t&-l_

rearing. Briefly, the baby tender was intended to be a replacernent for the ordinary crib. It coninitiated by businesses as early as the mid-1930s, to counteract Franklin Delano Roosevelt's anticorporate, New Deal agenda. 'fhis better living campaign focused on clairns of "nelv," "nrore," and "better" as business attempted to reclaim the public's con6dence and its consumer market, and to capitalize on the public optimism created by Roosevelt's dynamic leadershipl Better living meirnt increased consumption. At'the sanre time,

-7

B. F- Skinner's Technology of Behavior in American Life: From Consumer Culture to Counterclrlture

Alexandra Rutherford

sisted ofan enclosed, hurnidity and temperaturecontrolled space in which the baby could sleep

comfortably, unencumbered by clothes and blankets. The tender had a Plexiglas front, rvhich allowed thc baby an unobstructed view of the

surrounding environrnent. Arnong thc advantages of the nclv crib were less laundry for the
parents, as well as less exposure to noise and germs and more mobility for the baby (for more details see Benjamin & Nielsen-Garnmon, 1999; Skinner,1979). Reactions to the baby tender were mixed. This diversity of opinion was reflective of several ongoing cultural debates of 1950s America, such as the proper role for technology in the life of the modern family, and appropriate parenting methods - among others. In this section, I contextualize coverage of the baby tender by connecting it to these public debates and areas of ongoing social concern. The "Nav Look"

major technological innovations, such as the

automobile, the television, and the airplane, rvere

American academics ond intellectuals have, over ihe years,t ienclered extensive critiques of B. F. Skinner and his rvork, excoriating both his theory and his technology of behavior (e.g., Chomsky, 1959; Krutch, 1954; Szasz, 1975). Writers for the popular press and lay readers have also identified Skinner as a figure worthy ofintense social debate (see Dinsmoor, I992; Rutherford, 2000). Recently, Bjork has suggested in his biography of Skinner tlrnt the heated criticism he has evoked "is cul-

lVhile othcrs have rvritten about the cffect of social and political factors on Skinner's work itself (e.g., Bjork, 1993, 1996; Capshew, 1996),

assimilated

into the changing patterns of

turally and intellectually significant, for

such

generally negotive opinion suggests that Skinner - regardlcss oI the truth or error of his position has touched sornething that . . . is n'orth knorving {bout Anlqrican values, or more con: r;retely, the American $redicanrerit" {Bjork, 1996, p. 36). Thus, a complete historical analysis of Skinner and his work must take into account the cultural, social, and politicallmiiieu of mid-

nyg-Dtieth-centu ry Am erica. In this pape1, I explore some of the relationships benveen popullr portray'als of Skinner and

Arnerican social values from the 1940s to rhe

t970s. Specifically, I explore horv popular cover-

and on the development of behaviorism in American culture (e.9., Bakan, 1966, I998), in this paper I analyze the effect ofthese factors on rhe popular reception of Skinner using popular press coverage and responses from readers as a rvindow on his public image. From the baby tender to teaching machines to Beyond Freedom anil Digniry, Skinner's rvork rvas part of the popular - as rvell as the academic - culture of midn!'entieth-centurl' America. Thus, presentations ofhis rr'ork have been highly context dependent, that is, the;'have ranged rr'idely deperrding on the particulat social discourses in t'.hich they were l'embedded. In no instance has the popular reception of Skinner's rvork been either straightforward or clear-cut. Because so mony aspects. of ' his rr'ork fell at the crossroads of conflicting I American social values, presenting him simply as ,: a maligned behaviorist or as a controversial social ' scientist signific:rntly obscures the complexiw his relationship rdth American

American ljfe. Bjork (1996, p. 46) has noted that in this period "Skinner's America , . . not only accepted the automobile, the airplane, and the electrification of cities as progressive modernization; it assumed as a matter of course that humans

could control their environment through the

eftbrts of inventors and industrial scientists." Skinner's inr.ention of the baby tender occurred in this era of gror*ine public emphasis on better living, the cultural aesthetic of the "Nerv Look," and the erorving populariry ofhonsehold technology. The lvidespread adoption of this technology resulted both in Lretter livinq and increased control ofdomestic space, Advances in household technology also sen'ed a politically
'benveen

in

1950s

parenting

,Skinner's work lvas influenced by a ccrmpl'ei host of cultural factors, as rvell as some endu gi ng',freii til\ of the America n predicament. Although Bjbrk (1996) has suggested that public opinion of Skinnc.r's work has been generallv ne(dtive, I argue tlrat public opinion (or in this case, popular portrayals) rvas more highly nuanc?d,rhan is rypically acknowledged. These nuirnies cirn be untlerstoocl, at least in part, bv examining the complexiry of the .A,merican cultural landscape in rvhich Skinner's rvork rvas ploduced and received. age

of

culture.

