beauty of it and majesty symbolizes the entire country. >> throughout the weekend, american history tv is featuring colorado springs colorado. learn more about colorado springs and other stops on the tour on the website. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, on .-span3 >> next, the societal shift that occurred during the early 20th century as modernization impacted businesses and households. igo focuses on the literary works of the christine frederick and frederick winslow taylor, who sought to improve industrial efficiency. this class is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> all right. great. hello, everybody. as you know, we will take up the topic -- engineering work and a

person. i put up here the cover of one of theodore dreiser's novels, "sister carrie," and what we have been considering is a kind of fictional assault, right? on the victorian moral order. in theodore dreiser's case, in naturalistic fiction. naturalist writing. the attempt to get close to urban reality and recorded in the form -- record it in the form of a e-mail adventurer -- female adventurer. he set his story, as you know, in the booming, bustling town of chicago. and to use chicago as a kind of character in this story, to look at the booms, the busts, the travails of the characters in his novel. just to summarize where we got last time, we saw the workings of many things.

not just a story, but a kind of commentary on early 20th-century century america and especially urban industrial america. we saw the workings of a new economy. the novel itself as a kind of allegory for capitalism and especially consumer culture that was constantly on the move, in which styles, fashions, identities, characters all -- fall and rise. and importantly, they fall and rise without rhyme or reason. right? identities that you put on like a costume and shed as costume -- as characters move on to their new role. that has to do with carrie in her own story and the culture of the early twin century. -- of the 20th century, is racially a consumer culture. and we keep this moving. we focus on one more.

-- one word. desire. desire as a kind of engine in the story. wanting what you cannot have. always being able to see what is ahead of you. that is elusive that you are trying to grab. that is what makes things happen in the novel. remember, carrie is never satisfied. recall the department store. she felt the claim of each trinket and valuable on her. we talked about the moral of the story, a moral for the 20th century maybe, that there are no morals. good things happen to bad people. people are not punished for bad deeds. in fact, sometimes, like carrie, they are rewarded. what theodore dreiser did was invert the success story of the victorian period. he turned it right upside down.

the changing of fortunes was not the result of strong character or planning. you think back to horatio alger's story. fortune was the result of accidents. random occurrences. and here, theodore dreiser tells us, think what henry adams feared so much. an economy of dynamo, not a -- of virtue. you start to see how dreiser is picking up on these anxieties of early 20th century urban commercial life. and finally, i think this takes us into the discussion for today. dreiser told us a model for the self, one that is much less anchored than in booker t. washington or even horatio alger's story. a self that was passive, being acted upon by all kinds of forces.

kind of darwinian. fishing people around. remember, carrie was a waste and it forces, a lone figure. and importantly in chicago, she occupied a world of surfaces. always concerned with her outward appearance. the self is purely external. it is not internal. it is something that is very much radiating outward. dreiser helps us answer a question, which i'm going to put this way -- how does a cultural system come to an end? we talked about the genre of intellectual history. there are no beginning and ending dates -- there are no dates to anything, but i think this novel coming at the

beginning of the 20th century shows as many of the assumptions of the victorian age coming to a close. they will not all made out our one. many will continue on, and i hope we will get to some of that today. he is putting a nail in the coffin of the victorian age. our text for today comes from a very different place seemingly. not in the world of the novel. it is the imagined system, and maybe even the utopia of the engineer. a new kind of hero in this new century. we are going to turn to a new class of experts in the early 20th century, the so-called machine age, an age of mass production, skyscrapers. and the experts that would become prominent, not just to figured out -- to figure out how society works, but also to their promise that they could design an american society a new, right?

that they could design a more efficient, more productive, more smooth- running united states. ok, one of the watchwords there is certainly efficiency in our reading for today. ok, so we have already seen hints of this expert character coming to before in american fore in american culture. this is a character not unlike carrie, who becomes prominent in this. and i would say especially during world war i. 1914 to 1918, around which much of our readings for today prosper. progressives were pragmatists, people like john dewey who we have read, and walt whitman, who you read for today, all part of an intellectual circle, in this case centered in the new republic. the war itself was a tool.

it was not just an event. it was not just a tragedy. it was a tool that could be used like a scalpel. world war i was a war of technical management. technique will expertise was both sought after and was a product of the war itself, something that comes out of the war. the war will create new bureaucracies, new careers and it will help to elevate the status of expertise in american culture. remember here the prescient critique -- about the rise of war technique and his deep unease in terms of what the war was doing and producing people who could just get things done. so, during the war, it was not just troops and arms and people who were organized, but minds were organized as well.

this was one of the first modern wars in terms of propaganda, advertising, morale building strategies that keeps people in support of the war. did not always work, of course. government bureaus devoted to shaping opinions. advertisers would be pressed into a helping win this war. they would help americans decide how to think about this war. if we think about engineering in this broad sense, there are many new professions coming into being to organize, administer them accord and eight the society. desktop them organize and administer the society. as i mentioned, early 20th-century culture heroes were not preachers particularly, didactic preachers of the 19th century. they were not cynics like theodore dreiser. but those, we might say, who know how things work. engineers and experts. henry ford who helped incorporate the vertical integration of a whole industry.

