Beach Haven

Bibliography
Winner, Langdon. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Review by Michael Beach
 
In this work, Langdon Winner considers a mix of nature and technology in the area of San Luis Obispo, CA where he grew up. In Diablo Canyon, as a child he had enjoyed the ocean and the occasional view of the whales as they migrated close to shore through the area. As an adult he visited again to take a tour of the construction site of a new nuclear power plant. Given his academic background reading “history, politics, and philosophy,” he found himself, “drawn, quite unexpectedly, to questions concerning technology” (Winner 1986, 166). Seeing the juxtaposition of the wild and the technical in close proximity in Diablo Canyon became a natural curiosity for him.

The first two sections include a review of some of the questions under examination in the field of the philosophy of science. While reviewing prominent publications along these lines, he progresses to consider how we tend to characterize newer forms of technology. For example, is the goal to ‘build a better mousetrap’? Winner considers decentralization of technological ‘progress’ and helps the reader sort through information about technology. How much of what we learn is factual and how much myth? How do we know the difference?

Langdon Winner finishes this book with a focus on exploring what we scholars of Science, Technology, and Society (STS) refer to as ‘boundary work’. In this case, what is ‘natural’ and what is not. He points out how some argue that when it comes to technological change, “this is the natural way; here is the path nature itself sets before us” (Winner 1986, 121). Still others contend, “what we are doing is horribly contrary to nature; we must repair our ways or stand condemned by the most severe tribunals” (Ibid.). Langdon walks through some of the major questions these two simple polarized perspectives unleash. What morals are in play here? How does one define what is ‘natural’ and what isn’t? Is ‘nature’ a pile of stock goods to be exploited? Is it something that requires taming through conquest? How much human intervention causes something to move between the boundary of natural and not natural? The ideas around many of these sorts of questions are considered by Winner.

From an STS perspective, Langdon Winner uses the use-case of how the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant contrasts with what was there before. He notes, for example, that prior to the power plant there were farms and orchards all along the coast, and they are still there. How natural is agriculture as compared to ‘wild’ vegetation? For me as a reader, the arguments are helpful if not clarifying. I think any time we intend to modify our world, such issues should be considered. At the same time, we can’t be so concerned about changing anything that we are unable to meet the needs of humanity. Power consumption is very real. Our modern Western civilization is dependent on it. Nuclear energy is less of a pollutant form, unless there is some sort of unintended accident in the future. Then it can do more damage than alternative methods. Nothing is free impact or free of risk. Winner asks for consideration while exploring limits and balancing benefits and impacts. 
​

Bibliography
​Good, Katie Day. 2019. "SIght-Seeing in School: Visual Technology, Virtual Experience, and World Citizenship in American Education, 1900-1930." Technology and Culture: The International Quarterly of the Society for the History of Technology 98-131.

​Review by Michael Beach
 
The focus of this article by Katie Day Good is the language and arguments used to extend the use of audio/visual media in the early part of the 20th century from the homes of those who could afford it into the schools as a form of education enhancement. In 1928 Anna V. Dorris, then the president of the National Education Association (NEA), urged teachers to reject “formal and bookish” instruction and “explore the pedagogical potentials of newly available audio and visual devices” (Good 2019, 99). This idea seems to inspire the play on words of the article title. Instead of site-seeing, as in going to a site to see it, the media bring the sight of a site to the classroom, hence the idea of 'sight-seeing'. One is not seeing the site, rather an edited and controlled image of the site.

After WWI the United States “began forging a rhetorical link – what cultural studies scholars call an articulation” (Good 2019, 101). The idea of forming an articulation between school instruction and “an emerging ideal of ‘world citizenship’" (Ibid.) can be linked to a push for the organization of the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, that was forming around the same time. Isolationism as opposed to world entanglements had been a debate from the very founding of the United States. Here, NEA leaders, federal government, and manufacturers of media devices chimed together using similar rhetoric, if not similar motivations. The tension over how much international involvement should our country take on is still in headlines today. The idea of using educational media to help students understand other cultures through virtual tours in the classroom also continues, even it the technology has changed. Good points out that, “The historical association between classroom media use and the acquisition of worldly experience warrants attention in the digital and globalization age” (Good 2019, 103). She argues that such “discourses of global citizenship education, international connectivity, and the democratization of communication have helped smooth the way” of Internet deregulation and commercialization (Ibid.). She may have a point on commercialization, but one of the major attractions of the Internet is the considerable lack of regulation existing from its inception. Nonetheless, she essentially takes for granted the benefits pushed in the language she is critiquing and focuses on the way language is used to make the various cases with a resulting growth in classroom use of media for instruction.