of

,.
I I

B. F. Skinner and "Better

l#;it I the I ,r I popular press rvas an article in rhe Ladies Home .f.l 1 "Baby in a Box," a catchy title li$: ,l ]orirnal enritled

in le5os

America

Living"
contributions to

Culrural historians have described distinct trends in entertainmelrt, fashion, design, and architecture during the late I940s and early 1950s that rvere collectively termed the "New Look" (e.g., )ackson, 1998; Steele, 1997). The "New Look," a reaction against the frugaliry, efficiency, and austeriqi of the war years,.expressed the posrwar optimism and ebullience of a new era of peace and increasing economic abundance. lt emphasized appearance and glamour - the "outsides of things" (Marling, 1994, p. t4) horv things l:oked, not necessarily horv they ltorked. The adage "form follolvs function" was replaced by "tbrm is function," as designers embraced the idea that holv something looked rvas jr,rst as important as what it did. After the economic

symbolic function. The 1959 Kitchen Debare Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev rvas held in the RCA Whirlpool "miracle kitchen" created for rhe American Exhibirion in N.loscorv.

The appliances, including "mechnnical maid" that rvould r.yash the tloor and then put itself arr'ay,

sent a strong mcssage about Amer.ican national identiry. lvlarline ( 1994) has rvritren:

chosen b,v the editors to replace Skinner's

title, "Bab1'Care Can Be i\[odernized" (Skinner' i;: * ',{H-'I 1915). In this arricle, Skinner introduced a new
invention he called the baby tender (later, the air lffij j.S . crib). Desienecl on the eve of the birth of his :#'tt !..o,id do.f ht.r, the brrby render was Skinneis ;.!lit$ solution to his n'ife Eve's concerns about the ;ffii* drudgerv associated rr'ith the tasks of child '1rSI'#
'r.{*,

origina

;ii I

Jounnl ol-History ol tlrc Bclnviorul Stierres, 2003, 39( I ), l*23. Reprinted by permission of rvViley-Blackwell.

ffi
:f

hardship of the 1930s and the turbulence of World War II, Americans seemed ready to enjoy themselves again - to attend to the comfort and aestheric of their surroundings (tbr cultural histories of the 1950s, see Foreman, 1997; Hart, I!82; lvliller & Norvak, 1975a). -=-'tn addirion to rhe aesrheric ofthe "Nerv Look," a palpable trend torvards better living also characterized the late 1940s and 1950s. Bird (t9J9) has argued that the "better living campaign" ivas

In the 1950s, the United States bought fullv three-fourths of all the appliances produced in the rvorld. Along rvith cars and Levittowns... they stood for solnething fundamental to the posnvar understanding of national identitl': ;r
sense

of treedonr, of

ef-fortless ease,

oi techno-

logical masren., modernity, and access to conveniences formerly reserved for the verv rich.

(p.255)
Inasmuch as the labor-saving firnction of the babl' tender matched the ethos of better livine

through household technologv, reflected an emphasis on'the "outsides of things" (that is, the baby"s environment), and itsel[embodied maste4'

16d of ti:ris environment, one might have fpected

fairly positive popular coverage ofthe baby tender in this period. In fact, a number of encouraging articles appeared in the popular press after the announcement of the baby tender in the pages of the Ladies Home Journal f c.g-, "Baby box," 1947; "Boxes for babies," 1947; "Box-reared babies," 1954; "Heated, air-conditioned baby box," 1948; "How a tech professor rriises his youngsters,' 1954; Schur, 1946). By and large, these articles rvere enthusiastic about the tender and highiighted its advantages over traditional critrs. For example, "Boxes for Babies," an article appearing in 1947 in Life magazine, pictured one infant, alert and content in his tender, with the capiion "John Gray Jr- plays happily in his box. Like Debby Skinner he has never had a cold or a stonrach upset, is smarter than the average child" (p. 73). Although acknor'ledging concerns about ilck ofcontact conrfort for clrildren in the tender, the article nevertheless concluded that "the Skiuner boxes have proved successful thus far and ivill be put on the market commercially next

4D0

the epirit of the 'world of the future' to

make favorable conditions ar.a.il&le eveqrrhglq

'

throggh rimple mechanical rheans" (Skinner, l9.ls, p. 136).