keep reflecting the flow of production, the vertical integration of a whole and is treat areas lumber, glass plants. we might think of someone like frederick winslow taylor, who you read for today, the inventor and proponent of scientific management. breaks up tasks, analyzing them systematically, right? to find the one best way. importantly note that taylor is an engineer -- not just of machines and materials, but of people. of workers. this era would even come with, close with an experts president. herbert hoover. we often think of them for other reasons, the great depression. that he came into office with a

background as a professional mining engineer. he made his career, as one of those experts, running the u.s. food administration and he is a worldwide champion for his incredible economy and efficiency in helping relief victims during the war. of course there were experts in , the 19th century. expert saw a sort. -- expert of a sort. but they did not doing a lot of good. if you think about the practice of medicine, for example, and they were not subject to professional regulation in the way that they would in the 20th century. this is true of doctors, lawyers, professors. it is really the u.s. army in the early 20th century, really during world war i, that the united states gets its first modern experts. they are engineers. they are bridge builders and so forth. there is a precursor certainly in the civil war. but we really see this in play in world war i.

by the 20th century, there are engineers of all sorts. of cities, subways, machines, and factories. also personnel and personnel techniques. there are engineers of households. there are engineers even of desire, if you want to think of advertisers that way. publicists, right? there are engineers of politics as well, and this is where i want to begin today, because we're going to start with walter lippmann. in all of these cases we see what we recognize as the rather tight grip of protestant anglo-saxon culture ceding to a new class of engineer who takes

the reins in the 20th century and takes charge of the culture itself in certain ways. so, people and the texts we are going to look at today -- frederick winslow taylor, christine frederick -- and efficiency engineer of the household in her book "the new housekeeping." john d. watson, famous for his advocacy of behaviorist psychology. famous for his advocacy of the hebrew psychology. and walter lippmann, who will become a kind of fixture of american punditry, social commentary.

he may seem out of place in this group, but i want to suggest he is an engineer, too, coming right out of the protestant progressive and pragmatist tradition, embodying those traditions, an engineer of politics and public life. what do i mean by that? people like him and his colleagues -- most famously at the new republic, were in favor of fact-finding and experimentation in politics. that should ring some pragmatist bells, right? people like jane's and -- james and john dewey. they were in favor of things like city utility commissions to figure out rates and the distribution of prices and the ownership of public utilities. yeah. they wanted experts on workplace regulation to draft legislation, not politicians. people who knew something about

regulation to draft the legislation. they were for collecting data about social trends, so they could become the object of not just investigation, but action by the federal government. they are very much fact finders. in a different way than dreiser was. he wants to give you facts to show you how things work. -- were. the progressives in lippmann's circle wants to give you the facts and act on them. one of his colleagues advocated that the government just be scrapped, abolished and instead just put experts to run the states. you can think of various occupations that come into being at this point. in time sanitary engineers, the city commissioner, legislation like the pure food and drug act that come out of this interest

in putting experts in charge. rather than everyday politics, right? in its tumbling, messy way. at this point very much part of an object of critique by progressives. because of the unruly all addicts of the cities which had -- politics of the city's which had a tinge of corruption. no, there is a dark side to all of this administration and organizational politics. this is also the age were voting -- where voting restrictions are really perfected in keeping certain white workers, but also certainly african-americans, out of the voting booths in the name of better government. middle-class women on the other hand, just on the cusp of obtaining the vote, could make the case that they are better, more educated, better fit voters than these other groups. this is the age of eugenics as well, which we will return to. there is a dark side to this dependence on experts and expert judgment, but from the point of

view of our authors, and this is where we will stay, i think today, it all looks good, right? they celebrate the new abilities of experts to design american culture. all right. so let's begin with walter lippmann. his masterwork here -- "drift and mastery." this edition is 1917, but it comes out in 1914. look at this quote. men find themselves working and thinking and feeling an -- in relation to an environment that is without precedent in the history of the world. let's talk about lippmann, what he thinks the way he does and what is at stake for him and all of this. yes?

>> one thing that i thought resonated in all of the texts, purpose in place of tradition. we have, i guess we had the victorian order of to this point, just doing what was dictated or expected of us, and he suggested there were other ways, namely the scientific method. >> yeah, does he remind you of anyone we have read before? >> all the pragmatist. >> right. the scientific method as a way of living. of shedding our assumptions about authoritarian and traditional a priori ways of thinking. he is right in line with william james in that regard. but he used this word -- "purpose."

what does he mean by purpose? what does he contrasted with? >> he contrasted it with tradition, which kind of made me think of ward, how we can make our own mark on the world instead of letting life bring us along? >> yes, ward, who we read in the late 19th century, showing some resonances here, absolutely. this notion of action, being very important. action that goes against -- the liberally -- tradition. -- deliberately tradition. look how he begins. tradition will not work in the complexity of modern life. something in that language to notice -- he says it will not work. not that it is bad or immoral. notice the emphasis on getting results. tradition is not going to work for us.

