"Technology": The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept

Author(s): LEO MARX

Source: Social Research, Vol. 64, No. 3, Technology and the rest of culture (FALL 1997), pp.
965-988
Published by: The New School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971194 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 18:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The New School is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Technology:The /
Emergenceofa /
Hazardous /
Concept* / BY LEO MARX

is byno
"... the essenceof technology
meansanythingtechnological."
- Heideggeri

New Conceptsas HistoricalMarkers

X he historyof technologyis one of those subjectsthatmost of

us knowmore about thanwe realize. Long beforethe universities
recognizedit as a specialized fieldof scholarlyinquiry,American
public schools were routinelydisseminatinga sketchyoutline of
thathistoryto a large segmentof the population. They taughtus
aboutJamesWattand the steamengine,Eli Whitneyand the cot-
ton gin,and about othergreatinventorsand theirinventions,but
more important,theyled us to believe thattechnologicalinnova-
tion is a- probably the- major drivingforce of human history.
The theme was omnipresentin mychildhood experience. I met
it in the graphicchartsand illustrationsin mycopyof TheBookof
Knowledge, a children'sencyclopedia,and in the alluringdioramas
of earlyMan in the New YorkMuseum of NaturalHistory.These

* An earlyversionof thisessaywastheRichmondLectureat Williams College,Sep-

tember26, 1996.I am grateful to RobertDalzell,MichaelFischer,MichaelGilmore,
RebeccaHerzig,Carl Kaysen,KennethKeniston,LucyMarx,David Mindell,George
O'Har,HarrietRitvo,MerrittRoe Smith,
Judith andG.R.Stangefortheirhelpful
Spitzer,
comments and criticism.

SOCIAL RESEARCH, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Fall 1997)

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
966 SOCIAL RESEARCH

exhibitsdisplayedthe linear advance of humanityas a series of

transformations,chieflyrepresentedby particularinventions -
-
fromprimitivetools to complex machines by means of which
Homo sapiens acquired itsunique powerover nature.This com-
fortingthemeremainspopular today,and it insinuatesitselfinto
everykind of historicalnarrative.Here, forexample, is a passage
froma recent anthropologicalstudyof apes and the originsof
human violence:

Ourownancestors fromthisline [ofwoodlandapes] beganshap-

ing stone tools and relyingmuch more consistently on meat
around2 millionyearsago. Theytamedfireperhaps1.5 million
yearsago. Theydevelopedhumanlanguageat some unknown
latertime,perhaps150,000yearsago. Theyinvented agriculture
10,000yearsago. Theymadegunpowder around1,000yearsago,
and motorvehiclesa centuryago (Wranghamand Peterson,
1996,p. 61).

This capsule historyofhuman developmentfromstone toolsto

Ford cars illustratesthe shared "scientific"understanding,circa
1997, of the historyof technology.But one arrestingif infre-
quentlynoted aspect of thisfamiliaraccount is the belated emer-
-
gence of the word used to name the veryrubric the kind of
thing- thatallegedlydrivesour history:technology. The factis that
duringall but the verylastfewseconds,as itwere,of the ten mil-
lennia of recorded human historyencapsulated in this passage,
the concept of technology- in our sense of its meaning- did not
exist.The word,based on the Greekroot,techne (meaning,or per-
tainingto, art,craft)originally came into English in the seven-
teenth century,but it then referredto a kind of learning,
discourse,or treatise,concerned withthe mechanic arts.At the
timeof the IndustrialRevolution,and throughmostof the nine-
teenthcentury, theword technology primarily referredto a kind of
book; exceptfora fewlexical pioneers,itwas not untilthe turnof
this centurythat sophisticatedwriterslike Thorstein Veblen
began to use thewordto mean the mechanicartscollectively. But
that sense of the word did not gain wide currency until after

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY: A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 967

WorldWar I.2 (It is curiousthatmanyhumanistscholars - I

-
includemyselfhaveso casuallyprojectedtheidea backintothe
past,and intocultures, in whichitwasunknown.)The factis that
thiskeyword- designator of a pivotalconceptin contemporary
-
discourse is itselfa surprisingly recentinnovation.
Why does that matter? From a culturalhistorian's viewpoint,
theemergenceof such a crucialterm - whethera newlycoined
wordor an old wordinvested withradically newmeaning - often
is a markeroffar-reaching developments in societyand culture.
Recall,forexample,Tocqueville'stacitadmission, in Democracy in
America, that he could notdo justiceto hissubjectwithoutcoin-
ing strange term"individualism"
the new (Tocqueville, 1946,II, p.
98); or RaymondWilliams, who famously discovered, in writing
Culture andSociety, a curiousinterdependence, indeterminacy, or
reflexivity in the relationbetweenconcurrentchangesin lan-
guage and in society.Williamshad setout to examinethetrans-
formationof culturecoincidentwith the rise of industrial
capitalism in Britain,buthe foundthatthewordculture like
itself,
suchotherkeywordsas class,industry, democracy, had
art, acquired
itsmeaningsin responseto theverychangeshe proposedto ana-
lyze.It wasnotsimplythatthewordculture had been influenced
by thosechanges, but that itsmeaning had in largemeasurebeen
-
entangledwith and in some degree generated by- them
(Williams,1983, pp. xiii-xviii).A recognitionof thiscircular
processhelpstoaccountfortheorigin - and thesignificance - of
as a historical '
technology marker.
But how do we identify the changesin societyand culture
markedby the emergenceof technology? I assume that those
changes in effectcreated a semantic void, that is,a setofsocialcir-
cumstances forwhichno adequateconceptwasyetavailable - a
void thatthe new concept,technology, eventually would fill.It
wouldproveto be a moreadequate,apt referent forthosenovel
circumstances thanitsimmediate precursors - wordslikemachine,
invention, improvement, and, above all, the rulingconceptof the
mechanic
(or usefulor practicalor industrial)arts.In a seminalessay