Another popular development in thir period no dsubt *ffected rsponse to Skinner's invention. Although some have cited the baby tendei's sirnilarity to an erperimental Skinner box (and even to a cofhn) as a liability to its public image,r the fact remains that many oi these early assess-

artic,les in this period were positive and optimistic about the potential of the new device. It had become a matter of social respectability to keep up with the numerous technological innovations transforming the home. As Spigel (1992) has rvritten, "in the postwar years it appeared that tomorrow had arrived . . . living without an array of machines meant that you were anachronistic, unable to keep pace with tomorrow" (p. 46).

In 1945, Dr. Bcnjarnin Spock publishe<i Bcl.ry antl Child Care, which inspired renerred iiicial debate on the issue of permissiveness in chilci rearing, .and influenced thousands of parents eagerly looking for expert advice on pargnturg. Spock's ireatisE'debunked nruch of the extant behaviorist litetature that had generallv aclvocated a firm and somewhat detached approach to "bringing up baby." In 1928, fohn I!. !\'a1spr-r's -Care' nsychologicil of lt{dnt and Cnita i-ra exhorted'parents to trear their offspr.ing lik9.,s;pall adults; to dqrlrtS.gf" the cod-d[ing that, in Wntson'! vierv, protract-dd the child's dependence and

nrents ignored these unfortunate

parallels. Perhaps the populaliry and appeal of another qpe of box mitigated critical assessment of the

baby tender in this period. As .\mericans became economically secure and advances in technologv streamlined the rvork-place, the question of how to spend norr'-ample leisure time loomed large on the cultural horizon. It rvas during this period that television - entertainment in a box - became

Finally, in rvhat may have been a nrore subtle nonetheless pervasive cultural attit.ude of posh\:ar, 1950s America, the emphasis of the "Ner* Look," the focus on the "outsides of things," provided a much-needed antidote to almost *vo decades of deprivation and political unrest. Americans visited Disneyland, embarked on home improvement projects,{ and rvatched their television sets. Skinner's emphasis on creating a better environment for the baby, and his concen.

but

immaturity. In contrast, Spock recontnrended that parents be more affectionate, lvarnr, and available to thir children. Unfortunately for
Skinner, the image of the baby box seemed ilrcongruent rvith this more permissive and affectionate approach to child rearing. Although Skinner repeatedly emphasized that the child would renrain in the tender no longer than in a traditional crib (i.e., only rvhile sleeping), and that parents rvould have more cualiry tirne to spend rvith their infants rvhen much o[ their rvork rvas reduced, rnan\'.parents nonetheless iejected the tender in the beliei that it rvould inhibit iurportant parent-child interactions. The 1950s also rvitnessed a rise in thg, i1rfluence of psychoanalytic ideas on popular culture, including popular writing, theatre, television, and cinema (see Hale, 1995; Wallier, 1993). As part of this influenqe, theories emphasizing the importance of verv early infancv and infant attachment on subsequent development (speciiically,

a national phenomenon (for accounts of

the

impact of television on 1950s culture, see trliller & Norvak, l97ib; Nervcomb, 1997; Spigel, I992). The grorving leisure class norv spent large

tration (both technoiogically and philosophically), on the "outsides of things," was closely aligned with this aspect nf the popular mindset.s
lvfechanical nothers invade the

/J/.'l )'eir ([r. -.\

Babies," appea ring in 7'irre magazine in 1954, inforn-red reaclers that aptly named Roy and Ray Hope, a pair of Six-yerr-old "brighteyed twins" had spent "the first l8 months of their
" Box - lteared

portions of their free time glued to the antics of Lrrcille Ball rnd Desi Arnrz, or absorbed in
-

nlrscry
19.15 article

lives in

Skinner babybox" (p. 66). These "disarmingly normal" young boys lvere presented as pica

tures of physical and psychological health. The

mother oI the trvins expressed her enthusiasm about the device, reporting that "the box is a boon to nrothers Lrecause it cuts dorvn rrn latrrrdry and bathing" (p. 66). Similar sentiments r''ere exFressed in a N*r' 1'orJier article: "Skinner is

