of the characters in his novel. and just to sort of summarize where we got last time. in the pages, i think we saw the workings of many things. not just a story, right? but a kind of commentary on early 20th 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 consumer culture. that was constantly on the move in which styles, fashions identities characters, fall and rise. and importantly they fall and rise without rhyme or reason. all right. identities can be put on a costume and then shed. as characters move on to their new roles. this has something to do right, not just with carrie being an actress and being in her own story, but being in a story of american culture in the 20th

century. and especially lay consumer culture. we talked about the motor behind the story, and i think we settled on one word. desire. desire was the kind of engine with the story. wanting what you can't have. always being able to see what is ahead of you that is elusive that you're trying to grasp. and that's what makes things happen in the novel. remember that carrie is never satisfied. and recall the department store, right? where he felt as he tells us the claim of each trinket and valuable upon her personally. we talked a little bit too about the moral of the story. a moral for the 20th ench ri maybe that there is no moral, right? things happen to people. good things happen to bad people, right? people aren't punished for bad deeds. in fact sometimes like carrie, they're rewarded. so what he8f

kind of success story at vik torn period. that victorian ladder of virtue. the changing of fortunes was not the result of strong character or even of planning and preparedness. think back to the stories, right? but fortune was the result of accident. random occurrences, and here he shows us i think what henry adams feared so much. an economy of energy right, of dynamos but not a virtue. you start to see how he's picking up on the early and finally in this takes it today. he showed us a model of the self. a model of self which is much less anchored than the one in booker t. washington or even in

allgor's stories. a self that was passive that seemed acted upon by all kinds of forces. right, those darwinian energies. she was a way of amid forces or in the words, a lone figure in a tossing, thoughtless sea. and importantly in chicago, she occupied a world of surfaces. right? she's always concerned with our outward appearance. and also with windows with windows, being able to see others, with mirrors. the self forcare have i purely external, right? it's not an internal core or essence, it's something very much that it radiating outward. he helps us answer a question which i'm going to put this way. how does a cultural system come to an end? we've talked in a little bit about the genera of intellectual

history, that there are no clear beginning and ending dates for anything, in fact there are no dates from anything. i think the novel coming as it does at the beginning of the 20th century helps us see many of the assumptions and frameworks of the victorian period coming to a close. now they won't all fade out by any means, many will continue on i hope we'll get to some of that today. but he is putting a kind of nail in the coffin of the victorian age. now our text for today, seemingly comes from a very different place. not the invented world of a novelist, but an imagined system, maybe even utopia of the engineer. a new kind of hero in the early 20th century. so we're going to turn to a new class of experts in the early 20th century. so the-called machine age, an age of mass production industrial energy skyscrapers, and also to the experts who would become prominent not for

their claims just to figure out how the society worked, how things ticked but also for their promise that they could design american life anew. right? that they could design a better, more efficient, more productive, more smooth running united states. okay. so one of the watch words there is certainly efficiency as i'm sure you noticed in our reading for today. okay. so we've already seen hints, i think of this expert character coming to the fore in american culture. um this is a character not unlike carrie who becomes prominent in this period, and especially i would say during world war i. and that is the period, 1914 to 1918, around which most of our readings for today cluster. for many intellectuals progressives, for prague notists, people like john dewy who we've read and walter today all part of a circle of an

intellectual circle in this case, centered at the new republic. the journal. the war itself, world war i was a tool, it wasn't just an event. it wasn't just a tragedy, but it was a kind of tool that could be used like a scalpel. it was a war of technical efficiency and management. where technical expertise was both sought after and was a product of the war itself. just coming out of the war. the war will create new bureaucracies, new careers. it'll help status in expertise in american culture. critique, right? and his deep unease about what the war was producing about things who could get things done? in part he's talking about the people who we read for today.

truth and arms and people, but minds were organized as well. this was one of the modern wars in terms of these of propaganda and organizing. moral to keep people in support didn't always work of course. and government bureaus devoted to shaping opinion. and advertisers, private corporate advertisers will be pressed into service to help win this war too. they would help americans decide how to think about the war. so if we think about engineering in this broad sense, there are new kinds of professions helping to organize, coordinate administrate the society. as i mentioned early 20th century, culture heroes were not preachers particularly. preachers of the 19th century. they were not cynics like theodore, but those we might see

who knew how things worked. engineers and experts. we might think of henry ford becomes a kind of folk hero in this period who have perfected the flow of production. the vertical integration of a whole industry, minds lumber, rails, parts, we might think of someone like frederick winslow taylor who read for today. the inventor and proponent of scientific management. of breaking up tasks analyzing them systematically, right, to find the one best way to do anything. importantly notice taylor is an engineer, not just with machines and materials but people, workers. this era would even come with close with really an expert

president. we think of him for other reasons. the great depression, but he came into office with a background as a professional mining engineer. he made his career during world war i. he's one of the experts by running the food and drug administration and he is worldwide really championed for his incredible economy and efficiency in helping relief victims in belgium during the war. now, of course there were experts in the 18th and 19th centuries. experts of a sort. but they didn't do a whole lot of good. in that period for example and they weren't subject to regulation in the way they would become in the 20th century. two professors it's really the u.s. army in the early 20th century during world war i that the united states gets its first modern experts.

engineers, bridge buildings, and there's a precursor to this in the civil war and transportation engineers. we wouldn't see it come into place in the world war i. by the]f now, there are engineers of all sorts of entities as i've already suggested. cities subways, of machines and factories of course but also engineers of personnel, think taylor here, and personnel techniques. there are engineers as we know of households right? christine frederick. there are engineers even of desire. if we want to think about advertisers that way. and publicists. okay. there are engineers of politics as well. and this is where i want to begin today. because we're going to start with walter lithman.