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
968 SOCIAL RESEARCH

of 1829, Thomas Carlylehad announced that the appropriate

name forthe emergingera was "The Age of Machinery"(Carlyle,
1829). But laterin the century,machinery evidentlycame to seem
inadequate, and the need fora more apt termevidentlywas felt.
The obviousquestions,then,are: Whywas therea semanticvoid?
Whichnew developmentscreatedit?Whatmeaningswas technolo-
gybetterable to conveythan its precursors?In tryingto answer
these questions,I also propose to assess the relativemeritsand
limitationsof the concept of technology.
As for the hazardouscharacterof the concept, at this point I
need onlysaythatthe alleged hazard is discursive,not physical.I
am not thinkingabout weaponry,nor am I thinkingabout the
destructiveuses of othertechnologies;rather,I have in mind haz-
ards inherentin, or encouraged by,the concept itself- especially
when the singularnoun (technology) is the subject of an active
verb, and thus by implication an autor omous agent capable of
determiningthe course of events,as we constantlyhear in count-
less variantsof the archetypalsentence:"Technologyis changing
the waywe live."When used in thisway,I submit,the concept of
technologybecomes hazardous to the moral and politicalcogency
of our thought.My argument,let me add, should not- if suffi-
cientlyclear- providecomfortto eitherthe ludditesor the tech-
nocrats.On the contrary, myhope is thatit mayhelp to end the
banal, increasinglyfutile debate between these two dogmatic,
seeminglyirrepressibleparties.

The MechanicArtsand theChangingIdeologyofProgress

By the 1840s, some of the changes that contributedto the

were becomingapparent.
emergenceof the concept of technology
They may be divided into two large categories,ideological and
substantive:first,changes in the prevailing ideas about the
mechanic arts,and second, changes in the organizationaland
materialmatrixof the mechanic arts.3As a referencepoint for
both kinds of change, here is the peroration of a ceremonial
speech deliveredby Senator Daniel Websterat the opening of a

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY: A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 969

new section of the NorthernRailroad in Lebanon, New Hamp-

shire,on November17, 1847:

It is an extraordinaryera in whichwe live.It is altogether

new.
The worldhas seen nothinglikeitbefore.I willnotpretend,no
one can pretend,to discerntheend; buteverybodyknowsthat
theage is remarkable researchintotheheavens,the
forscientific
earth, and what is beneath theearth;and perhapsmoreremark-
able stillfortheapplicationofthisscientificresearchto thepur-
suitsoflife.The ancientssawnothinglikeit.The modernshave
seen nothinglikeit tillthepresentgeneration.. . . We see the
oceannavigated and thesolidlandtraversed bysteampower,and
intelligence communicated Trulythisis almosta
byelectricity.
miraculous era.Whatis beforeus no one can say,whatis uponus
no one can hardly realize.The progressoftheage hasalmostout-
stripped human belief;the future
is known onlytoOmniscience.4

The firstideological development that the word technology

would eventuallyratify, as indicated by Webster'sexemplarydis-
play of the "rhetoric
of the technologicalsublime,"has to do with
the perceived relation between innovations in science, the
mechanic arts,and the prevailingbeliefin progress.5When Web-
sterdepicts the railroad as epitomizing - indeed, as constituting
-
in itself the progressof the age, he is confirminga subtlemodi-
ficationof the earlier Enlightenmentconcept of historyas a
recordof progress.
Of course theidea ofprogresshad been closelybound up, from
itsinception,withthe acceleratingrate of scientificand mechan-
ical innovation.To call progress"an idea," incidentally,as if it
were merelyone idea among many,is to belittleit. By the timeof
Webster's speech, it had become the fulcrum of an all-
encompassingsecular world view,and, in a sense, modernity's
nearestsecular equivalentof the creationmythsthatembodythe
belief systemsof premodern cultures. In the context of the
seventeenth-century scientificrevolution,the word progress had
served, in a straightforward literal sense, to signifya series of
incrementaladvances, withinclearlybounded enterpriseswith

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
970 SOCIAL RESEARCH

specificgoals,such as the developmentof the microscopeor tele-

scope. But later,in the era of the Americanand French revolu-
tions,so manyexamplesof thisonce clearlydefinedand bounded
kind of progresshad become manifestthatthe word's meaning
was extendedto the entire- boundless- course of human events.
Historyitselfwas redefinedas a recordof the steady,cumulative,
continuousexpansion of human knowledgeof, and power over,
nature- knowledgeand power thatmightbe expected to result
in a universalimprovementin the conditionsof human life.
But the republican thinkerswho led the way in framingthis
"masternarrative"of progress - men like Condorcet and Turgot,
Paine and Priestley, FranklinandJefferson - did not,likeWebster,
equate progresswithinnovationsin the mechanicarts.Theywere
radical republicans,political revolutionists,and although they
celebrated innovationsin the mechanic arts, they celebrated
themnot as constituting progressin themselves,but ratheras the
means of attainingit; to themthe truemeasureof progresswas to
be humanity'sforthcoming liberationfromaristocratic,ecclesias-
tical,and monarchicoppression,and the establishmentof more
just, peaceful societies based on the consent of the governed.
Whatrequiresemphasishere is theirstrongconvictionabout the
relationshipbetweenthe artsand the restof societyand culture.
To them,advances in science and the mechanic artswere chiefly
importantas a meansof arrivingat social and politicalends.6
By Webster'stime, however,that distinctionalready had lost
mostof itsforce.This was partlydue to the presumedsuccess of
the republicanrevolutions,and to the complacentconservatism
induced by the rapid growthof the immenselyproductiveand
lucrativecapitalistsystemofmanufactures. Thus SenatorWebster,
whose most important constituents were factoryowners,mer-
chants,and financiers,did not thinkof the railroad as merely
instrumental- merelya means of achievingsocial and political
progress.He identifiedhis own interestswiththe companydirec-
torsand stockholderswho enjoyedthe profits,and in hisviewthe
railroad exemplified a socially transformative power of such

