View source for 325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments

== General Questions/comments ==


The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South.  The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine

I found it really interesting that in the introductory readings in the first chapter, we read about the ways in which power came to symbolize much more than power, without going too much into what that meant for society. Part V of Chapter 5, with its focus on the social construction of the American power system, focused on non-commodified aspects of electricity, in its uses in wider society. I also saw an interesting parallel, related to what Kyle said above about "civilized people," between the bar for civilization among peoples and the bar for civilization among First-World individuals themselves, with farmers being lumped in with "less civilized people," deprived of electricity and without the capacity to handle it--supposedly.-  Nicole Steck

The way Nye writes it seems that he is surprised that the US took so much longer to get to United States electrified. Why? I mean, the United States is so much bigger than all of Europe combined that it seems like common sense that it took longer for the US to be electrified. -Megan Mc.

== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==


An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them.  Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit.  With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased.   --Sara Krechel

Going off of Sara's point, I think that electricity did increase perceived safety. I don't think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they're going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn't actually safer. --Meagan B. 

I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it's hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. 

In regards to Meagan's comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off.  There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same.  - Matthew Beere

To add to Sara's point I would tend to agree that the general safety of electricity has increased in regard to city lighting.  There are many positives when thinking about what good lighting can do in a heavily populated city.  This could lead to less car accidents and possible crime.  Back home in New Jersey, I grew up in a city where there was a decent amount of crime.  The lighting at night definitely helps in regard to crime.  Civilians could spot out a crook a lot easier for police.  -Jeff R.

To think that this was the beginning of Broadway is really important.  The "white way" is seen in pictures from the time period, but also you can tell where the most people would be.  The movie industry was also benefiting from electricity, as well as artists and many other people and businesses.  Electricity cultivated the social aspect of everyday life.  When they cut the lights off for a couple of days people requested they be put back on, maybe out of fear that their respective social lives would suffer.  Now people who live near large lighted signs use shades, especially at night, to combat the light.  I wonder if the social aspect of our lives changed when they “turned the lights on” or would it have happened naturally? -- Pam Petzold

I was very interested to read about how private investment, along with social, political and economic interests played such a heavy role in determining the development of the electrical system. Had electricity been more of a state-sponsored endeavor, it may be that it wouldn't have become a conspicuous commodity in its earliest stages (being used in the houses of the rich and for display) and may have made it into the average household sooner like it did in Europe. This did, however, allow it to be centralized and standardized more quickly, which helped it grow and spread more variedly. - Scott Birney

Nye’s mention of Times Square is important because it describes the effect that electricity had on American culture.  He notes, “The tourist came to Times Square not only to see the brilliant lighting, but to witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness” (Nye 69).  The lighting was such a marvelous sight that tourists came to that part of Manhattan just to see the lights; electricity was such a phenomenon to the American people.  He also mentions the later tradition of New Years Eve at Times Square.  Nye comments, “Times Square thus became a ceremonial space filled by a vast crowd from every conceivable class and profession, reduced to momentary equality as they marked the passing of time” (71, 73).  The fact that the invention of a lighting system became a public spectacle proves the innovation of electricity and its influence on society. 
–Samantha W.

To add to Meagan's point on electricity in the world's fairs, I found this portion of the reading interesting. Nye states: "In a time when the nation was in the throes of rapid industrialization and urbanization, the word's fair was a shapely actualization of order whose displays could "take people out of their ordinary routines and thus remove them temporarily from their usual positions in the social structure"(34). I feel this is very similar to christmas lights, when we see the lights, it takes us to a winter wonderland and we escape if just for a moment. -Matthew Slagle

== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==

Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine

There were issues with the trolleys operating on Sundays, or the Sabbath.  Even the courts could tell that the people were changing their habits and customs.  Can you imagine if we were not allowed to drive on Sundays now? It is also amazing that these families were spending up to 20% of their income on these streetcars.  The streetcars were supposed to assist people, but they were becoming a problem.  Strikes and safety issues were 2 of the main problems with the streetcars.   People were being hit and dragged by the trolleys and overall safety was becoming an issue.  There were many strikes at many of the streetcar companies and scabs were getting hurt, either by stoning or being assaulted, by the striking worker. -- Pam Petzold

