Beach Haven

​THE CULTURE OF AI
By Anthony Elliott
Routledge, 2019, 246 pages
​Review by Michael Beach
 
The work is subtitled “everyday life and the digital revolution.” Despite the futuristic robot image on the cover page, Elliott looks to more contemporary practical implications of AI, some of which may be scarier than the stuff of sci-fi movies.
 
Elliott does address robotics such as how technology and automation are growing in the workplace, along with some of the social and economic impacts of that trend. A less flattering look of ‘digital life’ is around our tendencies toward narcissism. Technology can inspire these tendencies. For example it may be more important to some to take online actions to increase follower counts, than to let go of the keyboard and have personal interaction with others. As a reviewer, I was certainly forced to ask myself the question about why I feel a need to publish a review on our family website about each book I read. So far I have resisted the temptation to similar things on other platforms, though I do have a public presence on several social media apps.
 
In the book, Elliott takes time to explore some of the potentially sinister aspects of AI such as automated so-called bot actions, surveillance, and even military applications. Concerns over stalking, bullying, and exploitation by the sex industry express how cyber and robotic tools can enhance the negative parts of humanity. He takes a look at each of these uses of AI and societal impacts as well. Despite the negatives, he gives similar space to positives such as increased capabilities in healthcare, remote communications, crime fighting, and democratic processes.
 
Technology and society are co-productive. Both are ever more mobile. Each cause the language and thought patterns of the other to evolve. Despite all the life enhancements tech and AI bring to modern life, I’m still an advocate of occasional unplugging. I believe it helps us be more human.

THE MIND HAS NO SEX?
WOMEN IN THE ORIGINS OF MODERN SCIENCE
By Londa Schiebinger
Harvard University Press, 1991, 355 pages
Review by Michael Beach
​
Feminist Historian Challenge to the Definition of “Scientific” Activities

Despite a few noted exceptions, most women during the so-called scientific revolution period in Europe were not admitted to universities, academies or scientific societies. The degree of acceptance depended on location (Schiebinger, 1989). Italian scientific organizations in Bologna, Padua, and Rome allowed women in all sorts of roles, including positions of leadership (ibid 26). In France, involvement of women was more likely to be in salon discussions hosted by socially influential people. In fact women were often the organizers of this form of intellectual pursuit which included thought leaders of both sexes (ibid 30). German science was more economically motivated and social leaders tended to see scientific advance by women through the extension of rights under guild rules. As an artisan or business owner they could perpetuate their roles after the death of their husband (ibid 66). A noted exception was Maria Winkelmann who helped her husband create all sorts of calendars by collecting astronomical data. After his death the Berlin Academy of Sciences chose not to allow her to continue, even in a less elevated role of Assistant Calendar Maker (ibid 90).  English science seemed even less welcoming to women in any role beyond working as an assistant to a male counterpart, often her spouse. French style salons were frowned upon by English gentility (ibid 32).

Alternatives did include attempts at women’s academies, though the idea didn’t catch on so well for lack of patronage. Monasteries offered opportunities for study and contemplation, but did not tend to have a scientific focus, rather a religious one. Many women participated in science through art, recreating through drawings what could only be seen under a microscope, or preserving specimens through the injection of wax (ibid 29).

Carolyn Merchant included philosophical argument sharing views of groups concerned with metaphysics (Merchant, 1980). She spoke of the internal/external argument by sharing views of philosophers often considered as external to science, though she does not speak to individual female scientific philosophers.


Katherine Park confirms Joan Kelly’s argument of their having been no renaissance for women (Park, 2006). Kelly was more focused on women and science. Park notes Merchant offers more of “the generalist vision in the history of science” (ibid 489). Merchant depicts less about the specific effect on women scientists, and more on the metaphor of nature as female. That said, Merchant (214) does describe Hobbes’ atomistic view of equality as “meant for middle- and upper-class property-holding males” (Merchant, 1980)


Specific Examples of Institutions, Practices, and Areas of Knowledge


Despite all the challenges, women were able to make significant contributions. Scheibinger’s work shares examples through the entire book.  Margaret Cavendish married into a noble network of scholars. She worked primarily in isolation from other women, but became a thought leader in the atomistic philosophy. She lauded occasional attacks on rationalists and empiricists of her day. Emilie du Chatelet worked in close contact with Voltaire. Through him she was able to intermingle with many Newtonians of her day. She was able to use her social position of privilege to intermingle with the scholarly. Maria Sibylla Merian combined her artistic talents with her husband to create businesses. She gained notoriety through creating and selling art depicting nature of all scales. Maria Winkelmann became an astronomer by learning first from her father, later largely through partnership with her second husband Gottfried Kirch (Schiebinger, 1989). Though her major work was originally published by Kirch under his name, in a later publishing he gave Winkelmann credit (ibid 85).