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY: A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 971

immensescope and promise21sto be a virtualembodiment- the

perfecticon- of progress.
The new entrepreneurialelite for whom Websterspoke was
thusrelievedof itspresumedobligationto fulfillthe old republi-
can politicalmandate.Althoughthe BostonAssociates- the mer-
chants who launched the Lowell textile industry - were
concerned about the social and political effectsof their new
industrialventure,they chieflyexpressed their sense of social
obligationbyacts of privatephilanthropy(Dalzell, 1987). Innova-
tions in the mechanic arts could be relied upon, in the longer
term,to issue in progressand prosperityforall. A distinctivefea-
ture of the new mechanic arts,moreover,was theirtangibility -
theiromnipresenceas physical,visible,sensiblyaccessibleobjects.
Thus new factoriesand machinesmightbe expected,in the ordi-
narycourse of theiroperations,to automaticallydisseminatethe
belief in progressto all levels of the population. As John Stuart
Mill acutelyobserved,the mere sightof a potentmachine like the
railroad in the landscape wordlesslyinculcated the notion that
thepresentis an improvementon the past,and thatthewondrous
futureis imaginable, as Websterput it, "only to Omniscience"
(Mill, 1865, II, p. 148).
But in the 1840s this blurring of the distinctionbetween
mechanical means and politicalends also provokedardent criti-
cism. It was denounced by a vocal minorityof dissidentintellec-
tualsas a sign of moral negligenceand politicalregression.Thus
HenryThoreau, who was conductinghis experimentat the pond
in 1847, the yearWebstergave his speech, writesin Waiden:

Thereis an illusionabout. . . [modernimprovements]; thereis

notalwaysa positiveadvance.. . . Our inventions
are wontto be
pretty whichdistract
toys, ourattention fromseriousthings.
They
are butimproved meansto an unimproved end (Thoreau,1950,
p. 46).

And in Moby-Dick,Herman Melville,afterpayingtributeto Cap-

tainAhab's naturalintellectand his masteryof the artofwhaling,

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
972 SOCIAL RESEARCH

has him acknowledgethe hazardous mismatchbetweenhis tech-

nical proficiencyand his irrationalpurpose: "Now,in his heart,
Ahab had some glimpseof this,namely,all mymeans are sane, my
motiveand myobject mad" (Melville,1967, p. 161).
This criticalviewof the new industrialartsmarked the rise of
an adversaryculturethatwould rejectthe dominantfaithin the
advance of the mechanic arts as a selfjustifying social goal.
Indeed, a directline of influence is traceablefromthe intellectu-
al dissidentsof the 1840s to the widespread 1960s rebellion
against established institutions - from,for example, Thoreau's
recommendation,in "Civil Disobedience" (1849); to "Let your
lifebe a counter-friction to stop the machine" (Thoreau, 1950, p.
644); to Mario Savio's 1964 exhortationto Berkeleystudents:
'You've got to put yourbodies upon the [machine] and make it
stop!" (Lipset and Wolin, 1965, p. 163). From its inception,the
counterculturai movement of the 1960s was seen- and saw
itself- as a revoltagainstan increasingly"technocraticsociety."7

The Construction Systems

of ComplexSociotechnological
I turnnow to the substantivechanges in the materialcharacter
and organizationalmatrixof the mechanic artsthatalso helped
In
to create the void to be filledby the new concept of technology.
Webster'sview,thesechangeswereembodied in the new machine
itself- the railroad as a materialand social artifact.Earlyin the
industrialrevolutioninnovationsin the mechanic artshad been
typifiedby single, freestanding,more or less self-contained
mechanical inventions:the spinningjenny,the power loom, the
steam engine, the steamboat,the locomotive,the dynamo,or,in
a word, machines. By Webster's time, however,the discrete
machine was replaced, as the typicalembodiment of the new
power,by a new kind of sociotechnologicalsystem.The railroad
was one of the earliest,mostvisibleof these large-scale,complex
systemsin the modern era.8 A novel featureof these systemsis
thatthe crucial physical-artifactual,or mechanical component-

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY: A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 973

thesteamlocomotive, forexample- constitutes a relatively small

partofthewhole.
Thus,in additionto theengineitself,the operationof a rail-
road required:(1) variouskindsof ancillary equipment(rolling
stock,stations,yards,bridges,tunnels,viaducts,signalsystems,
and a hugenetwork oftracks);(2) a corporatebusinessorganiza-
tionwitha largecapitalinvestment; (3) specializedformsoftech-
nical knowledge (railroad engineering,telegraphy);(4) a
specially trainedworkforcewithuniquerailroading skills,includ-
ingciviland locomotive engineers, firemen, telegraphers, brake-
men, conductors - a work force large and resourceful enoughto
keepthesystem goingdayand night,in all kindsofweather, 365
a
days year; and (5) various facilitatinginstitutionalchanges,such
as lawsestablishing standardized trackgaugesand a nationalsys-
temofstandardized timezones.
Eventually these large,tightly organizedyetamorphousnet-
-
works likethetelegraph andwireless systems,theelectricpower
and use system, -
and so on led to thereplacement of thetradi-
tionalfamily(fatherand sons) firmby the corporationas the
dominantAmericanformof businessorganization, and to the
emergence of a new kind of professional or (as itlaterwouldbe
called in the UnitedStates)"scientific" management(Bijkeret
al., 1987,pp. 51-82; Chandler,1977,pp. 79-120). A prominent
feature ofthesecomplex,messy, ad hoc systems is thelackofclear
boundary linesbetweentheirconstituent elements. Ofcentralsig-
nificance hereis theblurring oftheboundarybetweenthemate-
rial-artifactual component (the mechanical equipment or
hardware)and therest:thecognitive, technical,or scientific com-
the
ponents; hierarchically organized work force; the financial
apparatus; and the method of obtaining raw materials.
Anotherdevelopment thatcontributed tothecomplexity, scale,
and singularity of the new systems was the increasingconver-
gence,in thenineteenth century,ofscientific knowledge and the
mechanicarts.Websterhad alluded to electricity and the tele-
graph,and had linkedthe adventof the railroadto "scientific

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
974 SOCIAL RESEARCH

research into the heavens, the earth, and what is beneath the
earth."The factis thatthe building of the railroadsdid marka
new departurein thisrespect.Whereas most earlierinnovations
of the industrialrevolutionhad been made bypractical,mechan-
ically adept, rule-of-thumb tinkererswith littleor no scientific
education, a number of West Point-trainedmilitaryengineers
brought a more formal kind of technical education, in part
derived from the Ecole Polytechnique,to the building of the
Americanrailroads(hence the emergenceof civilengineering,to
distinguishthe civilianfromthe militarybranches of the profes-
sion).9 By 1847, thejoining of science and the practicalartswas
under way,but it was not until the end of the century,withthe
growthof the electricaland chemical industries,that the large-
scale amalgamationof science and industryhelped to call forth
the concept of a new realm of innovationand transformative
power- a new entity - called technology(Noble, 1977).
As earlyas 1828, to be sure, the prospectof amalgamatingsci-
ence and industryalreadyhad elicitedan explicitstatement - evi-
dentlythe firstevermade- about the need forthatnew concept.
In a seriesof lecturesat Harvardentitled"The Elementsof Tech-
nology,"Jacob Bigelow,a Boston botanistand physician,put the
case thisway:

There has probablynever been an age in which the practical

applicationsof science have employedso large a portionof talent
and enterprise... as in the present.To embody. . . the various
. . . [aspects] of such an undertaking,/ have adoptedthegeneral
nameof Technology, a wordsufficiently whichis found in
expressive,
someoftheolderdictionaries,and is beginning in thelitera-
toberevived
tureofpracticalmenat thepresentday.Under this title... [I will
attempt]to include ... the principles,processes,and nomencla-
tures of the more conspicuous arts, particularlythose which
involveapplicationsofscience,and whichmaybe considereduse-
ful,bypromotingthe benefitof society,togetherwiththe emolu-
mentof thosewho pursue them.10

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY: A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 975

But Bigelowwas farahead of his time.The concept of technolo-

gydid not gain currencyin the intellectualworldforalmosta cen-
tury.His greatestsuccess in disseminatingthe new termprobably
was its precocious use in naming a new institutionof learning-
The MassachusettsInstituteof Technology- in 1862. (He also
became a trusteeof MIT.) But even at the mid-century, fewwrit-
ers availed themselvesof the term.Karl Marx and Arnold Toyn-
bee (a forebearof the twentieth-centuryhistorian),both ofwhom
wroteextensively about the changes effectedbythe new machine
power,seldom ifeverused it.As late as the first(1867) editionof
Capital,whereMarx'ssubject- theway"machinery. . . formsnew
systemsofmanifoldmachines"- criesout forthe newconcept,he
relied on termslikefactory mechanism, and otherrelicsof the old
mechanisticlexicon (Marx, Karl, 1978). At points in Toynbee's
influentiallectures on the IndustrialRevolution,composed in
1880-81, where technology would have been apposite, he also
relied on conventional older terms like mechanicaldiscoveries,
or inventions.11
improvements,
Earlyin the twentiethcenturythe avant-gardeof the modernist
movementin the arts,withits several technology-affirming sub-
movements - including the vogue of "Machine Art" and of
machine-likestylesin Futurism,Precisionism,Constructivism,
Cubism, and the InternationalStylein architecture - helped to
elevate motifsformerlytreated as merelyinstrumentalto the
plane of intrinsic(vergingon ultimate) aestheticvalue. In the
Bauhaus aesthetic,design was marriedto industry.Indeed, the
entire modernist turn to Mondrian-likeabstraction - the new
respectaccorded to novel geometric,rectilinear,nonrepresenta-
- comportedwiththe markedlyabstract,mathemati-
tional styles
cal, cerebral, practical, artificial (that is, not "organic" or
"natural")connotationsof the emergingconcept, technology.
But the word itselfdid not gain trulypopular currencyuntil
well afterthe astonishingexplosion of inventionsin the decades
(roughly1880-1920) bracketingthe turn of the century.That
decisiveperiod, sometimescalled the Second IndustrialRévolu-

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
976 SOCIAL RESEARCH

tion,markedthe adventof electriclightand power,the automo-

bile, the radio, the telephone,the airplane,and the movingpic-
ture. As compared with the innovationsof the firstindustrial
revolution,theseinventionsweremarkedbytheirrelativecleanli-
ness, and by theirdependence on advances in science. Each of
theseartifacts eventuallyformedthe materialcore ofa large,com-
plex sociotechnologicalsystem.Each also was sufficiently
impres-
siveforinclusionin theiconologyofprogress.Of all the enduring
testimonialsto the dynamismof thatera, none conveyeda more
vividsense of the acceleratingrateof change keyedto new inven-
tionsthan TheEducationofHenryAdams(firstpublished privately
in 1907). Adams announced the appearance of a new American,
"bornsince 1900,"who was

the child of incalculablecoal-power, chemicalpower,electric

power, and radiating energy,as wellas newforcesyetundeter-
-
mined [and who] mustbe a sortof God comparedwithany
otherformercreationof nature.At the rateof progresssince
1800,every American wholivedtotheyear2000wouldknowhow
to controlunlimitedpower.He would thinkin complexities
unimaginable to an earliermind(Adams,1973,pp. 496-97).

Adams rarelyifeverused the termtechnology, and in retrospect

indeed his preferred vocabulary- energy,power,forces - often
seems more vividand evocative,more effectiverhetorically, than
-
the new term.But in spiteof- or perhapsbecause of itslack of
connotativeresonance,technology began to take hold of the imag-
inationof writersin the earlyyearsof the new century.By 1904,
ThorsteinVeblen, who perhaps did more than any of his con-
temporariesto popularize the idea of technology and its unique
transformative power,assertedthat"The factor in the modernsit-
uation thatis alien to the ancientregimeis the machine technol-
ogy,withitsmanyand wide ramifications." He contendedthatthis
radicallyinnovativemode of making and doing would literally
transform the mentalprocessesof thosewho used it.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY: A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 977

The machine compels a more or less unremittingattentionto

phenomena of an impersonal characterand to sequences and
correlationsnot dependent fortheirforceupon human predilec-
tion nor created by habit or custom. The machine throwsout
anthropomorphichabitsof thought.It compels the adaptationof
the workmanto his work,ratherthan the adaptationof the work
to the workman.. . . [It] givesno insightinto questions of good
and evil,meritand demerit The machine technologytakesno
cognizance of ... rules of precedence; ... it can make no use of
any of the attributes of worth. Its scheme of knowledge ... is
based on the lawsof materialcausation,not on thoseof immemo-
rial custom, authenticity, or authoritativeenactment.Its meta-
physicalbasis is the law of cause and effect,whichin the thinking
of its adepts has displaced even the law of sufficientreason
(Veblen, 1932, pp. 303, 310-11).