the inventor {of the mechanical baby

tender,

colrntecl on td revolutionize the rearing of children and enornrousl,v diminish parental strain" ("Baby box," 1947, irp. l9-20). This article concluded rvith an optimistic assessment oIthe "excellent results" achieved tlrus far with the tender. Thesc and other largely upbeat portrayals in the popular press of this period certainly indicate that the pu[[is image ofthe baby tender bene{ited from the better living campaign of the 1950s. Skinner rgrote that he received hundreds ofletters requestinll instructions on holv to build a tender, rlcl thlt, b;'and large, the results seemed to have bcer, high.lu satisfirct,)iv. FIe aptly expressed the nto'-'ii n! tlrr iiutes i hen ht',vrote; "lt is quite in

H,trvdy Doody, Disneyland, ai Fdther Krtorrs Besf. ln 1952, the T\'-tray table frrst appeared in national advertising, attesting to the fact that even dinner could not lure people arva,v from their television sets. The problem of rvhat to eat in front of the TV rvas quickly solved rvhen Srvanson's introduced the 6rst TV dinner in October of 1933, making the square meal a snap for 1950s houservives and rvorking rr'omen (lv{arling, 1994). Dinner-in-a-box became the natural companion to entertainment-in-a-box.' In 1957, a gioup of architects at the Nlassachusetts Inititute of Technologl designed the "lvlonsanto House of the Future" for Disne,vlald (ivlarling, 1994). Perched on some rocks over-

\\'hile nranl' readers of Skinner's

praised the baby tender for its labor-saving poten-

looking a pond at the country's most famous theme park, the \lonsanto Hr:use rr'as in fact a life-sized, stvlized, TV set. The lady of the house could be seen peering out ofher picture rt'indow "screen," which in appearance rvas tlot unlike the Plexiglas front of the Skinners' babi' tender. Life
inside a box, for many Americans, rras associated ivith the glamorous, exciting, and invariabl,v blissftil lives of their tavorite television characters.! despite some early misgivings, and later

;1,:l

$So, criticisms, of the nrechanical bab,v tender, many

rir
.i .jfir

tial, other readers censured the device. Specifically, they argued that raising a child in the baby tender ryas a sign of parental (especially maternal) neglect, and that it would cause significant ph1'sical and emotional problerns in the clrjl{. ilan,r, critics noted the potential lack of cofrfft comfort available to children brought up in temperature-controlled bo-res ( e.g., lvlcKean, I 945 ). In a letter to Skinner upon receipt of his Ladies Home lounnl article, the editor of the magazine expressed concern about rvhether parents rvould be able to hear children crying in the box and then respond to them accordingly. She also asked rvhether the reduction in the number of baths rvould not cut into the tinre mothers rvotild spend having fun with their babies (Page, 1945). Somervhat later, rumors developed concerning the fate of Skinner's daughter Delrorah, the first bab,v-ina-box, suggesting that she had become psychotic, or perhaps even killed herselfas a result ofbeing raised in the tender. Julie Skinner Vargas has reported that she still hears stories about her father "raising his kids in boxes like rats" (\/argas, 2000 i.

the appropriate care and nrinistrations of the mother) became ividely acceptecl. This undoubtedly exacerbated cultural an"tiery about the baby tender, fuelling the beliefthat a child rvith a deficient early attachntent lvould face serious and
lifelong nrental health problenrs, In the late 1950s,. psychologist Harry Harlorr"s rvork on the importance of contact conlfort in the attachment of

infant monkei.5 wds also publicized (see Harrison, l9i8), further substantiating the public's conviction about the irnportance of p;rrental rvarmth and availability, both of which seenred
thrvarted by the tender. Finally, the shifting roles crf the rnother and houselvife preoccupied tbe national ps,vchc. in the 1950s, tvomen lvere often faced rvith specific

contradictiln meji:rq,es and social expeciiltions.