One caution Katie Good does share is the potential of media to reinforce a Western world view and “reproduce colonial relationships through inequalities of representation and access” (Good 2019, 104). For example, through the ‘value of virtual travel’ depictions may be used to either encourage or reinforce “desirable behaviors in hygiene, health, and morality through stories and dramatizations” (Good 2019, 105). Desirable to who? Good shares some of the language used at the time. She quotes X. Theodore Barber as saying, the “heightened sense of culture and refinement surrounding [these] exhibitions attracted the ‘better classes’ as well as those who wished to be identified with them” (Good 2019, 107). The colonialism angle refers to using images as a “means of appropriating some distant place through an image” (Good 2019, 113). Just as in the physical ‘appropriation’ of some other people or place, the use of images helps form ideas about these ‘others’ through the lens of Western thought and interpretation, one of the hazards of ethnologists. These researchers do all they can to avoid ‘reflexivity’, but it’s safe to say the rest of us are not so aware of the issue or have tools to adjust our perspective under our own cultural view. Consider one of Good’s closing statements, “Consistent in the promotional rhetoric for all manner of instructional media was a dual emphasis on its ability to unify and uplift Americans around a common set of civic values while turning their attention to the rapidly changing world beyond their shores” (Good 2019, 124). As an author, Good is questioning if both of these stated goals can truly be accomplished together. Essentially, by espousing the first creators of media help color the second.
​

Bibliography
Hess, David J. 1995. Science & Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts & Artifacts. New York: Columbia University Press.
 
Review by Michael Beach
 
In the field of Science, Technology, and Society (STS) facts are associated as a product of science, and artifacts a product of technology. In this book, David Hess examines influences on and by the multicultural movement with regards to science and tech. The early chapters look at cultural construction of science and technology, later he reviews how science and tech help reconstruct culture. He essentially makes a co-production argument, but in terms of the recent multiculturalist perspective.

One specific example is the chapter looking at non-western medicine. Using the term ‘ethnoknowledges’, Hess considers knowledge systems. This approach is not unique to Hess. He documents several professional forums in the field including the Journal of Ethnobiology, and the Journal of Ethnopharmacology and Ethnobotany. Groups don’t get much more specific than that. I had not heard of either previously.

In his concluding chapter Hess makes a case for more emphasis in education on multicultural issues in science and technology. Speaking of a shift in American demographics he predicts, “that by the middle of the twenty-first century most Americans will trace at least some of their ancestors to a continent other than Europe. In the United States, as in many other Western countries, native-born white males today realize that they are going to have to work with women, nonwhites, and immigrants; they are even going to have to work for them, if they are not already doing so” (Hess 1995, 250). Among other concluding arguments he notes, “All efforts to increase equality and diversity through recruitment and retention of students in the technical fields are very important in the struggle to break through the glass ceilings that hold back certain groups of people. My concluding comments extend and compliment these efforts by focusing on the related question of curriculum reform” (Hess 1995, 253).

As a former employer (now retired) I agree diversity has a positive effect on organizations. I would caution adopting diversity for its own sake, but by broadening recruitment pools it is possible to both bring in quality talent and increase diversity. I’ve seen this firsthand over a career spanning nearly 40 years in the field of communications technology. Not that it matters, but here is my CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-beach-57a0a26/
​

​Bibliography
Covey, Stephen R. 1990. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo, Singapore: Simon & Schuster.
 
Review by Michael Beach

This is a follow-on publication to Stephen R. Covey’s 7-Habits work, which I reviewed some time ago. Many of the principles noted in this book were referred to in the earlier work, but here they are the focus and are better organized.

Covey describes alternate life centers as “work, pleasure, friends, enemies, spouse, family, self, church, possessions, money, and so on” (Covey 1990, 21). Our principles will be grounded on our focus. These alternate centers he groups in four areas: security, guidance, wisdom, and power. Our principles influence our life centers and vice versa.