in all of these cases we see we all have recognized at the rather tight grip of prodseating a bit of engineers. take the reigns in a new way to 20th century and take charge in important ways of the culture itself. the people and the text we're going to look at today. frederick westminster abbey low taylor, 1911 christine frederick and efficiency engineer of the household in her book, the new housekeeping. john b. watson we might consider an engineer of a sigh i can and certainly behavior. famous for advocacy behavioralist, psychology, and walter lippmann.

a young man, he's writing drift in mastery his first big book in 1917 but will become a kind of fixture of american pundit ri, political commentary. he is the an engineer too. coming right out of the progressive and prague notist tradition. in fact embodying those traditions. engineer of politics and public life. what do i mean by that. people like lippmann and his colleagues. here a importantly a new republic. we're in favor of fact finding and politics. that should ring some bells right? and john dewy. to figure out the fair distribution of a crisis and perhaps the public ownership of city utilities right

electricity. gas. they wanted experts on workplace regulation to draft legislation not politicians, right but people who knew something about regulation to be doing the drafting of legislation. they wanted to collect data about economic cycles and social trends. they could become investigation and action by the government. so they're very much fact findings. in a different ways he tried to give you facts to show you how things work. the progressives in lippmann's circle want to act on them. and maybe change them. one of the lippmann's colleagues will propose for example that state governments should basically just be scrapped abolished. and instead put councils of experts in their place to run the states. you can think of various kinds1s&y÷ of occupations that come into being in this point.

in time, sanitary engineers, the city commissioner you can think of legislation like the pure food and drug affect 1906 that come out of this interest in putting experts in charge. rather than every day politics, right. and it's bumbling messy way at this point, at this point very much the object of a critique because of the machine ethnic unruly politics of the cities which had a tinge of corruption to them. now, there's a dark side to all of this administration and organizing of politics this is also the age where voting restrictions are really perfected in keeping certain white workers, but also certainly african americans out of the voting booth in the name of better government. middle class women on the other hand, who are just on the cusp of obtaining the vote can make the case, right that they are better, many educated more 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 kind of dependence on experts and expert judgment. but, from the point of view of our authors and this is where we'll stay i think today. it all looks good right? they are celebrating the new abilities of experts to design american culture. all right. so let's begin with walter lippmann, drifted mastery is his, is his master work here. actually published, this edition is 1917, but it comes out in 1914. and look at this quote, men find themselves working and thinking and feeling in relation to an environment which is without precedent in the history of the world. let's talk about lippmann, what he's arguing for, what he's arguing in the way he does and what is at stake in all of this

for him. so floor is open. yeah kaylee. >> one thing i thought resinated between all the text that lippmann kind of champions throughout the essay is we need to substitute purpose in place of tradition. so we have this, i guess in the status quo or in the victorian order at this point we're doing what was dictated to us or expected to us. he's suggesting that there are better ways, namely like the scientific method for which we is find a purpose rather than be told what our purpose is. >> yeah. does he remind of you anybody we've read before? >> all of them. >> right right. starting with purse, right. scientific method as a kind of way of living right? way of shedding our inherited assumptions, right, and of authoritarian ways of thinks. certainly lippmann is right in

line with purse with william james in that regard. but he uses this word right that kaylee brings our attention to. purpose, what does he mean by purpose and what does he contrast it with? yeah, go ahead, ally. >> he contrasted, especially on 173 with tradition which made me think of ward. we can make our own mark on the world instead of letting life bring us along. >> yeah yeah. exactly. so lester frank ward who we read in a late 19th century, showing some resonances here absolutely. this notion of action, right, being very important. and action that goes against deliberately tradition. look how he begins, at least this excerpt begins on the of 173. tradition will not work in the complexity of modern life. something in the line just to notice, he says it won't work. not that it's bad or immoral,

right, but notice that kind of emphasis on getting results tradition is not going to work for us right? what tradition anyway would we call up kpt the kinds of people in this nation have many different fathers that they could look to. he goes through a whole list. the southern plantation right the refugees from russia, look to theball kin slavs, this isn't going to work, right. to call on some imagine tradition. okay. might be use to feel know that walter lippmann himself comes from a jewish german family. opening up here too. a kind of sense of who are the relevant ancestors here of americans. libby, go ahead. >> he makes really a call for action. like, like and promotes not living life passively and says you have to deal with life deliberately. like it's something you have to like run up against and like take charge and like form late

your own methods. and i mean it connect to the other readings. just applying a method to all the ways that you live your life. >> yeah. applying a method. right, that you need a method number one and number two, you better afly right? what's the if you don't do that, what is the alternative? what are you doing? what's the kind of language that he uses to talk about this? >> you're drifting. >> you're drifting. think of carrie again. just wandering around the streets of chicago. you're drifting. what else, he uses this interesting language matthew. >> he calls the life a trivial. >> yeah. yeah. >> saying if you use the scientific proscess, then you can, well he says we find that our life is no longer a trivial but a proifgly power way of domesticating the brute. so the scientific method you can live your life. >> yeah. that's right, that's right. there are these kind of darwinian kind of sense. like ward right.