what tradition anyway? there are so many different kinds of people in this nation who have many different fathers, right? you have the southern plantation, refugees from russia, this is not going to work. to just call on some imagined tradition. it might be useful to know that walter lippmann himself comes from a jewish-german family, so opens up to a sense of who are the ancestors here in america. >> it is like a call for action. for not living life passively. he says you have to deal with life deliberately like it is something you have to run up against and formulate your own methods. i mean, it connects to all of the other readings in applying a method to all of the other ways of going through life. >> right.

applying a method. the fact that you need a method, number one, and number two, you have to apply it. and if you do not do that, what is the alternative? what are you doing? what kind of language do they use? >> you are drifting. >> drifting. wandering around. you are drifting. what else? matthew. >> he calls it a life of trivial iridescence. >> yeah. find it is a progressively powerful way of domesticating the brute. >> yeah, that's right. that's right. again, like ward, people can take charge of this brute existence. they do not have to drift.

note the title of the book. "drift and mastery." those are the poles. he also uses this language of dreaming and sleeping. why does he use those words? look at -- it is the paragraph, i don't know, two thirds of the way down on 273. there is indeed a dreaming quality of life, moved as it is from within by an unconscious desire and from outside by brute forces of climate. there are stretches every day where we have no sense of ourselves. and then he goes on to talk about the beginning of reflection, which he characterizes as being awake during our own lifetime. why does he use that language of dreaming and sleeping and unconscious? any clues? yeah. >> i think it has to do with what you were talking about in earlier classes about how there

is this real consciousness about americans entering a modern period, leaving behind an age where we did not know anything. and now entering a new age and discovering. >> consciousness, reflection. think of words like rationality. also, you start to see here, i think, the rise of new psychological concepts. the unconscious, the subconscious void, a look the things that are helping to move us around without us knowing it. lippmann says, wake up. you have to be in charge. >> also being called to action instead of taking a more passive stance, but also the context of freudian psychological -- >> he does not mention freud there rectally here at all, but

-- it does not mention fruit directly here at all, but certainly all of these ideas are coming. they are not deeply popular yet. that will be a later date, but freud has been to the united states by now and this notion of this unconscious roiling cauldron inside people making them do things they are not aware they are doing is there as well. yes. >> also by using the word dreaming, what comes to mind is a kind of idealism and he talked about this before -- when i thought he was a pragmatist, but when he says it calls to return back to nature, this is like an animal that tried to eat itself. it could manage with the hind legs, but the head presented difficulty. when we are dreaming, we are doing things that are not moving

us to an action, falling back on this paradox almost. >> that's right. and when we are moving and living our lives in that way, we are doing it unreflectively, unconsciously. and the task of the modern -- the trick of the modern person is to master that. right? notice at the bottom of the first full paragraph, this could be a description again of carrie in dreiser's novel. he says, you put yourself at the mercy of stray ideas. accident becomes the master. the accident of your own training and you become what -- the plaything of whatever has accumulated at the bottom of your mind. here, the first of a priori thinking. carrie adopting whatever

standard is right in front of her. yeah, rebecca? >> he talks about you cannot just follow happiness because it is elusive. living in an unaccountable world, which often made me think of carrie. it is not going to work. you're going to have to find something better. >> yeah, yeah. dreiser was content to describe it. this is how things happen. he did not try to correct it. he did not try to critique it. one way we can read lippmann -- i do not know if he ever read "sister carrie." he might have. he says that model is not enough. we have the responsibility of reflection and consciousness and of bringing these root desires, impulses under our power. what does he -- toward the end of the excerpt here, what does he raise as perhaps the biggest

concern about this world without tradition, a world in which conscious action is the only rule? what does he worry about there at the end and try to preempt? take a look at page 176. yeah, libby? >> it is no idle question to ask what prompts the modern man to bind his world together. that there might be, like, a confusion and wonder of what man's place is, and we have to answer that there is no such certainty, and you were kind of accepting the uncertainty. >> he is accepting the uncertainty, saying you have a kind of anti-foundationalism, right? and he is saying this is the real question -- what binds people together?

this is all we have got. we do not have a common tradition. we do not have a common god. we do not have a common code. >> yeah, he is saying it requires a certain courage, that you are essentially confronting this modern world without the meaning provided by these traditions. >> yeah. >> so, that responsibility is -- i don't think he is necessarily pessimistic about it. he seems to be offering science as a substitute to provide some of that meaning, but it is nonetheless scary to go off -- throw off these old traditions and accept modernity in all of its reality. >> yeah, absolutely. you are capturing his tone precisely. this is threatening, but also thrilling. he really does see this is a new moment in human history.

what we have is -- none of these crutches, what we depended on the past. what we do have is science. the scientific spirit. this is the top of 175. the discipline of democracy. this is what might yet bind people together. >> just going to that general note of it, it seems that the framework for which political rhetoric has taken off since then, he talks on 173, the only possible confusion is the loyalty that only looks forward. and i recall the description of what defines america, the emphasis on only looking forward. his emphasis of moving forward with something extra. it is a little extra oomph that unites us all. >> right. that idea, loyalty only moving forward.