After a brief review of the 7-habits and an explanation of this life-center framework, the rest of the book in general is an expansion of each of the ideas in the framework. He divides the book into two large sections. The first he calls Person and Interpersonal Effectiveness. The second he calls Managerial and Organizational Development. Toward the end of the second section he reviews another popular framework known as Total Quality Management (TQM). One prominent author of this movement was W. Edwards Deming. Covey maps Deming’s '14 points' of TQM onto his 7 habits and his principles framework. This book is a useful companion to Covey’s earlier work, and as before, includes practical examples from different parts of life, not exclusively business.

Bibliography
Steinbeck, John. 1937. Of Mice and Men. New York: Penguin Books.
​
Review by Michael Beach
 
The copy I have of this novella is modern, as in it’s a fresh copy. I’m not sure if novella is the correct term, but it’s bigger than a short story and smaller than a novel. I had heard the title in the past, but without knowing the nature of the story. It is set during the great depression. Two migrant ranch workers leave one town after having had ‘trouble’ there. George Milton and Lennie Small travel together to a new ranch in a new town for work. George is the 'smart’ one, Lennie is mentally challenged and physically large. Lennie is attracted to weak things such as mice and rabbits, but inevitably kills them by petting them to death. He apparently had some similar issues with a human girl in the last town they worked in, not killing her, but doing something inappropriate that got them ousted.

Now on the new ranch they run into issues with an overbearing coworker, Curley, who is the boss’ son, and his wife who flirts with all the workers. Lennie is given a puppy which, as with other small creatures, he eventually kills through being too rough with it. Curley and Lennie eventually get into a fight and Curley is hurt badly. Nothing really comes of it as he started the whole thing, but from that point on he looks for every chance to get George and Lennie into some kind of trouble. Eventually, Curley’s wife approaches Lennie when he is alone in the barn. When she learns of the death of Lennie's puppy, she flirts and invites him to stroke her hair. When she realizes how strong and rough Lennie is she starts to scream. He tries to quiet her but ends up killing her in the process. George and Lennie have to escape the mob bent on lynching Lennie. George attempts to distract the hunting of Lennie by participating in the search party. He knows where to find Lennie as they had preplanned a meeting place. George shoots and kills Lennie to spare him the torment of the mob.

There are all sorts of undertones to the story. One of the workers is black and there are tensions between him and the other workers. There is tension between the owner, the boss, his son, and the son’s wife when it comes to their interactions with each other, but in particular with the workers. Steinbeck captures the despair many felt during the depression, as well as the rough language used among the ranch hands. Readers should be prepared for that. His masterful writing style makes the way character inner-stresses display themselves in character interaction very believable. He captures what must have been a common fate among many who suffered the ills of the great depression.

Bibliography
Ferreira da Silva, Alvaro, and M. Luisa Sousa. 2019. "The "Script" of a New Urban Layout: Mobility, Environment, and Embellishment in Lisbon's Streets (1850-1910)." Technology and Culture: The International Quarterly of the Society for the History of Technology 60 (1): 65-97.

Review by Michael Beach

The authors of this article look at city planning from the perspective of ‘scripting’ in the form of planning documents, and ‘scribes’ comparing public and private efforts both in tension and compliment. During the specified time-period, Lisbon was like many other European cities with haphazard growth and poor technology. As a result, there was a fair amount of health and safety concerns for city residents.

Ferreira da Silva and Sousa show planning maps as issued by the city council during the 60-year window. With each plat the street layout and utilities change, but not as previous plats had imagined. The plat design is a form of ‘scripting’ and city planners are a form of ‘scribe’. At the same time, private interests had their own designs in mind. Developers would purchase tracts of land in and on the outskirts of town, then construct private streets and buildings, often ignoring city codes and plans. Private funds were available more quickly, and construction could be carried out for less cost when not allowing for street amenities such as sidewalks, pavement, lighting, maintenance and sewers. “Opening private streets was a refuge to avoid more coercive municipal bylaws and escape the slower street construction and infrastructure by the municipality” (87).