Mainstream Scientific Culture Described as “Masculine” Rather Than “Gender-neutral”


Carolyn Merchant speaks to the evolution of nature from mother/womb, to untamed woman to be ‘penetrated’ in order to understand it, to the self-revealing woman, then finally to a non-woman mechanical cosmos (Merchant, 1980). These definitions came from a male perspective in the attempt to understand nature through the cultural definitions of womanhood. However Merchant only mentions one woman, Margaret Cavendish (ibid 206). She is incidentally depicted as one of a group, the rest are men, of English Royalist emigres in France with whom Thomas Hobbes associates himself while living there. The focus of the section is really on Hobbes’ mechanistic view of the cosmos and nature.


The Mechanism of Hobbes shows a default assumption of paternalism. Merchant shows how atomism would mean that all nature is the same, or equal, since everything is a result of atoms in motion. This even included the “human soul, will, brain, and appetites” (ibid 205). Despite the equality this stand should define, yet in Leviathan Hobbes describes a family in terms of a father, children and servants. Mother is not mentioned (ibid 214). This social depiction comes despite the argument that a child’s mother is always known, but the father is only known by the confession of the mother.
​

One way Schiebinger depicts the masculinization of science is to share how Kant describes the difference between the sexes through how each understands (Schiebinger, 1989). “Kant associated woman’s ‘beautiful understanding’ not with science, but with feeling.” He further argues women come to their philosophy “not to reason, but to sense” (ibid 271).
BibliographyMerchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Park, K. (2006). Women, Gender, and Utopia. FOCUS - ISIS, 487- 495.
Schiebinger, L. (1989). The Mind has no Sex? London: Harvard University Press.

MICHAEL POLANYI AND HIS GENERATION
By Mary Jo Nye
University of Chicago Press, 2011, 405 pages
​Review by Michael Beach
 
Through the personal history of Michael Polanyi, Mary Jo Nye helps readers through the growth of ideas around how science is influenced by society. The subtitle helps to understand this; ‘Origins of the Social Construction of Science.’

The idea of community relates to groups of people, and how people within the group influence each other. Nye, through Polanyi, makes the case for ‘social construction’. Social implies community. Construction implies group influence. Before reviewing Polanyi’s theoretical loss to Langmuir on the Nernst heat problem, Nye paraphrases Polanyi’s views on the outcomes. She depicts his views as a “controversial description of science as a community of dogmatic traditions and social practices rather than a march of revolutionary ideas and individual genius” (Nye 85).

The word community shares the word root of communication, which implies interaction. In the scientific world, individuals or groups of scientists communicate ideas through formal and informal methods. The community reflects back acceptance or non-acceptance (sometimes both) equally through formal and informal methods.

Chapter 3 in particular shows some of the downs in the up-and-down scientific career of Polanyi. It is probably fair to say he was surrounded by, and was part of, a community of some of the leading minds in chemistry and physics of his day, and of all time. The comment and reflection of that community not only influenced success or failure of his career personally, but also determined future directions of the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

A key example Nye gives is acceptance of Langmuir’s ideas of covalent and electrovalent polar and non-polar bonds over Polanyi’s adsorption theory. Several times she quotes Polanyi as he points to comments by Einstein, Nernst and others indicating that adsorption did not fit with new electron theories (Nye 109). This difficulty held true even given later “consistency of evidence with his new theory” (ibid). The community put more stock in ideas that supported the more recently accepted electron theories almost exclusively. Such was the power of scientific community.

Michael Polanyi’s work with Henry Eyring regarding a temporary transition state of chemical reactions might be seen as a foreshadow of his own transition state as he changed focus from chemistry, to economics and politics, finally settling on the philosophy of science.

The position taken by Polanyi and Erying defines the semi-empirical method in which experience is considered along with mathematical formulaic calculation. An element of probability is included in defining chemical interaction. Based on empirical experimentation, they posited when joining one chemical to a compound of two, the result is a different compound and chemical. They also asserted that during the transition process there is a temporary state in which a single compound composed of all three chemicals exists.