Veblen, along with Frederick Winslow Taylor and Howard

Scott- who led the TechnocracyMovement of the 1930s- also
helped to popularize the seductiveidea, foreshadowedin Web-
ster's1847 speech, thatthe miraculousimprovementsin the con-
ditionsof lifemade possible by technologymightenable society
to dispense withpoliticsas its primarymeans of directingsocial
change. This line of thoughtmaybe said to have culminatedin
the "liberalconsensus"of the Kennedyera, when enthusiasmfor
the powerof technologyto replace politicsbecame the quasioffi-
cial doctrineof the administration;it was accompanied by confi-
dent academic predictionsof the forthcoming"end of ideology."

TechnologyFillstheVoid
At the outset I suggested that Daniel Webster's1847 speech
pointsto the existenceof a conceptual void thatwould eventual-
lybe filledbythe idea of technology.
Whatwas missing,froman ide-
ological standpoint,was the concept of a form of power- of
progress- thatfarexceeded, in degree,scope, and scale, the rel-
ativelylimitedcapacityof the merelyuseful(or mechanic or practi-
cal or industrial)artsto generatesocial change. Whatwas needed
was a concept thatdid not merelysignify, like the useful arts,a

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
978 SOCIAL RESEARCH

means of achievingprogress,but ratherone thatsignifieda dis-

crete entitythat,in itself,virtuallyconstitutedprogress.Besides,
the idea of utilityhad long borne the stamp of vulgarity.Ever
since antiquity,the usefularts in theirvarious guises, had been
regardedas intellectually and sociallyinferiorto the high(or fine,
or imaginative)
creative, arts.The concept of the usefulartsand its
variantsimplied,if onlybecause it explicitlydesignateda subor-
dinate branch of the all-inclusiveentity,the arts,a limitedand
limitingcategory.Indeed, the distinctionbetweenthe usefuland
the fine arts had served to ratifya set of invidiousdistinctions
betweenthingsand ideas, the physicaland the mental,the mun-
dane and the ideal, bodyand soul, femaleand male, makingand
thinking,theworkof enslavedmen and thatof freemen. Byasso-
ciatingthe railroad withscience, business,and wealth,Webster
and his contemporariescreated the need fora termthatwould
erase this derogatorylegacy and elevate the useful to a higher
intellectualand social plane.
All of theseideological purposes,and more,wereservedbythe
relativelyabstract, indeterminate,neutral, synthetic-sounding
termtechnology. Whereasthe mechanic artscalled to mindmen with
soiled hands tinkeringat workbenches,technology conjures up
imagesof clean, well-educated,whitemale techniciansin control
booths gazingat dials,instrumentpanels, or computermonitors.
And whereasthe mechanic artswere thoughtof as belonging to
the mundane world of everydaywork, physicality, and practi-
- of humdrumhandicraftsand artisanalskills- technology
cality is
identifiedwiththe more elevatedsocial and intellectualrealm of
the university.This abstractword,withitsvividblankness,itslack
of a specificartifactual,tangible,sensuous referent,its aura of
sanitized,bloodless cerebrationand precision,helped to ease the
introductionof thepracticalarts- especiallythe new engineering
profession - into the precinctsof the higherlearning.
Turningto the otherhalfof the conceptualvoid,whatwas miss-
ing,froman organizationaland materialstandpoint,was a name
forthe novel entity- a distinctnew kind of sociotechnicalforma-

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY: A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 979

don- whichemergedin thenineteenth century. Thisnewentity

hasbeencalled"a large-scale technological system,"butthatterm
begs an importantquestion:Which aspect is technological?
Where,exactly, is the technology} To be sure,the indispensable
materialcomponent of these formations invariablyis a distinctive
materialdevice,a piece ofequipmentdesignedto facilitate pro-
duction,transportation, communication, or forthatmatterany
formofhumanmakingor doing.Butas we haveseen,overtime
thatpivotalartifactual componenthad come to constitute an
increasingly minutepartof the whole.Thinkof the computer
chip!
Althoughin commonparlancenowadaysthismaterialaspect
ofteniswhattheconceptof technology tacitlyrefersto,sucha lim-
itedmeaning - as we sawin thecase of therailroad - is ambigu-
ous and misleading. It is ambiguousbecause,forone thing,the
componentonlyconstitutes
artifactual a partofthewholesystem,
yettherestis so inclusive, so various,and itsboundariesso vague,
thatit resistsbeingclearlydesignated.Thisambiguity surelyis a
largepart of what Heidegger had in mind when he enigmatically
assertedthat"theessenceoftechnology is byno meansanything
technological," and it also goes,as we shallsee, to myassertion
thattechnology, as the conceptis used in publicdiscoursenowa-
days,is hazardous.For in themajorcontemporary technologies
thematerial -
component technology narrowly conceived as a phys-
-
ical device is merelyone partof a complexsocialand institu-
tionalmatrix.In capitalist societiesthatmatrixtypically takesthe
formofa privatecorporation, bank, publicutility a large
or with
capitalinvestment. (It is of course relevantthatthe concept
emerged at the end of theera characterized bywhatAlanTracht-
enberghascalled"theincorporation ofAmerica"[Trachtenberg,
1982]). But these largetechnological systems also maybe embed-
ded in otherkindsofmacroinstitution, forexample,branchesof
government, such as the military or the space program,or uni-
versities.
Theytypically include an organizedbodyof technical
know-how; a cadreofspecially trainedexpertsand workers; and a

