Beach Haven

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
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
​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. 
​

Bibliography
​Tallbear, Kim. 2013. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.
 
Review by Michael Beach

Kim Tallbear is one of my favorite authors related to my studies in science, technology, and society (STS). The title of this work is self-explanatory, but the topics she covered are varied, and certainly explores ideas new to me.

One of overarching themes relates to how human test material such as blood samples have been used in the past in ways not agreed to by the subjects. Often banks of samples and data are sold to companies that develop treatments or further databases that yield not only medical findings, but revenues that come with them.

Tallbear also looks at the accuracy of DNA testing to find one’s ancestry. Such services have become popular in the private sector. There are many reasons to hold such findings suspect, and Tallbear reviews some of the technical issues. In terms of Native Americans, many of the issues are more social than technical. For example, there are specific government benefits for people who can document a native ancestry. Likewise, there is risk to those who claim native heritage when DNA tests don’t support their claim. Another difficulty the author has with native DNA testing is how many people claim specific tribal affiliation based on results. In reality, tribes intermingled so much through economic and warfare activity that it is difficult at best to narrow DNA categories in this way.

The problematic aspects Tallbear raises about DNA testing can be more generalized in two area as she does. The first happens when science and business are tied to each other. She points to the example of the genographic project (mapping the human gene structure) and ‘the business of research and representation’. Others have broached how science represents ‘facts’. Ian Hacking looks at the same issues from a philosophical perspective. He refers to the issues as ‘representing and intervening’. Likewise, Sheila Jasanoff created an entire framework that includes the idea of ‘controlling narratives’.

Tallbear finishes with a look at governance. Who can decide what’s appropriate use and language? Once collected, who owns human genetic tissue? She shares other complicating questions that are still unanswered. Even with modernized legal documents about what sort of rights research subjects cede when they sign a specific document, court cases continue. For example, if a company purchases data or samples from an academic study, then creates large revenues from that resource, are donors entitled to some of it? What part does race play in subject selection? How do scientists define a specific narrow population? How much isolation is required, or intermixing is acceptable, to make the samples be representative of a specific population? As the reader might imagine, such questions can continue. These are ethical concerns for scientists, and often cause ‘native’ people to be unwilling to trust them.
​

Bibliography
Price, Don K. 1965. The Scientific Estate. London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Review by Michael Beach
​ 
For Don Price, there was a shift in America. The original philosophy characterized by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. He says there are two main ‘articles of faith’ concerning progress. The first concerns material benefits which “lead society to support the advancement of science and technology” (Price 1965, 1). The other basic belief asserts that advancement in science “would lead society toward desirable purposes, including political freedom” (Ibid.). Price goes on to speak of negative effects of science and technology such as the dust bowl, atomic bombs, and the great depression, all of which were at least influenced by technological and scientific decisions.

“So we are about to reach the point when both scientists and politicians begin to worry not merely about specific issues, but about the theoretical status of science in our political and constitutional system” (Price 1965, 4). Price refers to a government report by Vanevar Bush titled Science, the Endless Frontier. I’ve reviewed that document in the past along with several books critical of it. Price’s overarching theme is that science is intertwined with politics. Not only is there such a concept like political science, but also political issues have some sort of scientific perspective. If in no other way, sociology is a form of science that looks at how social issues and movements form and function. Noting such scientific fields such as physics and genetics, Price makes scientific revolution has more effect on political institutions than the industrial revolution. Here are three specific statements he makes that the rest of the book is based on.

• The scientific revolution is moving the public and private sectors closer together.
• The scientific revolution is bringing a new order of complexity into the administration of public affairs.
• The scientific revolution is upsetting our system of checks and balances.

Essentially, Don Price argues that economic and political power have become so close that he calls them ‘fused’. He also takes the position that both forms of power are inseparable with scientific change.
​

Bibliography
​Hausse, Heidi. 2019. "The Locksmith, the Surgeon, and the Mechanical Hand: Communicating Technical Knowledge in Early Modern Europe." Edited by Suzanne Moon. Technology and Culture (Johns Hopkins University Press) 60 (1): 34-64.

Review by Michael Beach
​
In this article, Heidi Hausse looks at a specific case of an artificial prosthetic hand designed by a surgeon named Ambroise Paré. He had a representation drawn in a publication called Oeuvers in 1575 A.D. In order to allow for increased circulation of the design, a wood cutting of the picture was created by a locksmith named le petit Lorrain. The cutting was then used to reproduce the technical drawing in many subsequently published medical books and documents. Hausse takes a look at the imprint made by the wood carving and compares it to similar printed carvings. She also explores what the pictures do and don’t convey, and who might make use of the drawings.

A couple of themes come out in Hausse’s writing. Although one might imagine the drawings would be of interest to other surgeons, in reality “artisans were a crucial audience” (Hausse 2019, 36). The technical knowledge transfer was more about replicating the apparatus than for post amputation recuperation of patients. As a result, “substantive exchanges of knowledge took place between artisans and learned men” (Hausse 2019, 37) that might otherwise not happen due to cultural status difference. “The role of craft production in the initial creation of the image allows us to consider its purpose in Paré’s surgical treatise from the perspective of an artisan” (Hausse 2019, 47).

Another theme relates to how historians sometimes question the effectiveness of the early printing press to convey technical knowledge. “Many historians have been skeptical of the printing press’s impact on the transfer of craft techniques” (Hausse 2019, 52). One reason given is the interspersing of words and numbers to clarify graphics which are readily understood by technicians, but less so for surgeons. Another reason for skepticism is that “manuals contained either too little or too much of the information needed for a task, and often omitted practitioners’ tricks” (Ibid.). Finally, such sketches might contain mistakes. A few numbers pointing to specific parts didn’t match the accompanying terms. Finally, the documents many of the people creating the documents didn’t understand how the apparatus worked. Think of those in the supply chain to bring the documents about such as “translators, editors, artists, and printers” (Hausse 2019, 55).

Some of this same skepticism might be leveled on similar modern technical documents. Perhaps the difference comes in how easy documents can be published, then corrected and republished. One point that is a common argument among sociologists of technology is the need for tacit or practical experience, that written documents are just not enough. Just think about how many times you’ve may have opened a cookbook only to understand that some of the process for adding ingredients is not always clear. Watching videos with chefs creating the same dish can be helpful, but nothing can be a substitute for making it yourself.