lester ward that people can take charge of this brute existence. they don't have to simply be pushed around by it yeah. they don't have to drift and note the title of the book, of course, drift and mastery. right, those are the polls. but he also uses this language, did anyone else notice it? of dreaming and sleeping? why does he use those words? look at, it's the paragraph, i don't know two-thirds of the way down on 173, there is indeed a dreaming quality in life. moved as it is from within by unconscious desires and habits. and from without by the brute forces of climate, source wind. there are stretches when we have no sense of ourselves. and then he goes on the next paragraph to talk about the beginning of reflection which he characterizes as being awake during our own lifetime. what does he, why does he use do you think that language of dreaming and sleeping and

unconscious? any clues? yeah, libby. >> well, i think it might have something to do with what you were talking about a in earlier classes about how there was a real consciousness of people in the era like changing american culture and entering a modern period. and so it's just kind of like an over idea of leaving behind the past where we didn't like know anything, and now like entering a new age and discovering science. >> yeah. certainly consciousness reflection, think about the ways that ward's like -- words like rationality move through the texts. also, you start to see here i think the rise of new psychological concepts, the unconscious, the subconscious freud, right. these things that are going on and helping to move us around without our knowing it. right. lippmann says wake up, take charge. >> i also thought i guess it ties back in a call to action, taking more of an active stance,

but i also thought that it tied well into the context of freudian psychological arisings, and yeah, i thought that was interesting too. >> right. which he doesn't you know he doesn't mention freud directly here at all, but right, certainly these ideas are coming in, and they're not deeply popular yet by this point. that will await a slightly later date, but for it has been to the united states by now. and these notions of this unconscious kind of boilging caldron is a piece of this as h%a well. >> i think he also, by using the word dreaming what comes to mind is kind of like idealism and he ties it in on page 174 the unconscious with what i thought the criticism was, he says, but when it seeks to fall back upon the unconscious when the return to nature is the deliberate vegetable, this is like the effort of the animal

that tried to eat itself, it could be managed in the hind legs, but the legs were a difficulty. we're dreaming and not really conscious of what's going on and debating things that really ant moving us to an action, we're falling back on this paradox almost. >> that's right. that's right. and then when we are moving right, and living our lives in that way. we are doing it unreflectively unconsciously. and the trick, right, of the modern intellectual the modern person is to master that. right? and notice, page 174, since we're there, bottom of the first pull paragraph this could be a description, right again of carrie in the novel. he says, you put yourself at mercy of stray ideas, ancient impositions or trumped up fads accident becomes the master. the accident largely of your own training and you become the play thing of whatever happens to have accumulated at the bottom of your mind. or to find itself sank fied in

the newspaper you read and the suburb that suited your income. all right. here's purse's priority thinking it's also, right carrie just, you know adopting whatever standard, right? is out in front of her. go ahead rebecca. >> in the next paragraph he talks about following happiness because it's elusive and shifting in an unaccountable world. that's what she searches for the whole world, when i get this but that never works, and that's what he says, you're going to have to find something better. >> yeah, yeah. he content to describe, this is how, right this is how things happen. this is how people work. and not to he didn't try to correct it, didn't try to critique it. one way we could read lippmann if you read carrie. right, that model of human action is not enough. it's not enough. we have a responsibility right of reflection of consciousness and of bringing these brute desires, impulsing forces the

unconscious itself under our power. what is he toward the end of his excerpt here, what is he raise as perhaps the biggest 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? and take a look at page 176, yeah, libby. >> one thing he says at the top, it is no idol question to ask what there is in the outlook of the modern man to bind his world together. with the human small place in it, there might be a confusion and like wonder of like what man's place is. and it says that we have to answer that there is no such certainty, and so he's kind of excepting the uncertainty of life. >> yeah, he's accepting the uncertainty saying he has a kind

of antifoundationalism. right. but he says this is a real concern. right, it's a real question what binds people together if this is all we've got? we don't have a common tradition. we don't have a common god. we don't have a common code by which we operate. what were you going to say? >> he also seems to be saying that it requires a certain courage or fearlessness in confronting this modern world without the meaning provided by these traditions. >> yeah. >> so, that responsibility is i don't think he's necessarily pessimistic about it, he seems to be offering science as a substitute, that can provide some of that meaning but it's nonetheless scary to throw off these, these old traditions and confront it and reality. >> yeah, absolutely. yeah, i think you're capturing

his tone precisely which is this is threatening, it is also thrilling, right? to be in this moment. and he really does as a new moment in human history where what we have are none of the crutches, right? none of the things we depended on in the pasts to go forward. what we do have is science though. he calls science the scientific spirit. this is the top of 175. the discipline of democracy. it's the thing that might yet bind people together. kaylee. >> yeah, and kind of going off that for like a general note it seems like thvrz the framework for which political rhetoric has taken off since then when he talks in 173 about the only possible collusion now is a loyalty that looks forward and that's like what at least i remember the iron lady making a quote about how that is what defines america and his insistence on like moving forward, but with something else. kind of like an extra ump that

unites us all. >> very nice. right. that quote this idea of a loyalty only to moving forward. it's a very right? you have to think of this, right, as a very modernist notion of what loyalty is, right. loyalty is supposed to be to something that you know, right? something that you already are aware of. something you've already committed to. no, the only loyalty is toward moving forward. libby. >> yeah, i found it really interesting, the connection he drew between science and democracy in self-government. and that both of them are kind embodiment of like modern, self-purpose and self-direction and moving forward. >> exactly. and should remind us label the of john dewy, philosophy and democracy, but it's the same sort of argument right. that there is a style of thinking, a way of reasoning. a way of thinking about human action that is consonant with our best political option, right? democracy.

so this alignment of ways of thinking ways of behaving intellectual predisposition with a kind of government, a kind of order. terrific. okay. 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. he is a relentlessly secular thinkinger here. much like purse right, who also believed that religion was a kind of authoritarian way of people that haven't woken up. so you can see some resonance there. religions have placed human action in a large and friendly setting. then all is not well there for religion after that in his argument, right? because friendly here is the opposite of rigorous right?