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
980 SOCIAL RESEARCH

relateduniversity teachingand researchprogram.Moreover,the

functioning of these systems,or technologies,often entails the
creation of special legislativeand regulatorybodies, as well as
ancillaryorganizationsforthe supplyof rawmaterialsand the dis-
tributionof itsproducts.
There is a compellinglogic implicitin the emergence of this
ambiguous,unspecific,indeterminate, well-nighindefinablecon-
cept, technology,as a name for these ambiguous,messy,incoher-
ent,new formations.This congruencetakesus back to Raymond
Williams'sinsightinto the curious interdependence,or reflexivi-
ty,involvedin the social constructionof historicalmarkerslike
cultureor- in thiscase- technology. Earlier,I noted the blurringof
the lines of demarcation- internallyas it were- betweenthe var-
ious componentsof a particularmechanic art,and the reduced
relativeimportanceof the material-artifactual component. But
even more significant, perhaps,is the breakdownof theboundary
separatingwhole technologiesfromthe rest of societyand cul-
ture.
Consider, for example, automotivetechnology.Its defining,
indispensablematerialcore is of course the internalcombustion
engine, plus- naturally - the restof the automobile chassis.But
surelyit also includes the mechanized assemblylines, the great
factories,the skilledworkforce,the automotiveengineers,the
engineeringknowledge,the corporatestructures withtheirstock-
holdersand theirhuge capitalinvestments, and theirnetworksof
dealers and repairfacilities.But wheredo we drawthe boundary
separatingall of thisfromthe restof societyand culture?Do we
include,as partof automotivetechnology,the road-buildingand
maintenance systems,the truckingindustry,the indispensable
feederindustries - glass,rubber,steel,aluminum,plastic,and so
on? Whatabout the minesthatprovidethe rawmaterials?Indeed,
what about the global oil industry - an offspringof automotive
technologythatvies,in size, wealth,and influence,withits par-
ent?At itsouter limits,the intricateinterpénétration of automo-
tive technology and the rest of society and culture seems

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY: A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 981

boundless and, finally,indescribable.The economic role of auto-

motivetechnology,in itsmost comprehensivesense, is incalcula-
ble; as a source ofjobs, for example, it maywell account for as
much as a fifthof the Americanworkforce.To speak, as people
oftendo, of the "impact"of a major technologylike the automo-
bile upon societymakes littlemore sense, by now,than to speak
of the impactof the bone structureon the human body.But it is
when we speak of the overallimpactof technology,when the term
putatively representsa discretecategoryof human activity,
thatits
mosthazardous consequences come intoview.

The Hazards ofReification

The hazardous characterof the concept of technology is a direct
consequence of the historyjust outlined. That historyhas two
major strands.We encounter one strand in common parlance
nowadays,when technology is used as if it referredto a tangible,
-
determinateentity a kindof thing.This usage is traceableto the
word's tacit place in that familiarlineage of material artifacts,
from stone tools to automobiles, introduced at the outset.
Indeed, historiansand otherscholarsin the human sciences now
tend to project the concept of technology backward in time to
encompass the entirehistoryof tools. Yet, as we have seen, the
concept onlycame into generaluse when,at the end of the nine-
teenthcentury,the age-old artifactuallexicon of the mechanic
artshad become inadequate. That is where the second strandin
the historyof the termcomes in. The idea of tools or machines
or, for thatmatter,any other materialartifactsdid not begin to
conveythe complex, quasiscientific,corporate characterof the
new sociotechnicalformationsthat emerged at that time. The
curiousfactis thatthe discursivetriumphof the concept of tech-
nologyis in large measure attributableto its vague, intangible,
indeterminatecharacter- the fact that it does notreferto any-
thingas specificor tangibleas a tool or machine.Ifthefirststrand
givesus a concept of technologythatoveremphasizesthe tangi-
ble, the second is so inclusiveas to be amorphous. But then,we

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
982 SOCIAL RESEARCH

finallyare compelled to ask, what sort of entityis technology?

Whatdoes itshistoryrevealabout itsessentialnature?
A significant resultof thathistory,withitsunstablemarriageof
artifactsand socioeconomic structures,is that the concept, tech-
nology, is peculiarlysusceptibleto reification.To borrowGeorge
Lukacs's lucid definition,reificationoccurs when "a relation
between people takes on the character of a thing and thus
acquiresa 'phantom-objectivity,' an autonomythatseemsso strict-
ly rationaland all-embracingas to conceal everytrace of itsfun-
damental nature: the relation between people." A distinctive
resultof reificationobservedbyKarl Marx,Lukacs remindsus, is
the power exerted by commoditiesover human beings; in that
case social relationsbetweenpeople were mysteriously endowed
withan objective,even autonomouscharacter(Lukacs, 1971, pp.
83-87). I believe thatsomethingsimilarhas happened withtech-
nology,which also has taken on an objective character,as if it
existedindependentof itshuman creators,and is capable of con-
trollingthem by virtueof an autonomyalien to them (Winner,
1977).
But itwillbe said that,whateveritslimitations, the concept tech-
nology remainsindispensableas thename foran increasingly large
portionofhuman activity at the end of the twentieth century.Wit-
ness itswidespreaduse nowadaysto conveya sense of the accel-
erating diffusionof new technologies; the rapidly expanding
universeof gadgetry;the deepening involvementof innovative
technologies in everyimaginable aspect of contemporarylife.
Today,it is true,technologyis the wordwe relyon to referto each
and all of thesedevelopments.It is a keyword,in fact,in our dis-
course about the "newworldorder,"withits global marketorga-
nized around a technological armature of electronic
communications.The commonplaceis thatthe transformation of
global societyis being "driven"by the electronic revolutionin
technology(Smithand Marx, 1995).
The strikingfact is, however,that the concept of technology,
when invoked on this plane of generality,is almost completely

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY: A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 983

vacuous. It rarelyenables us to sayanythingof genuine interestor

value, to attributeanycharacteristic applicable, across the board,
to all or most technologies.It is impossible,for example, to say
anythingmeaningfulabout the moral importof technologyor
technologicalinnovationin general. We have long realized that
some of our technologiesare unequivocallyevil,usefulonly for
destruction,such as those used to produce nuclear bombs, land
mines,or poison gas; and of course we also have unequivocally
benign medical technologies,such as those capable of eliminat-
ing hithertoincurable diseases, or of performingunimaginably
delicate, microscopic surgical procedures. Thus, technology,
according to a banalitymost of us encountered as children,is
capable of enhancingand destroyinglife;it is good and bad, and
this inherentcontradictionmakes the futility of the unceasing
debate between Luddites and Technocratsall too obvious. One
reason that technologyis hazardous, then, is that it stiflesand
obfuscatesanalyticthinking.When we tryto explain whythatis
so, the answerpointsto the factthatwe cannot saywhattheword
means.
Earlier I asked, "What sort of entityis technology?"But the
truthseems to be thatit is not an entityat all. An entity,accord-
ing to mydictionary,is somethingthatexistsas a particularand
discreteunit. But technology,in the sense of the mechanic arts
collectively,lacks both particularity
and discreetness,and indeed
it is no sort of unit whatever.This elusive nonentitycannot be
identifiedwithany particularkind of artifact,or any particular
social group,profession,or institution;nor does it representany
specifiablebody of ideas, methods,or principles.This semantic
vacuityis tacitlyconfirmedby the apparent inabilityof philoso-
phers to say exactlywhat theymean by technology. Definitionsof
thewordhave been notoriouslyunsatisfactory. Heidegger defines
it chieflybysayingwhatit is not,and among the otherinfluential
attempts,perhaps the most frequentlycited is that of Jacques
Ellul, who locates technologyin any manifestationof technique. By
identifying itwitheveryact ofmakingor doing,materialor social,