4> t

'

.$ Spigel has explained, "Although middle-

and

operant analysis could be used to make teaching

r:l;*i

return to their homes where they could have babies and ntake color-coordinated meals"
(Spigel, 1992, p.

working-class rvolnen had been encouraged by popular media to enter ftaditionally male occupations during rhe lvar, they were norv told to

more effective, and lcarning more successfir.l (Skinner, 1983i for histories of the teaching
machine see Benjamin, l98B; Vargas & Vargas, te96). The teaching machine quickly became one of the focal points ofa lvidespread educatirinal technology movenrent that received its fullest expression in the errly-to-mid 1960s (see, for example, Boroff, 1963; Cuban, 1986; "What's happening in education?," t967), Throughout the 1950s, film, television, and other audiovisual devices made their way into classrooms across the country.6 In 1953, the lirst educational television netrvorkwas established (Packer, 1963). A decade later, there rvere 62 educational television stations serving the students ofthe United States (Boroff, I963). In Hagerstorvn, Maryland, 18,000 children in forty-eight public schools received some instruction by television by the late 1950s as part of a

i,li :,;ti jja

rvhole social structure

(Boehm, 1960, p.

similarly enrhused that programmed instruction "could, in the next decade or two, revolutionize education. ,.. Conceivabli' it could upset the

176).

of American

youth,'
:

4l).

Confusingly, in addition to

the expectation that w,orking women rvould

retreat subserviently to their dornestic spaces and resunle their roles as rvives and mothers, the emphasis on material consumption brought an added financial burden that was often eased only

The revolutionary potential of programmed teaching rvas also noted bv a *.riter for Science Digest: "A felv months ago, thousands of school children from coast to coast were quietly sub_ jected to what may turn out to be the greatest
educational rer.olution in history. They began the first large-scale experiment in learning, not f.om human teachers, but fronr teaching nrachines"

bv having rvomen rr.ork outside the

horne.

Thus, middle'class rvomen in post-World War II Anrerica were thrust into a maelstrom of often

(Gilmore, 196t, p.77).

I, resrifying to the perceived importance and potential impact of the nerv technoiogv, the American Psl.chological .{,ssociation (ApA), the
I 96

contradictory cultural expectations, Popular reprerun,n,tott, of the baby tender ret'lected this set of cultr"rral anxieties about the proper roles of women, both at work and at honre. lVas the mother of a box-raised child shirkirrg her prinrarv role as caregiver and houseOue anonl'mous rvriter to Skinner remarked of the tender, "lt is the most ridiculous, crazy invention ever heard of. Caging this baby up like nn nninral, jr-rst to relievi the lvlother of a little
r.r'ife?

In

Benjamin's analysis. The appenrance of conrput_

nology, or "simply old-fashioned resistance to 7ll) contributed to the machine's faiiure to thrir.e. He also notecl the general failure of educational technologies (the teaching machine among them) that appear to invalidnte the student-teacher bond _ a bond thar hds rraditionally been seen u, on ..r.niinl ineredient in the learning process. Some further considerations can be added to
change" (p.

of avaiiable prog.*n.,, covering.a wide range ofsubjects. H" iuggested instead that cultural ipertia, resistance ti'tech-

there were thousands

1961), Benjamin reported that by the late 1960s,

in the late I960s may have made the hardware of the teaching machine obsolete and redireoecl
ers energ,y away trrrm its develol.ment tolvards more sophisticated machines. Cognitive and inforrna_ tion-processing theories rvere also changing the

funerican Educational Research Foundation,

and the Depanment of Audiovisual Instruction,

collaborated

project supported by the Ford Fund for the Advancement of Education (Seligman, 1958).
indeed, the Ford Fund poured millions of dollars into the education industry in this period, respronding in port to a perceived teacher shortage, and to the need to improve educational

to issue a

statement

on

self_

instructional materials and devices. It rr.as noted that: "The use of self-instructional pro.qramed Isic] learning materials in teaching machines and

similar devices represents a potential contribution of great importance to American education" i,\PA, 1961, p. 512). The statement presented guidelines fbr the use of the materials, as rvell as suggestions on how to select and evaluate instruc_ tional programs. Obviously, there rvas rvidespread hope rhat the

rt'ay researchers nrodeled thought processes and thus learning, rendering Skinneis behavioral theories less fishionable.#lou,.u.r, the develop_ ment ot cornputers in and of itself cannot exphin

nrrrre ryork" [Anonumous, 1945). Or u'as she

pl,v strearll i n i n g her domestic- respo nsibilities in order to do nrore and do it better? Unlike other household technologies, such as the dishrr,asher,
si nr

practices for students across widely ranging ability levels.

that prornised

to

number

of

articles

in

the

streamline mundane tasks,

the baby tender ttfected the most sacrosanct of dornestic tasks - parenting. The 1950s lvas an era inundated ruith "rohot nurses" and "mechrrnical nroth,lrs" * ilorn the television screen to the
batrv box.