of taking charge of one's own intellect and one's own consciousness. okay. good. let's use lippmann as a kind of backdrop, since he is a writer and he is a public intellectual thinker to think about what we might call the more applied engineers in the rest of our discussion for today. beginning with frederick winslow taylor. and just a tiny bit of background on taylor and what he was responding to. his book which sums up his theories of management is scientific management. he really introduces that term into the discourse in 1911. and he's responding of course, in part to new workplaces and in which mass production assembly lines were the rule rather than the exception. we know that by the 20th century

it's clear that crafts and artisanship are on the decline with the neck anization of factories. that work is being rationalized in all kind of ways. right, systematized, even in normal management right? that he critiques. and there are many worries over what is called work discipline in this period, right. workers who are not as not as malliable as employers would like, problems with drinking, absenteeism, soldiering, you all know what that is now. all of these things prove a problem and there's also an incredibly high turnover rate. this is the industrial scene that taylor's looking at of course, a long history already by this time.

struggle over labor management relations, sometimes turning violent in strikes. battles really for control over the shop floor. okay. and so this is where taylor is coming in. his solutions are to solve the problems. taylor himself workplaces ironing department i don't know what this one is mechanical output here. we know about taylor, he was educated, he because of poor eyesight actually. so the story goes, he had been headed to harvard law school and winds up a mechanical engineer in a factory who moves his way up. and becomes famous for systematizing management for scientific management. he becomes a public figure, and in the midst of a real road rate dispute where he is brought in

as an expert to testify. he in this way positions himself in certain ways outside the labor capitol nexsus. he claims to be neither of those sides, but on both sides. he will accept for his efforts a gold medal at paris exposition of 1900, same police where henry adams saw the dynamo. and he went on to teach business school at dartmouth. a couple other things that will help give the feel i think to taylor, the stopwatch, the 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 become known as time and motion studies. he's really a time studier to see how long things take but he becomes also emotion studier,

made possible by photography to be able to capture movement that before had not been able to be seen and broken down by the human eye. edward is the one whose photographs of horses in motion are shown here. also of someone leapfrogging not sure why you would need to know, you know the exact motions of leapfrogging someone, but nevertheless recorded those. became famous for these motion studies. as did frank gilbreath. anyone ever read cheaper by the dozen? that was written by the children of efficiency experts. frank and lillian. they took early films also of motion to try to analyze things like here a golf swing. and youp-es start seeing appearing in factories the expert right here in the white coat, noting

things down watching workers of all different sorts do their tasks. and helping them to do them better. this cartoon is not showing up very well, a taylor system machinists, up to date systematized and the workers got a gauge on his back at the manager is carefully tracking. and here's right, cheaper by the dozen, the novel about efficiency experts this is a clock that 20 minutes watching the woman typist here. so here i want to ask you, having read a portion of taylor's tract which is meant to persuade workplaces right? employers to adopt his methods. what is at stake for taylor? what are his rationals, what are his subtext and why is management the solution?

so, what is he worried about? what is he obsessed about in this tract? yeah kaylee. >> efficiency. >> efficiency. yes. efficiency and the flip side to that is how does he begin? do you remember? there's this introduction about president roosevelt, teddy roosevelt. go ahead. >> he talks about how humans right now are being not only inefficient, but like general laziness and how we have to like mobilize humans and he talks about how that affects us as a nation and having efficient pop ewe list. >> yes, he pulls on this speech of roosevelt's about natural resources and conservation. paying attention to that what have we missed? all this waste, right and wasted motion, right, of workers in the workplace. the waste of human effort. he says we can feel see and feel the waste of material

things. this is in the middle of the third page of the introduction awkward, inefficient or ill directed movements leaves nothing visible or tangible behind them. hence the importance of photography, ways of recording this wasted movement. he's interested in waste. the problem of waste, the solution is of course efficiency, we could ask why is he so worried about waste?wdipt why? any ideas there? why be obsessed about waste, especially the waste of movement? this is not only taylor, this is christine frederick and others. yeah, kaylee. >> i mean one obvious reason throughout his writing is just the profit incentive, we can use the same a. workers we can use less workers and achieve more profit even when paying them higher wages if they put in 100%. so it's i mean both sides, the employer and the employee have that profit incentive. >> yeah, so some of this is

simple profit max mization for sure. what does taylor seem equally concerned with though? as he claims right, he's not, he's not on the employer's side he's not on the worker's side either. what is he interested in? he's interested in the nexsus. management as a way of in )ú(u8;÷fact right? solving the problems. of industrial capital. think back to henry george. he had a solution to this which was to tax land. carnegie had a solution to this which is philanthropy right in the careful administration of wealth. what is taylor's solution? yeah kaylee? >> well, i don't know if this is what you're looking for, but he seems very like he's trying to create a place within the changing modernization of the workplace for the worker and for the manager. and i got that sense from frederick as well. like things are evolving so fast, kind of like where do

humans fit in this anymore. >> okay uh-huh. definitely creating a place. we might almost say even a wedge, right in the current way of doing things that allows room for this new class. right, importantly college-educated. different kind of man, it would be the language he would use it the machinist on the floor. even though he himself had anticipated both those positions, right? but a place for the manager. yeah. kaylee. >> yeah, he talks about how presently, i think he says 90 or 95% of the work is done or the emphasis is placed on the worker just doing all of the jobs but he proposes that it should be more 50/50 between 50%s workers doing exactly their job and 50% and the managers taking over the like why and the training and explaining how it should be done and correcting people when it's done incorrectly so making a bigger role and much more responsibility for the manager position. >> yes. what's quickly, the old way of doing things? it's the workers hold a lot of

the knowledge, the know-how, the running of the factory floor. and what about the role of owner? right the head of the corporation? the person who andrew carnegie would have said is the one who has the brilliance, the competence to run these big enterprises, what of that person? yeah? >> the old owner wore be detached from the employees when taylor is saying the close personal cooperation between management and men is what's going to make the system work. >> yeah. but the manager -- that's right. but the manager is also this person in between, right? kind of this -- like a mod ooh later right between the owner of capital and the worker and is -- this is not just one person. he talks you need an office a desk data recording. he is talking about new people inserting themselves in the middle of the ladder which used to move from worker to forman