you have to think of this is a very modernist notion of what loyalty is. loyalty is to be something that you know. something you are already aware of. something you have already committed to. he says the only loyalty is for moving forward. >> i thought it was interesting the connection he drew between science and democracy instead of government and both are the embodiment of modern self purpose and self direction and moving forward. >> yeah, exactly. it should remind us a little bit of john dewey, the philosophy of democracy. really, lippmann is talking about science and democracy. but it is the same sort of argument. but there is a way of taking thinking about human action that is consonant with our best political option, right? democracy. finding ways of thinking with this intellectual predisposition with a kind of government, a kind of order. terrific.

ok. anything else about lippmann? you noticed his anti-religious arguments here. right. he calls religion a kind of mirage, something to make little people feel big, right? he is a relentlessly secular thinker here, much like another who thought religion was an authoritarian way of thinking for people who had not arrived at reflection and consciousness. you can see some residents there. religion places human action in a large and friendly setting, right? all is not well thereafter for religion. friendly here is the opposite of rigorous. of taking charge of one's intellect and one's own consciousness.

let's use lippmann as a kind of backdrop. his work as a writer and a public intellectual thinker to what we might think of as engineers during today from such -- beginning with frederick winslow taylor. just a tiny bit of background on taylor and what he was responding to. his book, which sums up his theories of management, his scientific management -- he really introduces that term into the discourse in 1911. he is responding of course in part to new workplaces in which mass production assembly lines were the rule rather than the exception. we know by the 20th century it is clear that crafts and artisanship are on the decline with the mechanization of factories, that work is being rationalized in all kinds of ways, systematized, even in

normal management, right? that he critiques. and there are many worries over what are called works discipline in this period. workers who are not as malleable as employers would like from the drinking, and since he is them, -- problems with drinking, absenteeism, soldiering. you all know what that is now. all these things are a problem and there is incredibly high turnover rate in these factories as well. this is the industrial scene taylor is looking at. already a history of struggle over labor-management relations, sometimes turning violent. battles really for control over the shop floor.

ok? this is where taylor is coming in. his solutions are meant to solve those problems. taylor himself -- these are just a couple of photographs from workplaces. i actually do not know what this one is. some sort of mechanical -- but here, we know frederick winslow taylor, he was educated. he had poor eyesight, actually. the story goes he was headed to harvard law school and winds up a mechanical engineer in a factory who moves his way up and becomes famous. for systematizing scientific management. he becomes a public figure in the middle of a railroad dispute where he is brought in as an expert to testify. he in this way positions himself

in certain ways outside the labor-capital nexus. right? he claims to be on neither of those sides but on both sides. he will receive for his effort a gold medal at the paris expedition of 1900. the same place for henry adams. and he went on to teach business school at dartmouth. a couple things about taylor -- the stopwatch, a kind of symbol that taylor brought into the factory. the stopwatch with the decimal face here. he and others in this period are fascinated by what is known as time and motion studies. he is really a time studier to see how long things take him up but he becomes a motion studier, made possible by photographer, to capture movement that was before not able to be captured

and seen by the human eye. the motion studies captured here. also someone leapfrogging. i am not sure why he would need those. nevertheless he became famous for these motion study is. as did frank and lillian gilchrist. are those names familiar? anyone read "cheaper by the dozen"? that was written by their children. and they did studies to analyze things like -- here, a golf swing. and you start seeing appearing in factories the expert, here in the white court, noting things -- white coat, noting things down. watching workers of all sorts do their tasks and do them better. this cartoon is matching a very well.

the manager is saying to systematized. the worker has a gauge on his back. and the novel about the efficiency experts. and this is the clock watching the woman typist here. here, i want to ask you, having read a portion of taylor's tract, what does it say for taylor? what are his rationales? what is the subtext? why is management the solution? what is he worried about? we might even say what is he up -- obsessed about? yes?

>> efficiency. >> efficiency. efficiency and the flip side to that is -- how does he begin? do you remember? there is this introduction about roosevelt, teddy roosevelt. >> about how humans are now not only inefficient, but lazy and how we have to mobilize and how that affects us as a nation, having a efficient populace. right. >> he pulls from this roosevelt speech on natural conservation. on the heels of that, what have we missed? all of this wasted motion, wasted human effort. he says we can see and hear the waste of material things. this is in the middle of the third page of the and reduction. -- the introduction. awkward, inefficient, or ill

directed movement of men leave little tangible behind them. hence the important thread of photography, watches, ways of recording wasted movement. so, he is interested in waste. the problem of waste. the solution, of course, is efficiency. we could ask why, if he is so -- is he so worried about waste -- why? any ideas there? why be obsessed about waste? it is not just taylor, of course. it is christine frederick and others. yeah, kelly? >> one obvious reason throughout his writing is the profit incentive. we can use the same amount of workers or less workers. even if you pay them higher wages, if they put in more effort. so employers and employees have that incentive. >> one part of it is simple profit maximization. what does taylor seem equally concerned with? as he claims, he is not only on

he is not on the employer's side. but he is not on the employee's side either. he is interested in solving the problem of industrial capital. think of henry george, right? he had a solution to this. which was to tax land. carnegie had a solution to this, which was philanthropy, and the careful administration of wealth. what is taylor's solution? >> he seems very -- he is trying to create a place within the changing modernization of the workplace for the worker and the manager, and i got that from frederick as well. things are evolving in terms of how humans fit in this place? >> definitely creating a place. you could even say a wage.