Teaching by Machine: The Promise and Peril oI the r\utornated Classroom Although the Lraby tender \vas Skinner's first n'idelv publicized invention, he rvas perhaps
better knr:rvn fbr the teirclring machine (for a discussion of Skinner a.s social inventor, see Bjork, 996). 'l hlcrughout lhe ldte 1 950s antl early 1960s, Skinner's elforts to develop teaching machines and proqrarnmed instruction received extensive co,.'erirqe in the propulns press. Skinner's interest in designing a machine that could teach began rvith a visit to his daughter's fourth-grade math clirss, rvhere he qtrickly s:rrv horv the pr:inciples of
1

announced Skinner's lr.ork with (see, for example, "lvlechanicaI teacher," 1954; "Miracle gadget," 1954; "Teaching by machine," 1954; Ubetl, 1954). These articles were undoubtedly rvritten in response to Skinner's first public demonstration of a machine for teaching spelling and arithmetic at a conference entitled "Current Trends in Psychology" held at the University of Pittsburgh in the spring of 1954 (Skinner, t954). A ferv years later, in the early I960s, Skinner's teaching rrrachines and programmed instrucfion rvere proclaimed by some to be the most radical ofthe new educational technologies. It was anticipated that the machines and the programs fed into them rvould completely change the face of education, and society. fiale magazine reported that programmed learning "prornises the first real innovntion in teaching since the invention of movable tlpe in the 15th century. . . . Conceivably, programing might change school design and the entire soCial ltructure of U.S. youth" ("Programed learning," 1961, p. 36). Fortune ma.gazine

mid-1950s the machines

grammed instruction, then interest in rvriting complrter progroms using the technique slrould
have been high. Iulie Skinner Vargas has remarked

all but ab:rndtned. Certainly, if the technique rr'ere deemed revolu1i6n1r1,, and the pt,blic n'hoieheartedl), accepted the benefits of pro_

rvhy the technique of programmed learninq

rua.s

of national
connected?

instruction rvould greatly impror.e education at the elenentary, secondan', and postsecondary levels. This hope extended to other forms of etlucariona.l technology as rgell. Birt rvhile many were enthusiastic and optimistic about teaching machines, the ne.'ct "revotution in education" 1\.as not regarded enrhusiasrically bv all. To \.hat set

implementation

of programmed

people rvith lirrle or no rraining, resulting"iii

to increase, program rvritinq rvas taken o1-by

that as the popularity ofteaching machines began

e-ttremely dull prosran)s thar did n't lvork (\'argu, ?000). Geiser (1976) noted sinrilirrly (an.i cotrtully) that in the hands of inexpert programmers, "some of rhe programs had all the
est

concerns can this opposition be

the popr,rlar press dernonstrateci their etiectir.eness, not onlv in boosting grades, but also in tmproving morale and increasing motivation ie.g., Beli, l96l7. Despire early cJncerns about lrck ot programs for the machines (e.g., Terte,

tention, such as high cost and lorv efficacv. He rborved thar the nrachines rvere usuallv qrrite inexpensive (although rhe progrlms rrere more soj, and that numerous studies touted lr.idelv in

Benjamin ( l98S) has consitlered this question and has ruled out several areas o[ possible con-

in the late 1950s, termed..the technocraori t998/tc)5S) Pop'tar articles in the eaily 1l?:t.f. 1960s, besicles notine rhe rev6!u1i6p..rry pot.ntiii of programrned instruction, also repeatedl,v
mlnizltiqn of educarion through .r.t,in'e 1i.n_ nology. Teachers and parents rvere especially
sensitive to this issue. Boehnr, u.riting for Forarrre magazine in 1960, noted these concerns: ,,Orhers argue that the netr, method.dehumanizes'

grorr,irirl cultural unease toivards rvhat Theoclore -Rorr"i

teaching machine rvts also rootecl in the

of three-dar.-old dead fish" (p. 105). I rvould suggest thnt apprehension about the

inheient inter-

,-.

reported the public's concern about the dehu-

educa_

ca)
't

tion by breaking the personai bond between reicher and student. But lvhat bothers most
opponents is that programs seem to chem basiceily moie appropriate to an anjg3l Ps.vrhology