maybe to a kind of manager in the factory. instead, taylor is going to swoop right in at that middle point. so we're talking about also changing the structure of work and changing social mobility too. changing the ladder. although, he doesn't dwell on that. but he does dwell on fact that you need a different kind of man. you need a different kind of man at the desk to the kind of man who is on the floor. why is that? what's so complicated about management or work that you need this rather elaborate structure? go ahead. >> he talks about how the manager is responsible for figuring out the most efficient ways and teaching them to the workers on the floor because they get stuck in their rule of thumb, i think the is word he uses. >> yeah. rule of thumb. he says in a way rule of thumb you know it has been worked out over centuries. it has improved work techniques. people have gotten better.

but it's no match to the scientific observation and study of the best possible technique. >> he also -- i was surprised by this. the harsh assessment he made of the machine workers. he says that he resembled the ochl moreox and that he is so stupid that the word percentage has no meaning to him. he is putting him below the planner/manager type. he also says that there's always going to be people like that, kind of makes a nature over nurture thing. some people are always going to be born lazy and inefficient, greedy and brutal. the manager is really the key to harnessing the physical strength, which he seems to think is obvious. but they don't have anything else. >> he does apply this to different kinds of industries. he begins with the most brute work. the men who are just picking up

pig iron and moving it from one place to another. and then he cites the remarkable statistic statistics, that the average load a man can carry is 12.5 pounds or something. by the end, they are carrying 47 pounds of pig iron in a day without being tired. so, yes. his attitude -- there are certain people, right, who are essentially designed, made for doing that kind of work. right? not the manager but a certain kind of -- >> kind of going off the point, i think the other thing he thinks the manager is responsible torefor is looking for the qualities like the lower labor class does have and putting them in the correct positions for the skills that they do have. >> exactly. >> he is very clear they don't have the same kind of skills as the manager and they might not have as many but they have a skill set that can be used.

it's the manager's responsibility to figure that out for them in a way. >> yeah. very nice. the manager is not only studying recording breaking down tasks, he is fitting -- he would say the right man to the right job. there are a couple things going on here. one is finding the one best way. every job there is one best way to do it. at the same time, there's this -- think of standardization as creating these mass men or something like this. he is individualizing in a way, right? he is saying, you have to study -- he has an individual interview with each of these men to determine which job they should be in. on the one hand this individualization of the worker. on the the other hand, this slotting of the worker into just the right place in the industrial machine. all right? interesting tension perhaps, to think about. he uses that word individual and individualizing quite a bit. that actually a lot of the manager's time is spent in

talking to individual workers and making sure they are doing things right and they are doing thing -- they are in the right position in the first place. if scientific management as taylor describes it is the new modern way to work -- we have discussed ways that both working and management were doing things in a kind of outmoded, less scientific way. what are the big problems he identifies besides just waste, which he is very concerned with? that might be his prime boogie man is waste. what else is he concerned with in terms of the way workers conduct themselves? we talk about soldiering a little bit. what's the problem with soldiering? what is soldiering, a word that has gone out of our voecabularyvocabulary? >> it's 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. so simply under working but there's effort going into under working. >> yes. work slow downs, very deliberate. why do they happen? >> he talks about how there's the fallacy that if you work too much, you will put other people out of business or out of work. but he acredits some of that to the labor unions. i got a sense that through the piece if you insert this new level of management, you can kind of do away with the labor unions, because you have someone addressing the issues that you are having and issues that the big person on top is having. >> yes. very nice. suspicious, right? definitely of the collectivity of workers, in the form of a union or in the term of this social compact. even without a union he would say, among a sembly lined

workers, you don't outpace your neighbor because then it becomes clear that everybody could be working faster. the idea at the end of the day that it's going to hurt you and your trade. everybody will be paid less for more work. all of this is a fallacy. some of it is wrong thinking he is concerned about. maybe some of it's the collectivity, too. right? thinking back to the point about individualism and fighting each place in the ladder for each man is also a way of breaking something that actually allowed workers to work together. >> he also interestingly attributes some of it to ignorance. the third reason he gives for why people soldier is the inefficient rule of thumb methods which are still almost universal in all trades. he talks about how the rule of thumb methods are passed down between generation and this is how you should do your work this is the best way when in actuality, as we progress as a society

society, the managers can find ways to better surpass the rule of thumb methods. >> yeah. so again when we think -- when we zoom out from taylor thinking about this period and the emphasis on novelty, some of it is breaking with the past. i think taylor might show us in more concrete form than most of our writers what that means, right? it means breaking the hold of kind of rule of thumb, of craft traditions, of worker solidarity, of this kind of intricate nuance quite subtle system of social control that workers had over each other and over their work. right? he would say that workers not the managers pre-scientific management, not the owners are controlling the shop floor. they shouldn't be because it's wasteful. it encourages wastefulness and soldiering, and it's not in the workers' best interests. that's maybe not the worker is intelligent enough to figure out. this is why you need the educated manager to prove as he

did, at bethlehem steel by in his -- he tells that story of his own struggles with his friends, right? to get them to work harder and the threats that he was subject to. the intimation of violence against him for trying to get them to speed up and become more productive. so thatg.miz is his -- his own personal story moves right into this tract in scientific management. he is arguing with -- we want to think about it that way. he is arguing with owners and corporations. he is working with unions and workers and the people with the key. right? who are ready to step in. the man or men at theb1÷n desk. right? which he makes very concrete. there's obviously more we could say here about taylor, his attitude toward workers, the