-- a wedge. importantly college educated. a different kind of man. right? even though he himself had occupied those positions on the floor. but a place for the manager. >> he talks that presently 90% or 95% of the work is done by the workers doing all the jobs, but he proposes if it could be more 50%/50% workers doing their job and 50% manager is taking over with the training and explaining how it should be done and correcting people, soap -- so making a much bigger role and much more responsibility for the manager. >> what was the old way of doing things? the workers have a lot of knowledge, the know-how in the

running of the factory floor. and what about the role of the owner? the head of the corporation. the person, the andrew carnegie, right, who has the brilliance to run these enterprises? yes? >> the old owner would be really detached from their employers ---- their employees. the close cooperation between management and man is what will make it work. >> that is right, but the manager is also this person in between. as kind of, if you think in machine terms, kind of a modulator between the owner of capital and the worker, and it is not just one person either. we are talking about an office, a desk, data recording. he is talking about a phalanx of new people inserting themselves in the middle of that ladder, that used to go from worker to floor man, to maybe a managerial position in the factory. instead, taylor's scientific managers are going to swoop

right in on that middle plane. we are talking about changing the structure of work. changing social mobility, too, changing the ladder. although he does not dwell on that. but he does dwell on the fact that you need a different kind of man then is on the floor. why is that? what is so complicated about management that you need this rather elaborate structure? >> the manager is responsible for figuring out the most efficient way of teaching to workers on the floor because they get stuck in their rule of thumb. >> rule of thumb, right? anyway, he says, it has worked for centuries and it certainly has improved. techniques have gotten better. but it is no match to the scientific observation and study of the best possible technique.

>> also, the harsh assessment he made of the machine workers -- says he resembles in his mental makeup the ox more than any other type. the word "percentage" has no meaning to him. he is putting him really far below the planner/manager type. he also says there is always going to be people like that. kind of a nature over nurture thing. he says, some people will always be born lazy and inefficient and greedy and brutal and the manager is the key to harnessing their physical strength, which it seems like that is obvious. but they don't have anything else. >> he does apply this in many different industries. he begins with the most rude -- brute kind of work. those men just picking up pig iron and moving it from one place to another. and then he cites these remarkable statistics, right?

the average -- 12 and a half pounds or something? by the end of his experiment they are carrying 47 pounds of pig iron in a day without being tired and trotting home. there are people that are essentially made for doing that kind of work, right? not the manager, but a certain kind of human is made for that. >> i think the other thing he thinks the manager is responsible for -- at the very end of the piece -- looking for the qualities the lower labor class does have an putting them in the correct position. he is very clear they do not have the same skills as the manager, they do not have as many skills, but they do have a skill set that can be used. so it is the manager's responsibility to figure that out for them. >> yeah, very nice. the manager is not just recording, breaking down tasks. he is fitting the right man to

the right job. there are a couple things going on here. one is systematizing. finding the one best way. this is his phrase. for every job, there is one best way to do it. at the same time, there is this -- think of standardization as creating these masses of men in a way. there is also individualizing. you have to have an interview with each of these men to determine which job they should be in. on the one hand, there is the individualization of the worker. on the other hand, the slotting of the worker into just the right place in the industrial machine. an interesting tension to think about. he uses that word individual and individualizing quite a bit. and actually a lot of the manager's time -- spends quite a bit of time talking to workers, making sure they are doing things just right, that they are in the right position in the first place.

scientific management as taylor describes it is the modern way to work. we have discussed how workers and management were doing things in an outmoded, less scientific way. what are the big problems he identifies besides just waste? that he is very concerned with. that might be his prime bogeyman, right? waste. what does he come up with in terms of the ways workers conduct themselves? we talk about soldiering a little bit. what is the problem with soldiering? what is soldiering, first of all? a word that has gone completely out of our vocabulary. >> kind of working the system in the form that you work as little as possible to make it seem like you are working as much as possible. simply under working, but there is effort going into under

working. >> yes. work slowdown. very deliberate. how do they happen? why do they happen? >> they talked about the fallacy that if you work too much you are going to put other people out of business or out of work. and he credits that to the labor unions. and i got a sense through the piece that if you insert this level of management you can do away with the labor unions because you have someone addressing the issues you are having. and issues that the big person on top is having. >> yes. very nice. suspicious definitely of the collectivity of workers either in a union or in a compact. even without a union he would say among assembly-line workers, you go as slow as you possibly can. you do not outpace your neighbor, because then it becomes clear that everybody could be working faster. at the end of the day, that is going to hurt you and your

trade, right? everyone will be paid less. some of it is wrong thinking he allsome of it is wrong thinking he is a fallacy is concerned about. but also it is the collectivity, too. it is a way of breaking something that allowed workers to work together. yes. >> he also interestingly attributed some of it to just ignorance. that the reason why people soldier is the inefficient rule of thumb in all trades and how these rules are passed down from generation to generation, this is how to work, this is the best way, as opposed to with the scientific managers, they can find other ways to surpass the rule of thumb method. >> yeah, so again when we zoom out from taylor, thinking about