Personally, I would have never thought that the trolley would lead to amusement parks.  I have been to parks in Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia and never knew that trolleys at first lead to "trolley parks".  It is evident that back then companies began to use this form of transportation to their advantage to make money.  People in the growing middle class now had a means to get away for a day.  More than 100 years ago, these parks had fireworks, concerts, dancing pavilions, and picnic grounds.  Sounds like Kings Dominion to me.  Besides transportation to these parks, the addition of electricity allowed for park owners to keep the lights on for visitors at night.  These parks became attractions for the fact that people could stay out later, thus earning the park owners to collect even more money.  It is surprising to see how quickly electricity was able to be used on such a large scale.  -Patrick Kramer

I thought it was extremely interesting that the streetcar is one of the main reasons that Sunday changed from a day to rest to a day of “restless activity.” Along with expanding the work week, the street car allowed new areas of real estate to open up and have the working class leave the congested city and move to a suburb. The streetcar alone had a great amount of influence in the growth of the middle class.  On average, most citizens (including both men & women) in big cities rode the street cars between 230-265 times in one year (and 340 times in San Francisco!). Streetcar became the focus of political controversies due to the fact of safety and the amount of resistance at first. However, once it became such a huge part of urban life, people were able to really use the service, with providing better opportunities in entertainment, business, education, and many other factors. -- Megan Gallagher


What is really interesting about this chapter is that people had the same congestion problems in big cities as we do today. It seems that anywhere there are mass amounts of people in a little space these problems will come up. However, the description that Nye gives about the conditions makes me really happy that electricity came about. I wouldn't want to be walking in streets with manure. The smell must have been horrible! However, I think this chapter also highlights something we have been talking about in class. Basically why some technologies were adopted, and others weren't. Nye discusses the trolley cars and talks about how the idea of it has been around for a while, however it just wasn't used because there was no perceived need for it. (page 88) It wasn't until someone came along and found a way to make it profitable that it became adopted. Which I guess relates to Kyle's point about electrical cars, they had found a safer way to start them with the use of gas. Because of that, gas became used, however if someone found a way to start cars with electricity (by not winding them up basically) would we have the same oil concerns we have today? And before I go further into the what ifs, I will just stop. - Jenn

== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==

This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine

An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer.  Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete?  These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased.  The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity.  However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today.   Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel

Nye mentions how technology improved the work of farmers and how productivity increased.  Technology also had an effect on the family life of the farmer.  Nye claims, “A TVA study showed that electric lights added two to four hours a day to a family’s potential working time, giving them more flexibility in planning the day’s activities . . . . Refrigerators retarded food spoilage and improved the family diet” (323-24).  It is important that eventually electricity was not restricted to the cities because its use in rural areas increased productivity on farms.  However it also was beneficial in factories.  As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, the use of electricity in factories made it possible for machines to run longer and the factories did not have to be built near rivers.
–Samantha W.

I found the most interesting part of this reading to be the comparison between American and European electricity principles. The Europeans were all for getting electricity to every home, especially to rural homes, while America was set on private initiatives. Nye states, "American government only pointed to the problem, and expected farmers to organize and secure electrical service for themselves," (p 288). Why did the government leave it to the farmers to deal with this alone? Why was electricity so easily accessible in urban areas? Why were rural areas readily able to accept new technologies, but when it came to electricity it was not as important? And once again we look back to man vs. nature when Nye states, "From the viewpoint of conservative critics, rural electrification meant more than sanitation, comfort, and higher production; it threatened the balance between man and nature," (p. 290). Man already new how to deal with nature agriculturally, they had been doing it now for centuries. But when you alter how man interacts with nature, you may have created another problem all together.--Claire Brooks

I like the idea that "electricity should kill every danger of frost." They seemed so hopeful of the new technology and yet farmers still deal with frost problems. -Megan Mc.

I think that speaks volumes of the late 19th century mindset that technology and science can explain and then solve any problem. They thought, just as many people today think, that technology is the panacea of the world's ills. Perhaps it is, but it is as limited as a person's ability to apply it to solve the problem; then how do you solve the problem that the last solution caused?--JWolfe

== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==

In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people.  You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special.  Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn't take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere

In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society.  As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either.  What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). 
>>> Mike Roche

"Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country". So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say "water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation.  So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to "keep up with the times".  This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage.  -Jeff R.