resistance that workers and unions actually mounted against taylorism, which becomes a word in this period. but i would like us to think about taylor's example the kind of template he will set for our fields and enterprises in this period. so let's just bracket for the moment of question what's lost here in taylor's factory. think back to jane adams and brotherhood and solidarity. none of that is taylor's concern. his concern is we have got a new mode of production here. how do we make it more efficient? how do we make the machine, which includes the people, smoother? how do we make -- how do we get rid of the friction in the system? that's how you make things more efficient. those concerns of the late 19th century about the soulzs of the workers, their humanity is put to the side. >> replace taylor or does he

supplement taylor? >> ford? >> in his ideas. >> ford is less theory of industry. but i think in many ways he adopts certain aspentcts of taylor. ford comes up with the idea of the $5 day and leisure as an incentive for workers to produce. if you work at ford, you earn enough to buy the products. there's a different theory i think in ford's factories. certainly, in certain aspects, most industries of of this time were taken up with this idea of breaking the tasks into smaller pieces. ford is a taylorist and not, i would say. it works both ways. let's move on to christine fredericks. i walk to talk about the new housekeeping. christine frederick was not the first to hit on this idea of a household engineer.

the whole profession of home economics is becoming more expert driven in this period. this is in early 20th century home economics class. home economics will be taught in schools as a subject. still is. did any of you take home economics? the roots are in this period. it's a really interesting kol lonization of an area thought to be something individual private households do that were passed on in a rule of thumb way from mothers to daughters. think of the beacher sisters who were part of this in a way, too, talking about household management. home economics as a field of profession -- a professional domain where there are experts creating curriculum is a turn of the century kind of invention. here again is -- that is not

christine frederick but that is someone who looks like christine frederick. the start in the late 19th century but take on an expert-driven advice. the new housekeeping efficiency study in home management. household engineer and professional consultant. one question we might pose here, i think it's clear how much frederick is indebted to spun like taylor. right? but how much has changed in the envisioning of the household from the time of the beacher sisters in the 1860s to this moment? what's changed and what's remained the same? nothing is every totally a break with the past, we might say. what strikes about you this? >> she has taken this idea of the scientific method and applied it to make it as efficient as possible and saving time in everything way and everything is planned out.

at the end i was interested when she threw out this is why this is so important and women are leaving -- becoming mothers to join the work force and that's slil because housekeeping is so important. that reminded me of the beacher sisters. it was her taking the new methods but keeping the ideal of household keeping intact. >> yes very nice. the end result is the same. the rational for why you do it maybe is changing. good. >> i was struck by the contrast between the beacher sisters but so much emphasis on raising children and morals and family and those kinds of things and christine frederick is all about inches in the sink and how to cook food quickly. it's very focused on these duties of the household. but she doesn't talk about raising her children. when she mentioned them it's like, how to keep her children from getting in the way of her chores. >> right. >> it seemed like they were

almost keeping her from cooking and doing that stuff. >> yes. right. interfering with her well-planned day. she refers to them as the boy and the baby. they are these stock characters. she's able to have the baby play while she's doing her hand stitching and so forth. she refers to them as -- very unidealized. >> in a way i was impressed by the way she mapped out her schedule and included the children. so that she specifically had an hour or two every day to just sit and play with them. or watch them play and play with them while she did something else. she did incorporate them into her schedule which i find impressive and did remind me of the beacher sisters. it was almost like trying to show them an example from an early age of systematic living. >> it makes you realize, this is a long development. thinking very consciously reflectively about how the household runs. it doesn't run on its own.

there might be ways to improve it. the beacher sisters had a more spiritual notion of it than christine frederick. you could see them talking to each other across time. >> this piece screamed litman to me. this is the drudgery of housework and wanting to make it worthwhile i guess. i could see that it would get boring after a while. so you want to apply the science to make it feel like you are doing something -- i'm not saying housework is not an important thing to be doing. but i could see it being a very unfulfilling thing to women so they want to apply a scientific process. >> she uses the word something about drudgery in here. so she's admitting in a way that the beacher sisters would not have. some of this work is just tedious work. right? so why not put all this energy into speeding it up, cutting out

steps? if the dishes can be in the drain board and wash them with hot water, they will air dry. you don't need to wipe them down with a cloth of questionable clenlyness. right there, the ways to systematize and a kind of pleasure for its own sake. but because it gets you more time to do other things. notice in her schedule there's a -- every other week club date. she's has these social and more leisure activities built into the skeng as well. think about this in terms of this emerging consumer and leisure culture that we have talked about in terms of sister carrie. >> i think like the beacher sisters -- she makes it clear that this household sphere is for women only. all of these tasks and schedules are all about the woman and the mother. in that way it's similar to the

beacher sisters. in that last paragraph, she says basically the right place for the woman is in the home and that's all. but on the flip side by using this scientific analysis and calling for standardization and conservation of energy, all this stuff, she kind of equates the woman's sphere of the household as a similar task and job of importance as things done outside the home. >> yes. right. the beacher sisters state that, that women's role takes as much management skill as a world leader. but actually frederick just doing it. notice what she borrows from the factory. she talks about, well, men in the factory do this. i'm also using this index card system on my wall. i borrow this from my husband.

there's this kind of parallelism that she's sketching, which may be enough to keep women in the home to feel that their work is as professional as scientific as requiring of scientific attention and care. >> i think an interesting but maybe more subtle contrast is how they deal with house keepers or mothers of different classes. in beacher the focus was if you are of greater means you should be more philanthropic and set up homes for children and use your money in terms of flil an throw pi. in terms of frederick, she uses this efficient as an equalizer. on page 41 she says, a strong reason why the tools is not as possible as more efficient working methods is that while some women can afford a vacuum or electric motor or other tool, hundreds of thousands of women cannot. any one of those thousands of women can reduce the drunlry of

their work by better planning more intelligent systemizing and observation with their work and how they do it. whereas beacher was how to spend your extra money. this is how you can appear as though you have the same amount of money or the same amount of housekeeping by standardization. >> how you can gain some of the rewards of science no mat other what your class. i think that's right. it's a very taylor he is being argument. by cutting out the waste cutting dredgery. yet getting to a final and maybe higher quality product. even if that means the product are schedule babies or -- i love this line. sunday dinner on saturday. it saves time. sort of these instances where you feel you are almost reaching absurdity in the scheduling of something, which at the time had not been thought of in these an littic, cold terms of what works

better. that wasn't what a household was about. it wasn't just about work and technical efficiency. >> i thought it was interesting that she singles out herself as a suburban housewife. i feel like we talked about a woman in the city but this is what suburban life is like. it's a big contrast in her schedule versus anything that they would have encountered because of location and the development of suburbs as these -- she talks about how anyone that lives in the suburbs knows that you can have anyone drop in on you and the social aspects of it. >> yes. right. good. and you know, with a text like this you do want to be alert to those social clues. she says things like of course i could use the telephone or i could call the driver. you get a sense of her social class. but also of these infrastructure around her of what's making this household run. we learn even though she's

perfected this lawn dering system that someone else comes in to do the laundry. this say household not simply the realm of the individual woman. it's a system if you want to think about it that way. akin to a factory system. benefits from the same kinds of tools. i want to point to this specific place. it's on page 100. it's the last page of this excerpt. we do get the sense what is motivating frederick beyond the beauty of science. a couple of you referred to it. let's look at that. the same women -- the women who say, i don't want to run my home like an office or factory. i want it to be a home. this kind of disnance between home as factory. but the same women and hosts of others are talking about home drudgery. if they have been doing all these home as it kz all these centuries in a beautiful and poetic way why is it that women are fleeing from housework into professions and outside work?

why are they living in koop dif apartments eating deli meals and refusing to assume the burdens of motherhood? that's maybe the vision of urban woman, of sister carrie. refusing. you hear teddy roosevelt, not taking up the mantle of motherhood and her duties. what we see that has moved here from the time of the beacher sisters is both the need for a persuasive case and the sense that the rewards of family itself or the spirit are not enough to keep women in the home. they have to be persuaded. this is a complex task. it's a scientific task. it's one 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. right? a break from the past, break from tradition.

again, think about litman the only loyalty is going -- should be to going forward. right? this all marks them as really modernest thinkers. they are after the new the novel, the better way to do things that have been done from as they put it time in memorial. enter -- let me show you quickly -- these are a couple of the illustrations that actually appeared in frederick's book of the well ordered kitchen. this one i just -- it makes me think i need to go into my own kitchen and resign everything. right? the drying tray on the right or left? is my sink the right height? you see the path ways. think of time motion studies. this is the badly grouped kitchen equipment so you walk -- this very messy, ugly zigzag to do what you want to do from the serving table to the kitchen cabinet to the stove. here is the efficient grouping. the preparing route is a.

the clearing away route is b. right? you get this nice clean motion of how work is supposed to be done. let's talk about maybe an even more radical systematizer and simplifier, john b. watson. john b. watson was actually -- began his education, his graduate education in philosophy with none other than john dewey. another link to our thinkers in the course. he becomes almost invents the field of behaviorist psychology. he begins with animals and looking at how animals were conditioned by stimulus response and moves on to people. of course, infants as we see here. he will teach at johns hopkins for a time. that of course, modern emblem of the modern university but will be forced out due to his divorce, which was brought on by an affair with his co-author

here, one of his students. so not everything has changed. right? he could lose his university position for his divorce. and his affair. he will become a popular expert as well as a scientific expert on child rearing. eventually, also advertising. we might think about the links between something like stimulus response and these experiments with children and the field of advertising. what is going to get a consumer to respond? this is watson. this is psychological care of infant and child, a new psychology maybe for a new century. he is writing later. this isi+r today. he is a simplifier. freud had a kind of darwinian

battle within the person, within the mind between -- and the urges of the mind between the conscious and sub conscious. a mind that was 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 sees nothing in the mind. all we have to go on is how people behave and what they do and that is the appropriate domain of psychological insight and action. he called freud ismism voodooism and will be the leader of this school called behaviorism, to watch and study behavior. stimulus response with rats or children is the way that you build behavior. you use rewards and punishments. and you can thereby build in instricts in children and habits. you can internalalize things

like a schedule. think abouttzz christine frederick and her schedule baby. if you feed them at the sat time every day, that's when they get hungry. put them down to bed the same time every day, they go to sleep at that time. this works. i can tell you. some of that advice is very popular at the time. even though you can sense the radicalism and shock of writing like this. if we make the argument 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. this is an experiment. the photos are grainy, which i apologize. they're the only ones we have. this is watson actually doing an experiment on the strength and grip of an infant. he has a bar there and the infant is holding on.