'ansrver' instead. She resisted for a while, but soon she rvas automatically suPPlying the correct lvord so she could move on to the next Point. Thus the programming had already shaped hcr behavior pattern." (Bell, 1961, p. 157)

lull
t{ir

:ill

rili'

r,4.ji

oliir

Ieboratory tlr.,n io a school" (3oehnr, i950, p.

i77)" The social andnrie'of the late 1950s, rvith the siibsequent rise of the counterculture and the development of the humanistic novement' clearly signal.'d an increlsingly pervasive social apprehension about dehumanization, alienation, conformit,v, and loss of agency (Herrnan, 1992). In essence, the public's specific concerns about the teaching nrachine revealed an important and significant t-act about the nature of the historical moment in rvhich the machines rvere introduced.

An invention that could be

perceired as

rncchanical antidote to hunan inefficienc,v, along rrilh Skinner's emphasis on using the nrachines

not to "teach" in the troditional

sense, but to bring the student's beharior under the control of the environment, may har"e met resistance in any period. Horr'ever, the likelihood of the public embracing progranrmed initrttction r.'as perhaps trrticul,rrlr lort at the preiise lristorica.l nto:nent in rvhich it appeared. Tire teaching machine, perhaps rnoie than .arl other educational iechnology, cirme to ePitomize the t)?e of auto41,ild nrass-socieQ to rvhich ParticiPants in the counterculture moYement \vre so vehemently

Skinner made no secret of the fact that programmed material rvas designed to shape verbal behavior, rather than "teach" in any traditional sense of the rvord (i.e., to impart knowledge or skills). In his 1958 article for Scierce, for exanrple, he wrote: "Teaching spelling is mainly a Process of shaping complex forms of behavior" (Skiriner, I95S, p. 971), and in his 196l Scientifc American article, "Knorving how to read nteans exhibiting a behavioral repertory of great complexity" (Skinner, 196i, p. 98). Popular rriters picked up on this nuance, and often compared Skinner's technique (referred to as linear prograrnming) with the multiple-choice

Clearly, mass automated instruction based on the principles of operant conditioning was perceived as Potentially powerful. This led directly to concerns about control. Not only rvas the public uncertain about the desirability of controlling individual student behavior, they rr,ere also alarmed by the notion that the rvhole educational slstem might come under kind of centralized authority, more porverful than any individual teacher in a couventional classroom. As Anthoiry Oettinger of Harvard University noted in an article for Today's Health, "To understand the seriousness of the problem,
some

Not on 1'our lifclA child neeo, n":": ""fl' (p. 102). Conformity in thinking rvas also cited as a potential problem of programmed instruction' kreig (1961) noied, "What rvill happen to the nurturing of creativity, inragination, and the
intangibles of learning?

\\till reliance on Programs

discourage independent thinking and result in stultif,ving conformity among students and teadlers alikql; (p. 80). It was especially in the nridtto.late 1960s that the values of conformit)' and passive acceptance of authoriry lvere seriously questioned. Sonre felt that programmed instruction discouraged the development ofthe capacitl' to question, think critically, and consider multiple ansrvers to a particular problem' A writer for Fortune magazine wrote' "[T]he rigidity ot structure that seems to be inherent in prograrned [ric] instruction may imply to students that there is indeed only one approach, one anslveri 1'et rvhat the students may need to learn most is that some questions may have more than one answer or no ansrver at all" (Silbernran, 1966, p' 198)' This rvriter also noted, "If programing [-;ic] is used too extensivel)', tnoreover,

one need. only picture the use a Flitler or

Stalin could have made of a national educational

information Pool" ("The critics speak," 1967, P' 56). Issues of freedom and control were in the
forefront of the American psyche as the 1960s unfolded. Programmed instruction, more than
any other educational technology, rvas premised on the control olstudent behavior. Its behavior-

branching method developed and advoc1ted by Norman Crorvder. Crorn'der, a psychologist

employed bv the United States lndustries Western

Design Dir"ision

in

Santa Barbaia, California,

istic underpinnings were obvious' As Crrrti (i980) has noted, "llr'lluch that lvas done in
appli'ing behavioral theorl'seented to limit cxpeo, to control it in questionable ways' lhis seemed evident in programmed instruction, teaching machines, and in time, the manage-

'