this time and the emphasis on novelty. some of it is breaking with the past. i think taylor may show is in a more concrete form than most of our writers what that means. it means breaking the old rule of thumb, traditions, worker solidarity. this intricate, nuanced, quite settled system of social control workers had over each other. he would argue it is the workers, not the owners, controlling the shop floor. and they shouldn't be because it encourages laziness and soldiering and it is also not in the workers' best interest and that, maybe the worker is not intelligent enough to figure out. this is what you need the educated manager to prove, as he did, and he tells that story of his own struggle with his friends, right, to get them to

work harder and the threats he was subject to. the intimation anyway of violence against him for trying to get them to speed up and become more productive. so, that is his own personal story, moves right into this tract in scientific management. so he is arguing, if you want to think of it that way, he is arguing with owners and corporations. he is also arguing with unions and workers and the people that are the key, ready to step in, the men, the man at the desk. all right. there is obviously more we could say here about taylor, his attitude toward workers, the kind of resistance that workers and unions mounted against taylorism, which becomes a word in this period.

but i would like us to think about taylor's example, the template that he would set for other fields and enterprises during this period, too. the question of what is lost in taylor's factory and think back to adams. none of that is taylor's concern. his concern is, we have a new mode of production here. how do we make it more efficient? how do we make the machine, which includes the people, how do we make it more efficient? how do we get rid of the friction in the system? that is how you make things more efficient. and those concerns of the late 19th century about the goals of

the workers, their humanity is put to the side. yes. >> ford, does he replace taylor, supplement taylor? >> ford -- i think in many ways he adopts certain aspects of taylorism and others he doesn't. he comes up with the idea of the five dollar day and leisure as an incentive for workers to produce. and if you work at ford, you earn enough to buy the products. there is a different theory, i think, in bedded in ford's factory. but most industries at this time were taken up with the idea of systematizing the individual tasks, breaking them down into ever smaller pieces. let's move on to christine frederick. i want to make sure we talk about the new housekeeping. she was not the first to hit on this idea of a household engineer. the whole profession of home to then -- home economics is becoming a new industry. home economics will be taught in school. did any of you take home ec?

it has its roots and this -- its roots are in this period. it is a really interesting colonization of something that it was thought individual households did, was passed on from mothers to daughters, think of the beecher sisters, talking about home management. home economics as a field, a professional domain, experts creating curricula as a turn of -- it is a turn of the century invention. again, that is not christine frederick. that looks like christine frederick. here is christine frederick.

note the titles that she uses. household engineer and professional consultant. one question we might pose here -- i think you can see how someone like frederick is indebted to someone like taylor. but how much has the envisioning of the household changed. think about the beecher sisters. what has changed and what remains the same? nothing is totally a break with the past. >> begins with the idea of scientific management and brings it to household routines. make it as efficient as possible. everything is planned out. the very end i was there interested where she threw out -- women are leaving, becoming mothers -- women are leaving becoming mothers to go join the

workforce. [indiscernible] it was kind of her taking new methods, but keeping the victorian idea of the household intact. >> very nice. the end result is the same. the rationale maybe has changed. >> someone focused on raising children and morals and family. and christine frederick is all like how to cook food quickly. like it is very focused on duties of the household, but she does not want to talk about raising her children. or it she mentions them, it is how to keep her children from getting in the way of her chores. it seems like they were almost like keeping her from cooking and doing that stuff. >> yes. interfering with her well-planned day.

she refers to them interestingly as the boy and the baby, these stock characters. she is able to have the baby playing. she refers to them almost -- yes, a very unidealized way. >> i was impressed how she included the children. she specifically had an hour every day to just sit and play with them or watch them play while she did something else. she did definitely incorporate them into her schedule, which i thought was impressive and did remind me of the beecher sisters. it was like setting an example from a very early age -- >> yes, this is a long development, thinking him a very -- thinking, very consciously, reflectively about how the household runs. it does not run on its own and there might be ways to improve it. now the beecher sisters had a more spiritual notion of it then christine frederick. you can see them talking to each

other across time. >> the drudgery of the kitchen and wanting to make it worthwhile. it gets boring after a while, so you want to make it feel like you are doing something -- like i am not saying housework is not an important thing to be doing. i could see it being a very unfulfilling thing for women to be doing. >> and she uses that word. drudgify, right? and drudgery. so she is admitting in a way the beecher sisters might not have that this is work. so why not speed it up? cut out some steps? if the dishes can be on the drain board, they can air dry, and you do not have to wipe them down with a cloth. there are ways to systematize

and actually a kind of pleasure in the systemization for its own sake. but also because it gets you more time to do other things, right? on the schedule, and every other week club dates. more social and more leisure activities in the schedule as well. think of this in terms of the emerging consumer and leisure culture. >> i think about the beecher sisters -- she makes it clear >> i think about the beecher sisters -- she makes it clear that the household sphere is for women only. all of these schedules are all about the woman and the mother. in that way it is similar to the beecher sisters. but it is like rebecca saying in that last paragraph, she says basically the place of women is in the home, but basically using

the scientific analysis and talking about conservation of energy, motion study come as she equates the women's sphere as a similar task to work being done outside the home. x the beecher sisters state that that it takes as much management fredericks is doing it. notice what she borrows from the factories. she talks about men in the factories do this. i'm also using this index card system on my wall. i borrowed this from my husband. there is a parallelism she is sketching which may keep women in the home to feel that their work is as professional,