As one might guess, compromise became common. “Sooner or later, they moved in the public domain and the city council found itself saddled with streets poorly sized and cared for” (Ibid.). In one example, a promoter named Bairro Andrade “signed a deed with the city council… giving the terrains of the five recently opened streets in the public domain” (Ibid.). In compensation, the city council agreed to “plumb, pave, and illuminate them” (Ibid.). By this point, Andrade would have already cashed in on private sale of any of the property not deeded to the city, as well as he would continue to collect rents.

I doubt these sorts of fits and starts of city planning and development were any different in other countries, or in other times. Even today one hears of shady developers and negative aftermaths of unchecked building projects. At the same time, growth under strict government control tends to slow. Weighing this tension between safety and quality as opposed to quick financial returns are social factors that have a direct impact on technological decisions. That seems to be the main point of the article.
​

​Bibliography
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Review by Michael Beach

As the subtitle suggests, Bruno Latour explains the main discussion points in this specific framework. In the discipline of Science, Technology, and Society (STS), Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) is widely adopted in terms of how to view interactions of people, organizations, and artifacts in making policy and technology choices. Unlike some of the other social frameworks, Latour argues that the adoption and stability of a given scientific fact or technological artifact is a function of the strength of the networks that support them. For Latour, fact or artifact selection results if more actors (people) or actants (objects) interact on a consistent basis than competing facts or artifacts. If the strength of a network begins to wain in relation to different facts or artifacts, then a theory or technology is supplanted. Context for Latour is less important. Context may influence parts of a network, but contexts differ among network nodes (actors or actants), and they also change over time. He puts less weight to social factors that may seem stable in some ways. Instead it is how much actors and actants tend to support a given policy, technology, or scientific finding that will determine how stable it tends to be.

Latour argues “sociology has confused science with politics” (253). When discussing what influences a network, he further states, “it makes no difference if it’s ‘natural’ or ‘social’” (Ibid.). One way to think about it, when actants are involved, there is no ‘social’ effect on such. Natural resources are an example. Efficiency is more a question in terms of human use of non-renewable resources, yet renewables can be overtaxed as well. The resources themselves impact network choices but are not influenced directly by social forces.

ANT has been shown to have weaknesses that even Latour admits. For example, ANT does not consider non-users. When the cost of a specific technology excludes people living in poverty, there are perspectives excluded that might offer improvement. Lower costs and fewer options might add user count, especially if many of the options are not really used by purchasers of the more expensive versions of technology. How many channels of TV do people actually view of the hundreds they pay for through some service? Today we might think the song lyrics “57 channels and nothin’ on” rather quaint. Who has a service with only 57 channels? One could also argue that if ANT is less interested in 'context', wouldn't a network itself constitute a form of context?

Bruno Latour’s ANT lens can be applied to many aspects of life. Essentially he argues that facts and artifacts most supported by a network of people and things will win, even if they cost more, are less efficient, and not universally available. 

​Bibliography
Fairhead, James. 2015. The Captain and "The Cannibal": An Epic Story of Exploration, Kidnapping, and the Broadway Stage. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Review by Michael Beach

This is a true story. It is one of self-interested exploitation and failure. Captain Benjamin Morrell was contracted by a number of financial backers to conduct profitable sea travels to the South Pacific. He failed at each, and where he did manage to bring back cargo of any value, he absconded with it for himself. The only ‘prize’ he seemed to have any success with were two natives who were captured from separate islands in skirmishes with local people. Though neither were actually cannibals. They both spoke different languages from each other. He eventually brought them back to the United States and took them on tour in costumes that had nothing to do with their native apparel. They played as dangerous headhunters.

One named Dako learned English and became more like extended family, though never free to leave on his own. Morrell eventually returned him to his own people on a later voyage which also didn’t yield profit. The other native died while on the stage tour, and he never showed any ability with English and little is documented about him. On the other hand, Fairhead is able to share a great deal about the life and thoughts of Dako. The stories floated by Captain Morrell at the time drew a lot of attention, including that of the author Herman Melville. Dako become Melville’s inspiration for Queequeg in his novel Moby Dick.

James Fairhead captures interlacing narratives of sea adventure, scoundrel character, and the clash of western colonialism with indigenous people. Settings of a professional sailing vessel, the South Pacific, London, New York and New England offer varied cultures and social norms that clash in every way possible. The work is well documented and makes for a read that pulls one in. This is one of those case where truth is stranger than fiction.
​

Bibliography
​Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Translated by Mark Ritter. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Washington DC: Sage.