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
984 SOCIAL RESEARCH

he drainsit of all particularity and discreetness;the resultis that

it has littleor no useful,specifiablemeaning (Ellul, 1964). The
vacuityof the concept mightnot matterverymuch wereit not for
its omnipresence,and its implicitlyportentous consequences.
Today an immensechorus of intelligentpeople lamentsthe fact
that Ve" (humanity),in the tritephrase, "do not know where
technologyis takingus."
The chief hazard attributableto the concept of technology, as
currently used, is the mystification, and fatalismit helps
passivity,
to engender.Todaywe invokethewordas ifitwerea discreteenti-
- -
ty,and thus a causativefactor if not thechiefcausal factor in
everyconceivable developmentof modernity.Althoughwe can-
not sayexactlywhatthat"it"reallyis,itnonethelessservesas a sur-
rogate agent, as well as a mask, for the human actors actually
responsibleforthedevelopmentsin question.Because ofitspecu-
liar susceptibility to reification,to being endowed withthe magi-
cal power of an autonomous entity,technology is a major
contributantto thatgatheringsense, at the close of the millenni-
um, of politicalimpotence.By attributing autonomyand agency
to technology,we make ourselvesvulnerableto the feelingthat
our collectivelifein societyis uncontrollable.The popularityof
the beliefthattechnologyis the primaryforceshaping the post-
modern world is a measure of our growingreliance on instru-
mentalstandardsofjudgment,and our correspondingneglectof
moral and politicalstandards,in makingdecisivechoices about
the directionofsociety.To expose thishazard is a vitaltaskforthe
human sciences.

Notes
i Heidegger,1977,p. 4. For myearlierassessment of Heidegger's
argument, see "On Heidegger'sConception Technology'andItsHis-
of
toricalValidity"
(1984).
2 The first
use ofthewordin thissensereportedbytheOxfordEnglish
in
was 1859;
Dictionary butas notedbelow,JacobBigelowhad useditas
earlyas 1829, and it evidentlyhad appeared in German,Swedish,
French,and Spanishin thelate-eighteenth ThusJohannBeck-
century.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY:A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 985

mann, a German professor,is credited by Siebicke (1968) and Gille

(1986) withitsfirstuse in a book title,Anleitungzur Technologie (1777).
See also Morere (XII, 1966). Myversionof thishistory,itshould be said,
is not based on the kind of comprehensiveexamination of primary
sources thatan authoritativeaccount requires.Such a study,especially
one thatexaminesthe historyof the wordin severalmodernlanguages,
would be invaluable,but to thebest of myknowledge,does notyetexist.
3 AlthoughI relyon Americanexamples, I believe that Britishand
westernEuropean equivalentsexistformanyof them.
4 Webster,1903, IV, pp. 105-107. For a more detailed analysisof the
speech, see Leo Marx, 1964, pp. 209-14.
5 The "technologicalsublime"refersto the extensionof the concept
of sublimity, originallyapplied chieflyto the transcendent,quasitheo-
logical attributesof naturalphenomena, to the new industrialartifacts.
I discussthistendencyelsewhere (Marx, 1964, pp. 195-99); David Nye
has made a comprehensivestudyof the subject (Nye, 1995).
6 Thus when Benjamin Franklinwas offereda potentiallylucrative
patentforhis ingeniousnew stove,he explained his refusalto accept by
invokingthe communitarianrepublicannotion thatinventionsare val-
ued fortheircontributionto the polity."I declined it froma principle
which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, that as we enjoy
greatadvantagesfromthe inventionsof others,we should be glad of an
opportunityto serveothersbyanyinventionof ours" (Franklin1950, p.
132). For otherdiscussionsof thistopic,see also Marx, 1987, and Marx,
1996.
7 Roszak,1969,p. 5. Theodore Roszak,who helped to definethe char-
acter of the studentrevolt,refersto the rebels as "technocracy'schil-
dren,"and "the technocracy"as "thatsocial formin whichan industrial
societyreaches the peak of its organizationalintegration.It is the ideal
men usuallyhave in mind when theyspeak of modernizing,updating,
rationalizing,planning" (Roszak, 1969, p. 5).
8 I add the qualification,"the modern era," to acknowledge the
provocativetheory,advanced by Lewis Mumford(1966), that the first
"machine"was in factsuch a system,the systematic organizationofwork
contrivedby the Egyptiansto build the pyramids.The troublewiththis
theoryis thatit ignoresthe artifactualcomponentof the concept of the
machine and, whenit lateremerges,the concept of technology.For a more
extendedanalysisof thistheory,see myessay,"LewisMumford,Prophet
of Organicism"(1990, pp. 164-80).
9 Dunlavy,1994; Hill, 1957. At West Point, the militaryengineers,
trained in the traditionof the Ecole Polytechnic,acquired a more

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
986 SOCIAL RESEARCH

sophisticatedknowledgeof geometry,physics,and of a general scientif-

ic viewpointthan mostAmericanengineersat the time.A number of
themleftthearmyand became "civil"engineers,and workedon the rail-
road. I am gratefulto MerrittRoe Smithforcallingmyattentionto this
development.
!0 Bigelow,1829, pp. iii-iv (emphasisadded). Bigelow'slectureswere
supportedby the endowmentof Count Rumfordwho, in his 1815 will,
had leftHarvard$1000 a yearforlecturesdesigned to teach the "utility
of the physicaland mathematicalsciences forthe improvementof the
usefularts,and forthe extensionof the industry, prosperity, happiness
and well-beingof society"(Struik,1948, pp. 169-70). Struikseems to
have been the firsthistorianto creditBigelowwithfirstusing the mod-
ern sense of the word technology.
H Marx, 1978, p. 403; Toynbee, 1960. Marx's discussionin Capital I,
PartIV, Ch. XV, "Machineryand Modern Industry," is of particularper-
tinence(Tucker,1978,p. 403). As late as itseleventh(1911) edition,The
Encyclopaedia Britannica,whichcontained no separate entryon technolo-
gy, was offeringthe word technologyas a possible alternativeto the (pre-
ferred) use of technical in the entryon "Technical Education" {The
Encyclopaedia Britannica,11th ed., XXVI, p. 487).