During his time in Budapest and Berlin, Polanyi was focused primarily on chemistry, but there was always some smaller amount of his time in which he considered, and wrote about, economics and politics. After moving to Manchester, the balance of his attention shifted the other way. Others in the chemistry department complained about this attention shift. He put less and less time into the daily lab effort. He even used a concocted chemical apparatus of a vacuum-containing glass to make a graphic explanation of his ideas on Keynesian economics (Nye 159).

Nye argues that Polanyi’s economic preoccupation was a “bridge to his sociologically inflected philosophy of science” (Nye 176). If this ‘bridge’ idea is true, then the original state might be thought of as science, since chemistry is a branch of science. It could be argued that both economics and politics have sociological and philosophical foundations. The mix of all of these areas of contemplation led to the final state of his new ‘intellectual compound’ within the discipline of the philosophy of science. During his 'transitory state', Polanyi was not fully based in science nor the social sciences, but some shifting level of each. The resultant ‘compound’ of the philosophy of science was not the same as the beginning ‘substance’ of science nor the transitory ‘compound’ of science, economics and politics.
​

​THE AMBITIONS OF CURIOSITY
By G.E.R. Lloyd
Cambridge University Press, 2002, 175 pages
 
In this work Lloyd contrasts learning in ancient Greece and China. There is a deep look at both the methods of patronage by those in authority, as well as the emergence of brokers who connected scholars with patrons. He also reviews how technology was view differently in these two very different cultures.
 
I wonder if there is a form of codependency between the documented cycles predicting future events in the Chinese publications described by Lloyd, and the emperor and courtiers whose reputations rode on the outcomes. For example Lloyd points out that when a predicted event does not occur it is thought of as a sign that the emperor has special power to hold back the event, but if an event happens that was not predicted it was thought indicative of neglect of some sort on his part. It would be fair to assume, as does Lloyd, that if the emperor looks bad it would go poorly for his wise men who were supposed to help him know these things. Whereas events were supposedly dependent on predictableness and the strength of documentation, so too was the emperor likewise dependent on the strength of the documentation.
 
Similar metaphysics existed in Greek culture in relation to the Pantheon. Omens were both feared and sought after. Courtiers, or ‘wise men’, at times were from religious institutions, other times specifically non-religious. In either case, when patronage was attached to an adopted school, the professors of a given school (theoretical if not an actual institution) were personally at risk.
 
Many parallels can be drawn from today. Academics often study and publish at the behest of authority, public or private, in the form of grants or stipends. Science itself can sometimes bear the brunt of poor findings. Case in point could be the example of early believe there was little risk to humans from so-called ‘mad cow disease.’ As we now look at the latest wave of COVID-19, perhaps we should continue to both consider how science ‘progresses’ and how the same structures that encourage the scientific path might also limit inquiry.

HOW USERS MATTER
Edited by Nelly Oudshoorn & Trevor Pinch
MIT Press, 2003, 340 pages


Most Significant Arguments

The work How Users Matter is a compilation of papers focused on the ideas of how users of technology and developers of technology influence one another in their decisions about technology. Likewise, a number of the papers also speak to non-users of technology and what might put them into a position of non-use. Much of the relationship between user and technology development is shown as co-constructive. For example in Christina Lindsay’s piece, From the Shadows, referring to TRS-80 users she speaks to a sort of migration from that conceived initially by a technology developer, to those that actually take up and reshape the technology as users. I this case she starts with the reflexive user where the developer and user are one and the same so the technology matches the person creating it. Then the configured user who is defined or limited by the construct of the technology. Finally a projected user where the developers imagine the persons tastes, motives, etc. All of these are at the beginning of the technology release process. Then the “real” user steps in, with the technology in hand, and may comply with the notions the designers had in mind, but many do not. In fact many reshape the technology. They even can form user groups that work together to reshape the technology and its use.

This idea of user groups like the TRS-80 group is another important theme that was iterated in a number of the papers. Some of these groups are like the friks and Raners in the Laegran article, Escape Vehicles. In these examples the users form a sort of self-help collective to share information and spark ideas among themselves. They also find identity and community among like-minded people. Then there are the user groups acting as spokespeople in the Parthasarathy article, Knowledge is Power, and the work by van Kammen, Who Represents the Users?. In these examples there are interested parties who are users (patients), but then they take on more of a leadership role in structuring, to one degree or another, policies based on their interpretation of the respective user community. One good example of this was the difference in how the US and UK patient advocacy groups approached actors in the policy and development portions of a system/network around genetic testing, the BRCA gene technology, in the Parthasarathy work. The US groups like the NBCC and BCA felt they were more knowledgeable than the average patient and wanted to limit access to and use of the BRCA testing. In the UK the GIG felt that increased access was in order. These groups sprung up from volunteers who coalesced into a formal advocacy group. The US healthcare system differed from the UK healthcare system in that the US version is/was dominated by private medical research and insurance companies and the patient groups generally do/did not trust that these companies would have the patient’s interest ahead of profits. The UK system is primarily a government run medical system and is more trusted by the patient groups. This is how the article explains the difference in approach.

Comparison with Other Readings

The idea around community or group representation does not seem to be in the Cowan article, Consumption Junction. She certainly advocates for putting the user at the center of the network with ever-widening concentric rings showing different provider groups. The center is the user or type of user in the household domain, then out to retail suppliers of the finished product, then wholesaler, producers and governmental regions. There are groups that are supposed to represent the user, for example a government agency is supposed to somehow be mindful of the consumer needs, as are the retailers, but she does not focus on the users themselves forming any sort of formal group to either co-identify, or to speak on behalf of the user community. Her model allows for such a group in terms of an option to place them onto one of the network diagrams, but she doesn’t focus on how such a group might influence, or be influenced by, the other actors in the user-centric network.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The Users book and the Cowan article seek to define the network of technology creation from the perspective of technology consumption. I really like this approach in that creators of technology will either ultimately consider if and how their technology is used or they will fail. Many do consider this, but get caught in a trap of considering the user at the beginning of development then stop once the technology is “publicized”. That said, in the case of the TRS-80 the technology was preserved and shaped by the users even through the company didn’t do much with it, and eventually discontinued the line. None the less, Tandy did eventually fail with the TRS-80 if their goal was about gaining a large user base and continuing sales.

Most of the articles admit that every user is different, but then still make efforts to categorize both users and non-users. For example Wyatt puts non-users into groups with titles: Resistors, Rejecters, Excluded, Expelled. These ideas about grouped non-users are helpful, but it doesn’t allow for those who may move from category to category, or are in more than one category at the same time. Wyatt does speak of non-users who are former users (Rejecters and Expelled). She also speaks about non-users ability to become future users. Each of these groupings implies some sort of knowledge by the non-users about the existence of the technology. If they never even knew a technology existed, could they be in one of these non-user groups? Would we have to create another non-user groups called “Unaware”?

Aside from students of STS, I would think the works would appeal to policy makers, advocates, technology designers, technology planners and historians. I could see interest in those who also look into behavioral economics. It’s an interesting field where researchers try to understand how people make every day decisions, including how they spend their money.
​

​WHO WROTE THE BOOK OF LIFE?
By Lily E. Kay
Stanford University Press, 2000, 441 pages
 


​The subtitle to Kay’s volume reads A History of the Genetic Code. It might better be thought of as a history of the creation of the genetic code. Genetics and the acids forming DNA and RNA existed before human discovery of them, yet Kay makes a point throughout the book as to whether they are expressions of a code. In fact there is a great deal of debate about the analogy of a code that has solidified, and likely narrowed, scientific thinking about the building blocks of living organisms.
 
Kay also walks the reader through the often bumpy history of scientists involved in the organization of scientific thought concerning DNA. Like many sociologists and historians of science, recognition of social factors in scientific discovery continues to grow in acceptance. There are purists who also argue that the facts of science are what makes up science and the context surrounding discovery is not important. Others, like Kay argue context defines discovery, and even can create facts that later prove less factual. This debate of the social construct of science is a central argument of this work by Lily Kay. Is knowledge something we discover, or something we create?
 
Kay disparages the use of code/book/words/etc. as having validity in terms of DNA sequencing. Yet uses many of these ideas (scripture, the Wor(l)d, etc.). Early in the historical record she notes how biological specificity was the guiding principle of genetic study until the language of information and code began to shift scientific approach. Kay notes the raw data grows and is still in research, and despite large investment, genetic therapy is slow in coming. Despite this, the hype encourages social change: alters employment practices, family planning, educational policies, insurance practices, investment portfolios, and cultural attitudes.

INGENIOUS PURSUITS
By Lisa Jardine
Anchor Books, 1999, 444 pages
 

​This historical look at the ‘scientific revolution’ centers on seventeenth century Europe. Many of the most-well-known scientific personalities came to the fore in this mix of philosophical and political upheaval. Jardine helps expose overlaps among fields such as science, engineering and art. Sociological influences point to advantage and disadvantage depending on the culture of the country in question, the gender of the scientist, and how funds availability promoted and detracted efforts.
 
The heart of much of the story of this era circulated around scientific societies. Some of these were formal such as the Royal Society in London, Academie Royale des Sciences in Paris, or their equivalents in Germany, Italy and other countries. Informal societies also influenced who could participate. For example, Salons of wealthy patrons in Paris became a focal point for many women to share their scientific ideas and discoveries.
 
Newton, Kepler, Wren, Hobbes, and others interact across society and political lines. Jardine shares many instances when scientists of warring countries still managed to share information about discoveries. In a few cases such sharing brought charges of spying, but by and large knowledge sharing was encouraged among scientific practitioners. Personal jealousies sometimes encouraged the opposite. Jardine depicts a number of such rivalries and the effects on the scientific community.
 
The stories and topics Jardine shares flow well. The work is readable and the personalities of number of notable ‘characters’ makes for an interesting realistic look into the process of knowledge discovery. In this case the word characters can be taken quite directly, as Jardine even includes a section toward the end she dubs Cast of Characters.
 

FASCIST PIGS
By Tiago Saraiva
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2016, 326 pages


Most Significant Arguments

In the book Fascist Pigs, Tiago Saraiva puts a focus on agriculture as a technology that influenced decisions made in the Fascist leadership of Italy, Portugal and Germany from WWI through WWII. The work also notes how Fascist philosophy guided decisions by agro-geneticists and breeders. As a result of the experience of low food supplies and dependence on other countries for food, these governments each came to a vision or goal of being food independent. That led to a search for breeding programs of plants and animals that would have desired characteristics in the given country. Geneticists took their signals from leaders and focused efforts along the path of seeking “elite breeds”. When some success was had, the ideas expanded to such application on humans as well. That led to the horrific effects of separating races and “defective” people for “elimination.” Laws were passed to encourage or pressure farmers to participate in programs. There were military interventions to ensure compliance. The language around agro-programs used mystical and militaristic language such as “Battle of Wheat”. Nationalism was equated with farming through language as well such as plants, animals and people being “rooted in the land”. Ultimately selection in each area was approached in the form of pedigrees and performance tests. Interestingly, in most cases there was difficulty ensuring/documenting pedigrees. For example German pigs were sometimes not documented through enough generations to make the official requirement, so scientists began to gather data through eugenics. Similarly when recruiting SS soldiers the effort to establish an applicant’s genealogy was often not possible, so verbal acceptance of SS values and satisfactory performance in training was sufficient.

All three countries also grew through colonialism in eastern Europe and throughout Africa. Such colonialism justified managing breeds, sending "pioneers" to occupy lands, and subjugation of local populations as cheap labor. 

Comparison with Other Readings

One area in particular stood out to me. On page 116 Saraiva discusses the mix of “Front Pigs” meaning successful breeders who produce the preferred specimens, and “subsistence breeders” meaning those who produced pigs that did not meet the preferred standards. This made me think of readings comparing technology innovators with maintainers. Russell and Vinsel (see attached file below), for example, mention that when it comes to technology maintenance, typically effort is 2% preventative and 98% repair, meaning maintenance is viewed of less value. Even if Germany didn’t achieve the level of innovation they targeted (meaning preferred breeds of pigs or potatoes) it would be interesting to understand the comparison between the number of compliant pigs compared to the “subsistence” pigs.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The linking of strategic approaches to agriculture with a country’s overall strategy makes for a strong argument. In particular showing agricultural and political outcomes from overarching philosophies brings some clarity to me as a reader. Throughout the work Saraiva draws attention to the “uniqueness” of this line of thinking (comparing the technology of agriculture with the philosophy of government). Pointing out the uniqueness of the argument sometimes comes off as criticism of other historians in general for not having come to similar conclusions.
​
I like linking of seemingly unrelated areas to show truth. Patterns can reveal truth, and I think that approach could be helpful in my future papers. Others who might find this line of thinking helpful could be government strategists, scientific ethicists, political philosophers, and maybe cultural anthropologists.
​

RELOCATING MODERN SCIENCE
By Kapil Raj
Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, 285 pages


​
The subscript to the title reads: Circulation and the Construction of Knowledge in South Asia and Europe, 1650-1900. The author offers historical examples to support essentially two hypotheses. The first is that when two cultures interact, the science of both hybridize with each other, they co-construct. Each then evolves differently before and after the interaction. Traditionally western businesses look to expand into additional markets, or to gain new trading partners. In the historical period in question, each European country had some version of an East India Company that sought to exploit India and surrounding states. The belief was that the 'contact zone' such as the Indian Ocean region was a source for information. The science was happening back at the European society, then diffused or disseminated back out to the contact zone. These western countries inevitably expanded trade into some form of colonization.

This idea of science diffusing from west to east also spurred the other major argument Raj has. Western countries had an inherent mistrust of data gathered by 'locals' rather than data gathered by European scientists. He shows that even when western, essentially white, scientists are present, the real information still comes from local scholars, often in writings that already existed before the 'explorers' even arrived.

Two-Way Flow of Scientific Knowledge Between Europe and South Asia

In the reading, Kapil Raj gives examples of how Indian knowledge and expertise contributed to scientific accomplishments. These accomplishments were then brought back to Europe as a form of hybrid science. This assertion is in contrast to the tradition argument of the diffusion model where contact zones are areas where data is extracted to inform science that happens in the west, then diffused back to contact zones. Raj shows how knowledge from the west mixed with Indian knowledge to form a new sort of knowledge that was further adopted differently in both Britain and India. Each knowledge base was different from each other, and from what existed before the cultural interaction. This is because people are mutable, and they make process and knowledge likewise mutable. Science, then, is a function of situated values, norms, sociabilities, divisions of labor, regimes of proof, etc. (228) Contact zones implement co-constructive processes of negotiation.

One example, the interaction between French and Dutch botanists with locals in Orissa and Malabar which brought about two studies, the Jardin de Lorixa and the Hortus Malabaricus. French and Dutch actors learned local botanical and medical knowledge from Fakirs through pre-existing indigenous books. Both resulting works were largely ignored for various political reasons such as Antoine de Jussieu’s personal issues with Nicolas L’Empereur. Eventually additional actors looked at the information in more market-oriented terms and the value of the two works were revisited.

Mapping efforts in India by James Rennell in the 1780s, and Thomas Montgomerie throughout the 1860s to 1880s are further examples. Both used western approaches to train locals in surveying efforts, but worked with the locals (Pundits) to adopt approaches based on local needs. In the case of the Pundits working for Montgomerie, use of traditional western instruments caused negative repercussions by mountain peoples who saw the work as spying. To adjust, Montgomerie adopted Pundit bodies as instruments using pace counting in place of survey chains. In one case when Nain Singh was pushed to ride on an animal, he adjusted the stride count from his own body to that of the animal. When western cartographers questioned the process it was later shown this approach to be more accurate than some other western attempts using scientific instruments alone (215-216). This approach also often kept the human 'instrument' from being killed.

Mapping efforts started with economic goals in mind (defining farm lands or trade routes). Eventually these goals gave way to political goals, such as when the British government took advantage of French and Russian wars, coupled with fear of a potential Russia-China pact, to militarily secure Himalayan trade routes. Despite the success of the mapping effort, the exploitation attempt went poorly in 1904 when British forces killed 5000 Tibetans, then left without any real gain. In this sort of example Raj calls cartography ‘politics by other means.’ (185)

Credible Witnesses

Given skepticism by British scholars who never left the comfort of the Royal Geographic Society, Raj points to efforts by East India Company (EIC) officials to inspire trust in efforts at knowledge generation by a blend of British and Indian scholars. One way they did this was to create colleges in India where EIC officials were sent to learn local information such as language and geography. Locals were simultaneously taught western science, sometimes separate from their British counterparts, sometimes in the same classes. The more the EIC western students learned from and interacted with locals, the more they came to trust them and convey back to England the trustworthiness of generated information. In fact it worked so well there came a time when Indian scholars were brought to England to teach similar topics in British schools.

Indian scholars were able to share their own theoretical/mathematical ideas which seem to work better than the experimental learning encouraged by instruments shared from the west. (179) Western math books were quickly consumed by Indian scholars, and then updated with additional new Indian mathematical discoveries.

​MORE WORK FOR MOTHER
By Ruth Schawartz Cowan
Free Association Books, 1989, 257 pages


Most Significant Arguments

In More Work for Mother, author Ruth Schwartz Cowan links changes in domestic work with changes brought about by technological advancements. She speaks to the separation of labor into work for women, men and children. As technology makes tasks easier, or even not needed, Cowan notes how most of the advancements replaces work done by men and children. Those technologies that do help with “woman’s” work removes the “need” to keep other women help in the home.

Examples of taking away work by men and children are often around cooking stoves and ovens. As gas and electricity replaced wood and coal, the need for gathering and preparing wood dissipates. The cooking work still exists, but the help to mother by father and children is lessened, or even eliminated. Washing machines are another example. As machines came into the home there was no longer a perceived need for sending laundry out or having a laundress come into the home. Although doing a load of laundry was less strenuous, at the same time expectation for cleanliness also increased so the amount of laundry work increased. The effect of both of these examples was that work eased, but for mother workload increased.

In the post-war era of the 1960’s and 1970’s work for women outside the home became more normal. Unlike when this happened during the depression when poor women worked outside the home out of necessity, women in general felt either need or opportunity to do so. In this case not just poor women began to work outside the home, but so too middle-class women. Despite this, the housework did not shift off of mother and onto the rest of the family. Cowan argues this is because the division of labor, masculine and feminine work, has been firmly entrenched in American culture. Entrenchment of the single family home and self-sufficiency in America also keeps alternate arrangements from succeeding such as communal work sharing.

Comparison with Other Readings

Jesse Adams Stein addresses the idea of masculine and feminine work in the piece Masculinity and Material Culture in Technological Transitions. She points to the government press operations in Australia to show how cultural assumptions mold division of labor. Unlike the Cowan work looking to the home, Stein is looking at work outside the home, in the printing press. There was a division of “men’s work” in the press at the time of the letterpress. Generally the argument was that running a letterpress machine took physical strength and the ability to know a machine’s quirks so well as to be able to run it properly. Both of these aspects were thought to be beyond a woman’s ability. In fact a few women here-and-there did run these machines, but found other ways of approaching the need to load type if the weight was too much for them. Then the disruption came was letterpress was supplanted as a technology by offset lithography. Male machinists fought moving from the heavier manual process as they defined themselves in that role. Even when offset lithography became the norm, pressmen still defined their role in masculine terms. Less skill was needed to run the machines, but the tradition of working a press had been masculine and change was slow. Similar to Cowan’s argument that housework was primarily looked at as feminine culturally, Stein argues that press work was primarily looked at as masculine culturally.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Cowan’s arguments are well laid out. The technical migration and the corresponding correlation to changes in housework seem natural and logical. Even her arguments about why some technologies or processes were chosen over others seem to work.

One area I question was her depiction of the shift from mother as consumer of services to mother as producer of services. The “products” of mother were keeping the family fed, healthy and clean. As the specific work to accomplish this shifted from others to mother, and the quality and quantity expectation rose, the result was increased work for mother. Cowan gives examples of the shift from consumer to producer such as less delivery to the home with availability of the car. Mother now had to go to the supermarket to get the food rather than having it delivered, or going to a local market by walking there. The supermarket came about because increased use of refrigeration allowed for more variety of food out of season. As expectation to deliver health and food to family included a more varied diet, mother produced transportation of food stuffs by driving to a supermarket that was not close enough to walk to, and would not deliver. She also needed the car to allow for larger loads of foodstuffs required by the increased variety in diet.

I would argue that it is a little more complicated. For example when mother walked to the local market to pick up food, that act is not unlike driving to the supermarket. She was a consumer of delivery before the car (delivery to home, delivery to local market). She is a consumer of delivery after the car (delivery to the supermarket). Like drawing lines in a system between what is in and out of the system, the line between consumer and producer can be difficult. Mother was, and is, both consumer and producer of food delivery both pre- and post-car. The question is where does one draw the line? One could pick at similar arguments given by Cowan on healthcare (doctor home visits vs mother taking a child to the clinic), education (home schooling vs getting the kids to a public school), etc.

The ideas in this work could appeal to students of history, technology, sociology, gender, etc. I think there is appeal here to lay readers as well. The conversations sparked between my wife and I were interesting. My helpfulness with Thanksgiving preparations certainly increased, but I found her unwilling to allow me to get involved in some of the work which seem to support Cowan’s culture entrenchment arguments. Spouses and children should be more aware of the burdens on mothers whether they work outside the home or not.