a computer, cell phone, blackberry?--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
After reading all the articles I thought about them in an idea together. I focused, in my mind, on the olden way of thinking to get something done. In Alexander Hamilton's essay "Report on Manufactures" he stressed how he wanted the US to adopt the idea of an industrious economy and lists the benefits. In the essay " Native American Technology" Karen Kupperman says the growth of a nation depends on technology, and yet goes onto say the natives were not industrious and were prosperous. I liked reading the old-time thoughts of the people from the time before the industrial revolution, before technology became the obsession. I realize people are always inventing the 'new and improved' model and have been forever, but in the 19th Century is where the 'obsession' took off to the entire nation, which is what influences us now. -- Maggie Wroe</div>Mwroehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_1_Questions/Comments325--Week 1 Questions/Comments2009-01-15T04:07:03Z<p>Mwroe: </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<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be very eye opening for me, personally. I don’t think I was thinking of technology the correct way before the reading. I guess it is hard to say that there is a right or wrong way to view something as broad as technology but I do think that I had a narrow sense of the term.--Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Jessica brings up a good point with her question, and I can’t figure out based off of the reading what the answer would be. My instincts would tell me that a form of technology that is more widely benefited by a greater number of people would be more of an advancement than one that is considered “new” or “the best”. This is definitely something to talk about. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
The section "Masculinity and Technology" raises a couple of issues for me that I find very interesting. The author states that if one understands technology and has a skill, then one is truly a man. He explained that with the case of Frederick Douglass. Now, my first question is do we think that's a valid argument? Do we believe that people today still believe that you're wimpy if you don't understand technology? That you're not a real man? The next thing I found interesting was the notion that women are inferior and therefore should not be as technologically fluent. Technology has always been seen as far more masculine and a more manly skill to acquire. But with the dishwasher and the washing machine, and other such advancements, do you believe that the classification that technology = masculine is changing? Or does a large majority of society consider technology to refer to computers and other such items that the stereotype might not be different? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Langdon Walker's article "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" and Donald MacKenzie's article "The Social Shaping of Technology" address the premise that technology itself is not merely technical. Rather, "technological advancement" brings social, economic, and political consequences that often have negative repercussions for different groups of people often lost in the historical narrative. We view the latest technology as the "best" and often do not consider the how "advancement" might effect the way society progresses and develops norms (Robert Moses' parkway overpasses discriminating against the poor and minorities). Similarly, the development of the mechanical tomato harvester by the University of California in the late 1940s put small tomato farmers out of business and cost thousands of people their jobs. As MacKenzie asks, what are the characteristics and qualities that make a certain mode of technology "best"? Who benefits from these new additions? -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
In her article, "Problems with 'Skill'" Nina Lerman discusses the hesitancy in using words such as skill, sophistication, and intelligence. Lerman argues that these words carry loaded meanings that people often associate with one's social status, ambition, etc. The term "knowledge" seems better because it covers all types of technology (churning butter to locomotive operation). I find Lerman's argument compelling because I believe that we subconsciously and consciously label people based on their "skilled" or "unskilled" labor. Part of the reason that I decided to take this class is because I knew that there has to be more to technology than just the basic facts of its invention, use, etc. Technology can reinforce stereotypes, social status, economic position, and more importantly, the value we assign to one another as human beings. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The first reading helped me realize that I, and I'm sure others, thought of technology and its modern usage as an older term than it actually was, and that technology to my grandparents' generation meant something completely different from what it means to our generation. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
While I think Winner's article is relevant to the times, I feel the statistics are a bit vague at times. Yes the number of tomato growers have decreased from the thousands to hundreds but how many of them actually use this tomato harvester? And are the farms all big business companies? Also, in Mackenzie's article, I dislike the thought of having to ask "Best for whom?" Does this question really fundamentally matter? Can't something be just as good for someone as it is for another? Does something have to specifically be best for only one category of person or can one aspect of that thing be best for one person but another aspect best for the next? Just because a person is a woman (to use Mackenzie's example) does not mean that person will automatically agree on a technology with all other women. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I found MacKenzie’s discussion of “technological determinism” to be interesting. I think it’s a strange idea that there could be only one predetermined way for a technology to advance, and that it does so without any influence from society. I do, however, understand how the technology that succeeds could be considered to be “intrinsically” superior to the technology that “fails.” Hindsight is 20/20, after all. Of course, MacKenzie points out that it’s not necessarily superiority, but rather the early adoption of one technology and the improvements made to it that lead to creating a lasting technology. It sort of reminds me of the PC vs. Mac debate. Isn’t there talk about the PC dying out or something? If that’s the case, it’s likely that the Mac will be considered “intrinsically” superior by future generations. But then there are people who already think that. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Though the essays came from different disciplines, it was interesting to see how they overlapped. For instance, both the philosopher Winner and the sociologist MacKenzie argue against the idea of technological determinism. Historian Lerman and sociologist Latuor challenge the perceptions and handling of technology. Lerman feels that “technological knowledge” consists of simpler things than running machinery and computers, while Latour is disgruntled at the way science and technology studies are separated into categories by critics. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
There are also different interpretations of technology. Leo Marx believes the rise of technology is represented in the replacement of simple tools with electrically and chemically powered things, as well as the replacement of family-owned firms with centralized corporations. Lerman believes that haying and sewing, simpler tasks often learned from family, involve as much “technological knowledge” as operating heavy machinery and programming a computer. -Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
“Do Artifacts have Politics” by Langdon Walker and David Mackenzie’s “The Social Shaping of Technology” bring up interesting arguments revolving around dividing society and cultures. This is not a rule for new inventions rather should be viewed as an exception. Perhaps it is me having a biased opinion but I do not feel that technological advancements should be viewed as a bad thing or as a dividing tool for classes and feel that judging technology is unjust since it is there to help us as a whole and not hurt us.--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
As far as technological advancements are concerned I really do not see them as a bad thing. By this I mean I do not feel that inventions were not aimed at hurting people by cutting jobs as much as helping create a more efficient way of getting jobs done. Yes with technological advancements there is always going to be a positive and a negative; however, one can not look too much at the negative if the positive is outweighing the negative. With that being said, I do feel that as a society as a whole we are far more dependent on technology than we should be which is causing problems. Some people lose their minds if they lose their cell phone when in actuality it truly is not that big of a deal.--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
The idea that kept screaming out to me throughout the readings was the sterility of technology, despite (or perhaps due to) its innovations or deviations by the various cultures. Marx's explanation of technology as "no specifiable institution," and his seeming rejection of technology's importance to history evoke images of Blade Runner or Brave New World and their scorched earth destruction of anything remotely human. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Mackenzie's point about how everyone sees technology differently is completely unfounded without the generic nature of said technology. It is a wonderful catch-22 situation, quite honestly. We hate anything to be bland and dehumanizing, but we can't innovate on it unless it is essentially a blank slate. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the view that was taken on by the essays of what technology is really defined as. It opened my mind to what is really considered as "technology." In my mind technology is only what we use today, i.e. computers, internet. This has been taught to me through living my life, but what I have not realized was that technology is just about everything through time that has made our lives easier or allowing us to have a better quality of life. i.e. heater etc. -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed how the the term technology is defined differently as time goes on; how technology was seen in the early 20th century compared to the 21st century. New farming machines that replaced mules was seen as new technology in the 20th century. This compared to a laptop of today did not have a relation to me, but as I read these essays they showed me that these are all forms of technology that can be related to each other as a history. -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I really like the article about the Hybrids. It really struck me how true it is that everything sort of meshes together today. You can start a conversation about one topic and end up on something completely different through a bizarre way of relating ideas. It's kind of neat to me. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I read the text more focused as did that of Sean Marren. I can see his point of view on the advancements of technology a positive thing and to look at both sides to it the good and the bad. From the readings I thought more of the negative, mainly because that is the why I usually think of technological advancements, being less personal and dividing a person from society and the world around them. There was a time where I believe the new technologies were a positive addition to life, as in the 19th Century, but in the early 20th Century as car were becoming more popular it divided families at the same time as being a positive growth for society. The term technology used over time has morphed into completely different meaning, thinking from the reading, it opened my thoughts to more than just the ipod or video games.-- Maggie Wroe</div>Mwroe 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