Review by Michael Beach

In this book, Ulrich Beck weighs in on ‘modernity’. There are camps that say we have not become ‘modern’ yet. Others are proponents of modernism. Still others argue in favor of Western civilization in terms of post-modernism. Beck states his intent. “This book is an attempt to track down the word ‘post’, alternately called ‘late’ or ‘trans’” (Beck 1992, 9). He makes it clear his point of reference is modernism and modernist perspectives on risk.

In this work, Beck tackles risk as it relates to wealth distribution, politics, class, the family, institution, and various kinds of standards to name a few. He finishes up with an important section on what he calls 'reflexive modernization'. For those who espouse this framework, rather than defining crumbling tradition as post-modern, they argue the rise of new traditions and institutions establishing a new modernism. For example, national level definitions are giving way to ideas such as globalization. New modernity advocates support more independence as divorce rates rise. They advocate for less dependence on religion and other traditional forms of social construct. Ulrich Beck is looking at how views on risk are shifting along with these social changes.  

In the end, Beck looks at science. In a chapter titled Science beyond Truth and Enlightenment he makes the case that risk views depend on “scientific and social construction” (Beck 1992, 155). He claims “science is one of the causes, the medium of definition and the source of solutions to risks” (Ibid.). He then offers four theses on scientization. Sociologists studying science have argued over definitions of scientization. To what degree of faith does one put into science as compared to other forms of knowledge creation? Lesser dependence on social factors in determining ‘reality’ increases dependence on science. Like many sociologist, I question total dependence on science. So does Beck, but he is less concerned about the degree of dependence on science, and more concerned with how the degree of scientization influences views on risk.

Beck’s comparisons between classic and reflexive views of modernism contribute to shifting views on risk. Views of both modernism and risk are not monolith. In the world of Venn charts, both views exist together, and individuals may accept both depending on their participation in different communities. For example, in the world of project management or engineering, risk is often associated with negative impacts to desired outcomes. There are actuarial spreadsheet approaches to calculate probability and impact of any given potential risk. These same practitioners may view social risk in their non-work lives more reflexively, accepting subjective meanings over numerical ones. Beck explores many such issues, but always within the framework of varying definitions of modernity.

Bibliography
​Guston, David H., and Kenneth Keniston, . 1994. The Fragile Contract: University Science and the Federal Government. Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.
 
Review by Michael Beach

This book includes multiple authors. Guston and Keniston are the editors. Each chapter examines some aspect of the relationship between scientific research and government funding sources. The classic challenge for academics is determining research targets. They can range from general so-called ‘basic’ science topics to very specific ways of employing science and technology. Although the generalized idea of scientists desire for unfettered research agenda and the narrow outcomes preferred by funders can be true, it is a very simplistic description. Many researchers are motivated by the financial and prestige benefits of patented discoveries. Also, there are funders more interested in general science than in marketable inventions. Another consideration is the widespread establishment of academic institutes associated with universities that act as both research facilities and business incubators.

Among the considerations some of the authors approach includes the idea of trust. Value-based words such as trust, integrity, and accountability are common in the articles. Actors most generally defined are researchers of various sorts, government and business representatives, and differing descriptions of ‘the public’. What motivates the funders? What motivates the researcher? What role do members of the public play?

The best way I can think of to share the flavor of perspectives is to list the chapter titles. They include - The Social Contract for Science; Universities, the Public, and the Government: The State of the Partnership; On Doing One’s Damnedest: The Evolution of Trust in Scientific Findings; Integrity and Accountability in Research; The Public Face of Science: What Can We Learn from Disputes?; How Large an R&D Enterprise?; Views from the Benches: Funding Biomedical Research and the Physical Sciences; Financing Science after the Cold War; Indirect Costs and the Government-University Partnership; Research in U.S. Universities in a Technologically Competitive World; Constructive Responses to the Changing Social Context of University-Government Relations.

As you can see, there are plenty of meaty topics here. In addition to the language of social values and scientific research, many authors cover aspects of sustainable business to help justify funding and research decisions. 
​