I found it extremely interesting how when electricity was first being introduced to the public it wasn’t seen merely as a great innovation that would make life easier, but was actually expected to catapult society into a utopia. However, I then examined the differences in life before and after electricity; what would it be like to live in a world without lights powered by electricity, and then to one day have someone inform you that you would be able to light your home day and night? That your city would never get dark and that you could now perform an array of household tasks more much more efficiently and quickly? Are there any parallels to the present day in terms of our high hopes for technology? Doesn’t it seem like every new Apple product markets itself as the most wondrous creation the world has ever seen? It seems as if we as a species are never content with the technological innovations we already have. We are constantly looking forward, hoping that the next innovation will make us happier, and more efficient people, instead of utilizing the tools that are already at our disposal. From the reading, it seems as if people were emphatic about electricity for a short while, then quickly accepted it to be a common part of their everyday lives. There aren't very many people living in the United States these days who rant and rave upon entering a room and turning on a light bulb. On page 186, Nye describes how the public eventually saw electricity as an everyday right, and not something to be thankful for. Most of us wouldn’t even be able to make it through the day without our cell phones, Internet, and iPods. Do we ever stop and think about the electricity powering our homes and appliances? Isn’t it about time we stop praying to get a new iPad or Droid and instead be thankful for the innovations we already have at our disposal? If we don’t, we will always be looking for the “next big thing” instead of appreciating what we already have. Then again, some might argue that the need for constant progress and improvement is simply the nature of technology and innovation. Will there ever be a day when common light bulbs are rendered completely obsolete? Is it inevitable? Are the only truly great inventions and innovations the ones that stand for hundreds of years? ~Kevin Gottschalk

Kevin's idea of being thankful for the things that we have is spot on. It is important have gratitude for something as commonplace (nowadays) as electricity. Anyone who has been without power for days at a time can attest to the awesome power of flipping a switch and having light and the incredible impotence of flipping the same switch during a blackout and having nothing happen. But isn't the pursuit of innovation what leads to greater discoveries? If no one wanted an iPad, Apple wouldn't make one. Capitalism is driven by supply and demand; innovation in a capitalist system is based on the market for that item; no market, no iPad. More importantly, even the simplest things that we take for granted wouldn't exist if we didn't have need/desire for them. The commodification of inventions (as demonstrated by electricity) is what keeps inventors inventing and along the way, purely as a side effect or afterthought, maybe makes the world a little better.--JWolfe

One of the most interesting things that I found from this reading was the quote, "As could be heard in everyday metaphors describing the body as an electrical machine that could be overloaded, burned out, recharged, and shorted out." (p. 184) It reminded me of two things, one being the McEvoy reading about the ecological approach to industry and how the worker's body is the biological core or the industrial ecosystem. It also reminded me of the constant man vs. nature issue that we have been seeing all throughout this semester with the new technologies that are produced. Nye's, and the general public's metaphors really can show the importance of the growing technologies in America through this time. But going back to the main question of what is electricity, is it a commodity? This brings up Nye's statement, "One consequence of defining it as a commodity was that most farmers were excluded from the electrified world." (p. 184). The majority of Americans at this time, I believe I read were farmers, thus the majority of American were without electricity, and all because the electricity at the time was privately owned. --Claire Brooks

Electrification in America was in no way an easy or “natural” process. It shaped every aspect of American life involving social, political, and technical interactions. American electrification was primarily a private enterprise, and because electricity was privately owned, it had to make a profit. Adding electricity in homes only allowed the upper class Americans to begin electrification and eventually as time progressed, electrifying homes slowly spreading on. Nye mentions in chapter four that “Electricity was not a mere matter of profits; it helped to define modernity, progress, and physical and social well-being.” – Megan Gallagher

Since its “invention” the American electric system was primarily part of the private industry (139). Unlike the electric system in Europe which was developed in the context of a welfare state and was often public, the American system was focused on gaining profit. This went hand in hand with other privately owned major industries, the telephone, the railroad, and the telegraph, industries that in other countries were state controlled. The private utilities in America were better equipped to pay for the costs of electricity and so the government’s role became primarily to regulate utilities (140). In America under the private system of ownership the majority of American farmers obtained electrical service only after the intervention of government run programs. 
	The public opinion on electrification was complex and there were differing views. “Electricity was not merely a matter of profits; it helped to define modernity, progress, and physical and social well-being (141).” Businessmen institutionalized electrification as a commodity, the general public initially viewed electricity as an “enlivening” juice that would help to turn America into a Utopia, and the technical elite saw electricity as a tool for social improvement (182-183). -Kathleen Mead

I feel like electricity started a culture of its own, or perhaps started various cultures of its own. I also feel that electricity, like so many other items in American culture, started out as nothing but a large picture in how to make this as profitable as possible. Yes, it ended up shaping American culture into the "social well-being" as we look on it in retrospect, but this was a for-profit venture. So I have to ask, is this a pattern that we'll encounter with every invention, or is there anything that was truley made for the good of American kind?         ==Stephanie Lipscomb