References
Adams,Henry,TheEducationofHenryAdams(Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1973).
Bigelow,Jacob,Elements (Boston: Boston Press,1829).
ofTechnology
Bijker,Wiebe E., Hughes, Thomas P., Pinch, TrevorJ., eds., TheSocial
of TechnologicalSystems:New Directionsin theSociologyand
Construction
History ofTechnology (Cambridge:MIT Press,1987).
Carlyle,Thomas, "Signs the Times,"Edinburgh
of Review(1829), reprint-
ed in Criticaland Miscellaneous Essays(New York: Belford,Clarke 8c
Co., n.d.), Ill, pp. 5-30.
Chandler,AlfredD., Jr., The VisibleHand: TheManagerialRevolution in
American Business(Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press,1977).
Dalzell, RobertF.,Jr.,Enterprising Elite:TheBostonAssociatesand theWorld
TheyMade (Cambridge: Harvard Press,1987).
University
EarlyRailroadsin theUnited
Dunlavy,Colleen, Politicsand Industrialization:
Statesand Prussia(Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press,1957).
Ellul,Jacques, TheTechnological Society(New York:Knopf,1954).
Franklin,Benjamin, TheAutobiography ofBenjaminFranklin(New York:
Modern Library,1950).
Gille,Bertrand,TheHistory ofTechniques (New York: 1986).

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TECHNOLOGY:A HAZARDOUS CONCEPT 987

Heidegger, Martin,The QuestionConcerning Technology and OtherEssays,

WilliamLovitt,trans.(New York:Harper & Row, 1977).
Hill, ForestG., Roads,Rails, and Waterways: TheArmy Engineers and Early
Transportation(Tulsa: University of Oklahoma Press,1957).
Lipset, SeymourMartin,and Wolin, Sheldon, eds., TheBerkeley Student
Revolt(New York:Doubleday, 1965).
Lukacs,Georg,History and ClassConsciousness:Studiesin MarxistDialectics,
RodneyLivingstone, trans.(Cambridge: MIT Press,1971).
Marx,Karl,Capitalin RobertC. Tucker,ed., TheMarx-Engels Reader(New
York:Norton,1978).
Marx,Leo, TheMachinein theGarden:Technology and thePastoralIdeal in
America(New York:OxfordUniversity Press,1964).
Marx, Leo, "On Heidegger's Conception of Technology*and Its His-
toricalValidity,"TheMassachusetts Review25 (Winter1984): 638-52.
Marx, Leo, "Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?"Technology
Review(January1987): 32-41.
Marx, Leo, "Lewis Mumford:Prophet of Organicism,"in Thomas P.
Hughes and Agatha C. Hughes, eds., LewisMumford: PublicIntellec-
tual (New York:OxfordUniversity Press,1990), pp. 164-80.
Marx, Leo, and Mazlish, Bruce, eds., Progress: Fact or Illusion? (Ann
Arbor:University of MichiganPress,1996).
Melville,Herman, Moby-Dick (New York:Norton,1967).
Mill,John Stuart, "M. de Tocqueville on Democracyin America,"Edin-
burghReview(October 1840) in Dissertations and Discussion;Political,
and Historical(Boston: WilliamV. Spencer, 1865).
Philosophical,
Morere,J.-E,"Les Vicissitudesdu Sens de Technologie' Au Debut du
XIXe Siècle," Thaies,XII (1966): 73-84.
Mumford,Lewis, TheMythoftheMachine;Technicsand Human Develop-
ment(New York:Harcourt,1966).
Noble, David, AmericabyDesign:Science,Technology, and theRiseofCorpo-
rateCapitalism(New York:Knopf,1977).
Nye, David E., AmericanTechnological Sublime(Cambridge: MIT Press,
1995).
Roszak,Theodore, TheMakingofa Counter Culture:Reflectionson theTech-
nocratic and
Society Its Youthful
Opposition(New York: Anchor,1969).
Segal, Howard, Technological Utopianism in AmericanCulture(Chicago:
Chicago University Press,1985).
Siebicke, Wilfried,Technik,VersucheinerGeschicte der Wortfamilie um
(techne)in Deutschlandvom16 Jahrhundert bis etwtsa 1830 (Dussel-
dorf:1986).

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
988 SOCIAL RESEARCH

Smith,MerrittRoe, and Marx, Leo, eds., Does Technology DriveHistory!

The Dilemmaof Technological Determinism (Cambridge: MIT Press,
1995).
Struik,Dirk, YankeeSciencein theMaking(Boston: LittleBrown,1948).
Thoreau, Henry,Waidenand OtherWritings (New York:Modern Library,
1950).
Tocqueville,Alexisde, Democracy inAmerica, PhillipsBradley,trans.(New
York:Knopf,1946).
Toynbee,Arnold, TheIndustrialRevolution (Boston: The Beacon Press,
1960.)
Trachtenberg,Alan, TheIncorporation ofAmerica(NewYork:Hill & Wang,
1982).
Veblen, Thorstein,TheTheory ofBusinessEnterprise(NewYork:Scribners,
1932).
Webster,Daniel, The Writings and SpeechesofDaniel Webster(Boston: Lit-
tle,Brown,1903).
Williams,Raymond,Cultureand Society f 1780-1950 (NewYork:Columbia
UniversityPress,1983).
Winner,Langdon, Autonomous Technology: as a
Technology-out-of-Control
ThemeofPoliticalThought (Cambridge: MIT Press,1977).
Wranghan,Richard,and Peterson,Dale, DemonicMales:Apesand theOri-
ginsofHuman Violence (New York:Houghton Mifflin,1996).

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:55:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions