Beach Haven

​FORCES OF PRODUCTION
A Social History of Industrial Automation
By David F. Noble
Transaction Publishers, 2011, 409 pages

In Forces of Production, Noble notes the belief that technological progress is thought by some to mean social progress. In fact, he argues that “progress” is determined by who is setting the goals and expectations. If change moves an organization closer to the stated goal then it is dubbed progress.

In this light, technology is a tool to move an organization towards a goal, but it is not the driving force in determining the goal. One example given are the chapters around the adoption of numerical control (NC) and the non-adoption of record-playback (RP) methods of automated machining. NC is more complicated and requires a planning and programming set of skills that are different from the skills of a machinist. RP depends, at least initially, on the skills of a machinist to record the moves to be replicated by the machine.

Despite many drawbacks, management saw NC as progress and RP as a step backwards. Why? Noble notes that one goal of management, if not the goal, is to reduce dependence on skilled labor. The desired outcome would be to lower cost and increase management’s control over what happens in the shop. NC pushes control away from machinists. RP requires a machinist. Labor, he argues, saw NC as the opposite of progress since it reduced the strength of the laborer and labor unions in negotiation with management. Noble argues convincingly that technology is not a problem or a solution. Problems and solutions are political, moral, and cultural. Technology is one tool to help clarify and resolve both the problems and solutions.


Like other works I have reviewed, Noble makes a strong argument against technological determinism. In fact, he almost speaks as if technology is really a minor, or at least secondary, part of the story. Technology in his examples is an enabling or disabling factor in the goals and decisions of the actors.

His approach seems to start each chapter with the generalized positions, then give a number of specific examples. At the end of each chapter he restates the arguments linked to the specific examples in the chapter. The technology examined is very specific, automation of machining parts, and primarily aircraft parts. In fact, automation was also being implemented in other industries at the same time which he alludes to once. This approach is not unlike at least a portion of the David Hounshell work reviewed in a past review posting (http://bhaven.org/reviews/american-system-to-mass-production). In that reading the argument was about movement from skilled manual labor toward mechanization, though not automation per se. In the Hounshell work several different industries are looked at in the beginning, but eventually the focus moves to sewing machine manufacturing.


There are plenty of good examples and specifics that support the arguments made by Noble. In deed, at times perhaps there are too many arguments shared. For example in the section about why RP was not adopted it seems like many more people or organizations are quoted than in any other portion of the book. It appears that Noble “sides with” the proponents of RP because he quotes so many of them. It felt a little like he was piling on. He at times offers other motives by management for adopting automation such as lowering costs, increasing productivity, being more competitive. Unfortunately these motives seem minimized throughout the text to a point where these might be only viewed as positives by management because they support the real motives, control and power.

In the end, the epilogue, Noble's arguments seem more balanced. He refocuses on the topic of technology and its relationship to the idea of progress. Clearly the motives of management and labor go to defining progress, and it is how Noble helps clarify that technology is a means and not an end. The work as a whole could appeal to varying interests. It could help clarify the topic for historians, students of business and labor movements, sociologists, and political scientists.

There were portions I found enlightening. For example during WWII when the image we have these days shows the nation united in purpose, Rosie the Riveter taking care of the home front while “our boys” were fighting evil. Yet in reality there were large numbers of strikes, lockouts and other sorts of work stoppages. The responses by FDR were telling of the thought process of the day, that led directly to the later hunting for “anti-American activities” by Congress. World competition between democracy/free enterprise and socialism/communism were and are real, but seeing communism as the force behind every ill made resolution of the problems difficult. Policy makers could take note from this linkages of technology with academia, industry and politics. Economists might also find the financial ties between government, academia and industry worth consideration. 

MOST WONDERFUL MACHINE
MECHANIZATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN BERKSHIRE PAPER MAKING, 1810-1885
By Judith A. McGaw
Princeton University Press, 1987, 439 pages


In her work Most Wonderful Machine Judith McGaw dives deep into the paper mill industry in the Berkshire region. Though the industry and location are specific, she shows how larger forces both influence, and are influenced by, events and larger systems. In particular the work speaks to mechanization of an industry that starts out local and creates a hand-crafted product. The forces she identifies first inspires the creation of the industry, then is slowly shaped.

Among her approaches, throughout the work McGaw speaks to the individual people involved in the industry creation and expansion. Those who adopt or resist mechanization and their likely incentives are explored. The culture of the people is important. Initially the mill owners, workers and townspeople are mostly homogeneous in their acceptance of Calvinistic and Congregational moral foundations. There was a very egalitarian mindset. That helped keep owners close to the work and the workers. They were cautious about adoption of machines that would be detrimental to workers, though as business need put pressures on them, adoption became the norm. I found it interesting how work was organized based on the religious assumptions such as the role of women, and the need of less skilled men to adjust their working time around farming work.

As machines increased there was less need for some skilled work. Some men moved to work more traditionally thought of as women’s work, but some jobs stayed firmly in the hands of women until they too were finally mechanized. McGaw tells us that technological determinism is not an overriding force. Most all the decisions shown were based on culture and business need. Many of the industry moves came as a result of owners’ interactions with each other, not as competitors, but as a sub-community. They also seemed to make decisions from a paternalistic point of view in regards to the industry and the local community. For example McGaw tells us mill owners were often held responsible for the actions of their workers outside the mill. Likewise the owners felt free to 'manage' the lives of their workers such as asking them to sign an agreement not to give in to drink.

McGaw approaches her work much like Susan Douglas did in Inventing American Broadcasting in that one industry is the focus. Like Douglas, she also helps dig into the psyche of the mill owners. Unlike Douglas, she also focuses into a specific geographic location where Douglas was attempting to look at the entire broadcast industry. Both limit themselves to a specific time period. Both discuss the specifics of the technology evolution and how the “advances” came about. Both use the historical context to show change in the larger system. For example, in the work on broadcasting, the inventors concentrate on a specific technology shortcoming and try to fix that technical issue. When they do, those who compete in the space use the technology to advance their standing in the business. The driving force seems to be individual advancement and competition. In the case of paper mill owners, the incentive is different. As costs increase and price demands decrease through competition, mill owners adopt changes in technology almost grudgingly. In general they are not inventing the technology to lead an industry, but rather tend to adopt a technology in order to keep pace with an industry.

In both cases there is a sort of salient or reverse salient that drives technology change. In the Douglas work the incentive is to solve a technological issue. In the McGaw work the incentive is to solve a business issue. In either case the decision makers are shaped by environments. For example, McGaw points to the raw materials needed, the sort of people needed, and the transportation available. As things change in each of these areas, so does adoption of mechanization change. In one case, as paper demand grows and rag supplies don’t grow in accord, there is a shift to use of chemical means to make previously unusable rags now usable. Unfortunately the change results in an increased polluting impact on the water supply. A need to increase drying capacity resulting from increased paper creation through mechanization (a reverse salient), adding heated drying creates a new supply need for burning fuel (wood, then coal). This need leads to deforestation and increased air pollution. Increased transportation options lead to a migration from local markets, then to regional markets, and finally to national markets. All of this adds demand, and the cycle of reverse salient, to mechanization, to new reverse salient continues through this entire history.

I like the approach of using a specific example to illuminate larger issues or trends. In the work, the specifics are easy to understand and give clarifying language to understand what choices are made, and why they are made. The decisions influence change and are influenced by change. Getting to know an industry I had not considered before made the reading more interesting. For my own future research I could find this approach useful. I find the simplification of the language in a story format helpful. I say simplification of language, but I don’t mean simplification of complex issues. The strength of the work is that complex issues are depicted in understandable ways. Her use of specific data is also a helpful tool. That blend seems to appeal to the academic interested in the topic. I’m less sure if people outside academia would have an interest unless they are in the paper industry. One other area I would have liked to have seen is a comparison with some other region. I’m sure paper mills in another region of America would have had different influences through its development. Some high level look at such a comparison might have been helpful to show the bigger Science, Technology and Society (STS) issues could have been more clarifying.

​THE HANDBOOK OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES            
Edited by Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, 
​​Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman
The MIT Press, 2008, 1065 pages
 
​
Every so many years (somewhat random as best as I can tell) leading practitioners of the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), also known as Science, Technology and Society, put together a compendium of academic papers that represent major trends in the discipline at the time of publication. The version covered by this review is the third edition.
 
The major sections include thoughts about the academic discipline as a field of study, social and science practice, politics, institutions, economics, and emergent technosciences. I started reading the volume before starting my post-graduate work at Virginia Tech. Because of the size (page count) and variation of thought it takes time to wade through the papers contained. The last third or so I had to balance with my school reading that took way more of my time.
 
The topics are varied enough that those not specifically seeking STS insight will still likely find something so long as the reader has some interest in non-fiction. Some of the writings are more academic and jargon-filled. Others use more plane language. Like most academic papers, none are too difficult to follow, but having some context in the field helps some.

​CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Edited by Craig Calhoun, Joseph Gerteis, James Moody, Steven Pfaff, and Indermohan Virk
Blackwell Publishing, 2007, 496 pages

 
The work by Calhoun et al is an anthology, and covers a range of writers. It is set up sections more or less by topic. In each section the editors give some introductory thoughts on the topic, and then post extensive portions of applicable published works by sociological thought leaders. Sometimes the papers are shared in whole, other times in part, but the works themselves are the central offering more than the interpretation of the editors.
​
Shared in the volume is a fairly broad cross section of the base theories of sociology. Many of the works contained are extensively cited throughout academia. 

​CAPITALISM AND MODERN SOCIAL THEORY
By Anthony Giddens
Cambridge University Press, 1971, 261 pages

​ 
Subtitled An analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, it is a review of some of the major thoughts expressed by the three referenced authors. Giddens reviews some life history of each of the theorists, and offers interpretation and context. He shares snippets of the actual writings, but is focused more on explanation than quotation.
 
The work reads like a text book. The history surrounding the authors’ lives are helpful in understanding some of their philosophical direction. Other thought leaders preceded these three men and had an influence on them, but Giddens sees much of what they write as original and foundational to many future publications of successor sociologists. Their philosophies differ in many ways from each other.