scientific, and as requiring of scientific attention and care. yes, katie. >> an interesting and more subtle contrast that can be made between the two is have a deal with housekeepers and mothers of different classes. in beecher, the focus was if you were of greater means, you should be more philanthropic and set up homes for children and use your money in terms of philanthropy. frederick uses it as an equalizer. she says while some women can afford a vacuum cleaner, hundreds of thousands of women cannot. but any one of those thousands of women can reduce the drudgery of their work by better planning, systemizing, and experimenting with their work

and how they do it. beecher was how to spend your extra money. this is how you appear you have the same amount of money or housekeeping by standardization. >> and how you can gain some of the rewards of science no matter your class. i think that is right. it is a very tayloresque argument. this will help everybody by cutting out the waste and drudgery and getting to a higher-quality product, even if that means the product are schedule babies. i love the line, "sunday dinner on saturday" because it saves time. you feel you are almost reaching absurdity in the scheduling of something, which at the time had not been thought of in these analytic, cold terms of what works better. that was not what i household was about.

it was not just about work and technical sufficiency. >> i thought it was interesting she singles out herself as a suburban housewife versus beforehand it talks about carrie and a woman in the city. it is a big contrast in her schedule from anything carrie would have encountered because of location. she talks about how anyone who lives in the suburbs knows you can have anyone dropped enough on you and shows aspects of it. >> good. with a text like this, you want to be alert to those social clues. she says things like i could use the telephone or call a driver. you get a sense of her social class and the infrastructure around her, of what is making the household run. she has perfected this laundering system, but someone else comes in to do the laundry.

this is a household that is not only the realm of the individual woman. it is already a system akin to a factory system and benefits from the same kinds of tools. i want to point to this specific place on page 100, the last page of this excerpt. we do since what is motivating frederick beyond the duty of science. a couple of you have referred to it. let's look at it. she's talking about the women who say i do not want to run my home i can office or factory. but these same women and others are continually talking about drudgery. they have been doing these tasks in such a beautiful and poetic way. why is it women are fleeing from how so professions to outside work? why are they living in cooperative apartments it in delicatessen meals and refusing

the burdens of motherhood? that is the vision of the urban woman, sister carrie. you hear carrie roosevelt not taking up the mantle of womanhood and her duties. there is the need for a persuasive case and the sense that the rewards of the family itself or the spirit are not enough to keep women in the home. they have to be persuaded, right? this is a complex task, a scientific task very equal of the manager in the factory. like taylor, you sense christine frederick making an overt case for a break from old ways of doing things. a break from the past, a break from tradition. the only loyalty should be to going forward, right? this marks them as modernist

sorts of thinkers. they are after the new, novel, better way. let me show you quickly, these are a couple of the illustrations that appeared in frederick's book of the well-ordered kitchen. this always makes me think i need to go back into my own kitchen and redesign everything. is my sink the right height? you see those pathways? think again up time-motion studies. this is the badly grouped equipment. you walk into this messy, ugly, zigzag. here is the efficient grouping. the preparing route is a. the clearing away route is b. you get this nice, clean motion of how work is supposed to be done.

let's talk about an even more radical systematizer and simplifier. john b. watson began his graduate education in philosophy with none other than john dewey, another link to our other thinkers in the course. he becomes convinced of the field of psychology. he looks at how animals were conditioned by stimulus response and moves onto people. he will teach at johns hopkins for a time. that is a modern emblem of the modern university. but will be forced out due to his divorce brought on by an affair with his co-author, one of his students, rosalie rayner. not everything has changed.

he can lose his university position for his divorce and affair. he will become a popular expert as well scientific expert on child rearing, but eventually advertising. we might think about the links between stimulus response, experiments with children, and the burgeoning field of advertising, what is going to get a consumer like carrie to respond to a dress, a hat, so forth. this is a new psychology for a new century. he is writing later than our others today. he is a simplifier, more like taylor than freud. freud had posited a kind of darwinian battle within the person, within the mind, between

the subconscious and conscious. a mind always at war with itself. watson will have a very different view, and a different view from his mentor dewey who thought of consciousness in complex ways. watson says he sees nothing in the mind. all we have to go on is how people have behave and what they do, and that is the appropriate domain of psychological insight and action. he will call freudism dualism and mysticism and a leader in the school of behavior. stimulus response with rats or children is the way you build behavior. you use rewards and punishment, and you can build in instincts and children and habit. you can internalize things like a schedule. inc. about christine frederick and her schedule baby. if you feed them at the same time every day, that is when they will get hungry.

if you put them down on the same time, they go to sleep at the same time. this actually works, i can tell you. some of that advice around child-rearing is very popular at the time, even though you can also sense the radicalism and shock of a piece of writing like this. if we make the case that all cultures invent psychologies, why this psychology now? what is it about watson's vision of child-rearing that is of this time? just a few photographs. the photos are grainy. i apologize. they are the only ones we have. this is watson doing an experiment on the strength and grip of an infant. and some of the still shots that

appear in his book. these were the little albert experiments. he did a host of experiments with this particular child and filmed them. you see albert with a before and after reaction once he has been sensitized to the furry creature. katie, you were going to say something. >> on the scientific methods of child-rearing, just like they would apply to the factory or frederick would apply it to housework, he is applying it to how you raise a child and how people become scared of things or certain things like that. >> there is a kind of blank slate he is working with. matthew? >> one thing that struck me is how overtly hostile he seemed to be at some points about mothers in general. >> yes.

>> on page 12, along with this conviction comes the search for facts. the search reveals almost a bankruptcy of facts. no one today knows the best way to raise a child. we talked about a lot of people trying to break tradition, but he was really -- >> more hostile to tradition than our other writers, absolutely. nobody has any facts. nobody knows how to be a proper parent. he goes into the line about the world would be considerably better off if we would stop having children for 20 years except for those rare for experiment will purposes, and then start again with the facts. yes? >> along with the idea of a blank slate to start over is through the readings we learned with the industrialization, it is seen as there is this under-arching question, not overarching, in the back of

everyone's minds of can we have this perfect society? what strikes me is on page 24 on the caption when he sees the white rat, there is discussion that shows all these fears are acquired. he gave me the idea that we are still wondering if we can erase all fear and live in a perfect society. by looking at these babies, can we find a way to raise the perfect human? >> yes, right. it is a utopian kind of thinking that if you simply get children early enough and have all this laboratory data, that we wipe out fear. we wipe out certain kinds of things without were in stinks, unchangeable, or particular to particular people. right? this is in visioning human nature as a kind of blank state, where it leads you. >> he talks about parenthood the entire time.

he only talks about the mother. nowhere does he mention the father. but he is using "parents" and "parenthood." >> yeah. that might capture something about what is new and old in that invocation of parent to mean mother. it was the mothers in almost every instance. he uses the more objective, scientific term of "parenthood." it is coexisting with this habit and tradition to think of the parent as the mother. >> i thought it was interesting how much he dismisses the instinct in favor of the scientific method, especially the female instinct. he talks about when the woman realizes she is responsible for raising her child.

he says she would rather load this burden anywhere else, on heredity, on the divine shoulder. he is like saying the mother like does not want instinctively to take on this burden and teach her child how to be like the perfect child or whatever. then she finally comes to accept it eventually. >> yeah. this brings us neatly back to litman, the friendly, comfortable feeling of believing you are bigger than you are, more important than you are in the scheme of things. this critique of religion, right? this discomfort for not taking responsibility for your own active role in the world. that fits watson especially because of the kind of action that creates something as deep as fear, the pairing of a furry

rabbit with a hammering sound, which he says everybody recoils from. he creates a fear of the animal. the new create a life long deep fear of anything furry. even santa claus. matthew? >> i found it interesting not just in this piece but in all the ones we read, even though they seem progressive, they seem staked in social tradition. this might be a stretch. this piece, we came out of the roaring 20's per there is a huge desire. he talks about how if you give too much affection to your child, they will be spoiled. that might be why this was clung on so tightly because people saw what happened to this generation of kids that lived through the 1920's with materials and they want to get away from that. frederick is still trying to keep the woman in the home, and not very socially progressive.

>> using progressive techniques to keep things may be closer to where they were? that is an interesting tension. i think it does run through these pieces, even in watson who seems the most hostile to inherited traditions. >> i found it interesting to think about the audiences of all these pieces. she assumes everyone reading has a house. watson assumes these children will be born into good families who will use the best methods to raise their kids. on page 31, he's talking about the experiment on the child who had been at home. he says here is a beautiful two and a half year old child tenderly nurtured in one of our best american homes. it kind of struck me as almost idealistic. we are putting all this effort into the perfect society and

systemizing everything, but there are still people in the background who have no access to this or no way of achieving it. >> yeah, right. also, there are still accidents. unless we train all the dogs not to bark at babies. some of this will elude the control of the systematizer in the end. good. there's is more to say about watson. but i think we see the links between these thinkers, some of the tensions coming to the fore in their pieces. we will come back to some of the tensions we did not talk about overtly but might be embedded in litman's term about science being the discipline of democracy. if experts are the answer, an expert-run society, what happens to those who are not experts, those in the factories or the

infants raised in laboratories? is this the vision of democracy the united states was poised to adopt? we will come back to some of the techniques rather than the substance. as we close, i want us to think about all these readings do to victorian ideas about humanism, character, labor, the dignity of labor, men's and women's roles, and most importantly, seemingly natural and it down ideas, whether rule of thumb or otherwise. the break from tradition is incomplete, as we have noticed. but it certainly seems like something new on the horizon. we will pick up with new ideas about race and racial identity on thursday's class. thank you for a great discussion.

i have papers for a couple of people up here. >> the berlin wall fell 25 years ago on november 9, 1989. we will revisit that historic day with our c-span video featuring president george bush from the oval office and reaction from bob dole and george mitchell. and speeches from president kennedy and president reagan that galvanized berliners and the free world. that is next sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. weekend long, american history tv is featuring colorado springs, colorado. climate andry mineral springs made the city popular as a health resort for people suffering from tuberculosis. together with our cable partners, we visited many