some of the still shots that appear in his book before conditioning the child with a white rat. these were the little albert experiments. he did a host of experiments with this one particular child and filmed them. here you see albert before and after reaction, once he has been sensitized to the furry creature. you were going to say something? >> applying the scientific method to child rearing just like they would apply it to the factory or frederick was applying 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. >> yeah. there's kind of a blank slate here he is working with. matthew? >> the thing that struck me about is how overtly hostile they seem to be about mothers in

general. along with -- on page 12, a long with this conviction comes search for facts which helps them. it reveelzals almost a bankruptcy of facts. no one knows enough to raise a child. we talked about people trying to break tradition. he was really trying to assault it. >> severe and more hostile to tradition than any of our other writers. nobody has facts. nobody knows how to be a proper parent. the world we be better off if we would stop having children for 20 years, except for those reared for experimental purposes. and then start again with the facts. >> i think what i found interesting was going along with this idea we have a field with a blank slate where we can start over is that through the other readings and through the readings for this section, we learned that with this industrialization, it is seen as

i guess there's this under arch arching in the back of everyone's mind of can we have this perfect society? can we -- >>what struck me was he says -- how the work shows that all of the fears are acquired. it kind of gave me the idea of how at this time we're wondering, can we erase fear can we live in a perfect society? by looking at these babies, can we find the way to raise the perfect human? >> yes. right. it's utopian kind of thinking. if you simply get children early enough and you have all this laboratory data gathered that we wipe out fear. we wipe out certain kinds of things that we thought were deep instricts or particular to particular people. this is go -- envisioning human

nature as a blank slate leads you. >> a personal peeve. he talks about parents but he only talks about the mother. nowhere in this does he mention a father. he keeps using parents and parenthood. i was waiting for, where is the dad? >> yeah. it's an interesting -- that might capture something about what's new and what's old. right? right in that word right there, the invoe indication of parent to mean mother. in his experience in the 1920s, who was doing the parenting? it was the mother almost in every instance. yet he uses this more almost objective scientific term parenthood to talk about what he means. this kind of newness coexisting with a kind of habit and tradition to think of the parent as the mother. >> going back to matthew's comment, i thought it was interesting how much he disdains the human instinct in favor of the scientific method especially the female human

instinct. on 15 when he is talking about when the woman realizes that she's responsible for raising her child, he is basically -- she would rather load this burden anywhere else upon heredity, upon the divine shoulder. he is just saying that the mother doesn't want instinctively to take on this burden and teach her child how to be the perfect child or whatever. but then she finally comes to accept it eventually. >> yeah. think back. this brings us neatly in some ways back to litman. the friendly comfortable feeling of believing that you are bigger than you are more important than you are in the scheme of things. this is the critique of religion. this comfort of her redty for not taking responsibility for your own active role in the world. that fits wattson, because the kind of action -- simple enough,

that creates something as deep as fear is the pairing of furry rabbit with a hammering sound. which he says is one of the only things that actually instinctively, everybody recoils from. if you pair those you create the fear of the animal and then you create a life long deep fear of anything furry. even santa claus, he says. >> it's interesting that not just in this piece but all the ones we read even though they seem progressive, they seem to still be staked in social tradition. this might be a little bit of a stretch, but in this piece we kind of came out of the '20s and we're in them and there's this huge desire, people were liv8[k for what they wanted. he talks about if you give too much affection to your child, they will be spoiled. that might be why this was clung on to tightly because people saw what happened with this generation of kids that lived through the '20s and were -- wanted material.

so they want to get away with that. same with frederick how it might be a progressive way of looking at it but it's keeping the woman in the home. it's not very socially progressive still. >> using these progressive techniques to keep things maybe closer to where they were. that's an interesting tension. i think it does run through these pieces, even maybe in watson who seems the most as you mentioned hostile to inherited assumptions and traditions. >> i found it interesting thinking about the audience of all these pieces. with frederick, it's like who -- she assumes everyone who is reading has a house or with watson, he assumes that these children will be born into good families who will use the best methods to raise their kids. on page 31 he is talking about the experiment on the child who had been at home. he says, here is a beautiful 2 1/2 child nurtured in one of our best american homes. it kind of struck me as almost

idealistic in that we're putting this effort into the perfect society and systemizing everything but there are still these people in the background who have no access to this or no way of achieving it. >> yeah. right? also, there are still accidents. unless you train all the dogs not to bark at babies. some of this is going to allude the control of the system advertising in the end. i think we -- there's more to say about watson. i think we see the links between the thinkers the tensions coming to the front in their pieces will come back to some of the tensions we didn't talk about overtly but that might be imbedded in litman's term about science being the discipline of democracy. if experts are the answer and expert run society, what happens to democracy? to the people who are not the

experts, those in the factories or the readers of christine frederick or the infants raised in laboratories? is this the vision of democracy that the united states was poised to adopt? we will come back to some of the critics of -- the technique rather than the substance. i just want us as we close to think about all of these readings what they do what all these readings do to victorian ideas about individualism, about human nature, character, labor and the dignity of labor separate spheres, men and women roles and natural -- seemingly natural handed down ideas, whether rule of thumb or otherwise. this 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. okay. thank you for a great discussion. i have papers for a couple people up here. >> you have been watching a special presentation of our lectures in history series. we have more every saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern. join students in the classroom to hear lectures on campuses across the country on topics ranging from the american revolution to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. every saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern here on american history tv. we want to tell you about some of our other programs. saturday at 4:00 a look at the history bookshelf. tune in as the country's best known american history writers of the past decade talk about their books. that's history bookshelf every saturday at 4:00 p.m. eastern here on american history tv on

c-span c-span3. new year's day on the c-span networks, here are some of our featured programs. 10:00 a.m. eastern, the washington ideas forum. energy conservation with david crane, warren brown and dean kamen. at 4:00, the brooklyn historical&ú society holds a conversation on race. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, from the explorer's club walt cunningham on the first manned space flight. new year's day on c-span2 just before noon eastern heck tore tobar on the men buried in a mine and at 3:00 p.m. eastern,

richard norton smith on the life of nelson rockefeller. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, sharyl attkisson on her reporting on the obama administration. new year's day, 10:00 a.m., juanita abernathy at 4:00, professor benjamin carp and then at 8:00 p.m., a cartoonist draws ten presidential character coutures as david mccullough discusses the presidents and some of their most memorable qualities. new year's day on the c-span networks. for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. american history tv traveled to the library of congress in