Jevised a teaching nrethod in rvhich lrrrge chtinks of information were Presented to the student,
rvho rras then tested rvith a multiple-choice question. If the student responded correctly, he/she

it ma1'prevent

the devel-

,i*..

opment of intuitive and treative thinking or destrov such thinking rvhen it appears" (p' 198)'
developer of progranrmed texts for Harper & Row Publishers, reported the opinion held by some critics that the learning offered bv programmed instruction actually helPed no r:ne. but ih. progru--.r. The sti'rdent, according to these critics, rvirs reduced to Siving "sonre final resFonie that the Progrnnlmer considers advantageous" (Bender, lvos,p. sz1. t As the 1960s progressed' more popiilar rtritcrs addressed the need to consider value's, purpose, and merning in education. In |anuniy oi i967' Satrtrtlny Relierv published a series ofarticles iqa section entitled "Changirrg Directions in Ameri' can Education." One rvriter noted, "ln a society that feeds on a rapidly advancing and sophisticated technology, the tailure to have clear and f-otgrtul purposes and viable entls could be disastrms. l\re could beconre the creators of a te{hnological order in rvhich our ends r"ould be defined and established by the instruments tha( lvere fashioned to serve us rather than by consider-

A ivriter for Harper's Nlagnzine,

himself

rvould proceed.

Ifnot, the machine lvould branch

to another frame that $'ould give more details,

explain wh1'the response was incorrect, and then test again. It rvas acknorvledged that Skinner's method, unlike Crowder's, was one of "conditionirrg" a resPonse' One reporter for Time ret'erred to Skinner's method as "Orrn'ellian"

ment. . . of youths by iechniques" (p. aOO;.

behavior modification

...

opposed.

Specificalll', popular articles about prosranrnred instruction touched on thenles of iontro[, alien.rtion, an.i corliormit], even though ii-,e ,:trjective benefit:; of the technique 1\'ere acknorvleciged and ercn praised. Sorne of these reactions highlighted the public's ambivalence torvurd achieving better educational results rhiough the more rigid conirol of human behavioi. For e xarnple, a reporter fbr Pop ular trleclnnics renrilrked on his orvn sense of unease about the
FrfJgtn ri-ls:

("Programed learning," 1961' p. 38). The question ofrvho rvould control the tyPes ofbehar,iors and responses thanvould be elicited ior conditioned) inevitably emerged. A writer for Pnret$s' trIagazine, began her article: "I'd been reading educational journals which questioned many aspects of atitomated instruction, not to mention ne\rsPaper lrarnings about robots taking
oyer classrooms. . ' . Was the dehunranized Brave \ew \Vo*id rediy rvith us, I rvondered- ie it i984 alreadv?" (Kreig, 1961, p.45). Later, she quoted a

Parents rvere also worried about the potential for social alienation through the use of machine teaching. One parent at the Collegiate School for Bo.vs in Nerv York Cit,v, the site of one of the first experirnental trials of the teaching mathine, remarked, "lf they're just going to stick our boys behind machirres, they might as well be in classes of50 or er.en a 100 instead ofa dozen" (as cited in Kreig, 1961, p. 76). William Ferrn president of the center for the Study of Democratic Instittltions, rvrote that the teaching machine trend was responsible for the adoption ofthe "totally rvrong noiion that an educational systern is like a factory for prodr"rcing steel plate or buttons. ' ' ' The

Onc tiuestion in particuiar kept nagging at me as I taiked r.'ith the people \vho {re proPagating niactine r:ir:hing. The problem was aiticulated b' t"'a":hing-machine e.xpert Hugh .{nderson, nho told me, "Mv rsife sas going through a proilrirntr:ring sequerrce the other day in rrhich the ',soirr, 'response' .,t.rs souaht repeatedlv as rhe

central claim

''leading authority" on audio-visr-ral instruction rvho noted, "Teaching machine programming is a social problem. . , . He \vho controls the pro-

il efliciency. Mals education, it it said, requires maos producti,on. The resr'rlt ie alrtady discernible, and may be called technication" ("The critics speak," 1967, p' 56)' Luce
(

1960), in an article for the Sarrrr,lny EveningPost,

.,r;ri{i tetnlini,ii',:{....5he wanttd to

sa,v

gramnring heartland controls the edr.rcational i'istem" (P. 80).

reported one parent's reaction to the idea of machine teaching: "r\ nrachine teach rny child?

ations

of human value" (N{civturrin, p.'tO).

..

1967,