duced cars, you know, is necessarily an expert on old world affairs. that's a complete fallacy. anymore than just as somebody's an expert at old world affairs who would imagine that he necessarily be a good inventor. i have no idea if henry kissenger can get a nail or not get a nail. and nobody would expect that he'd be able to do that. it was a built strange. now, one of the most unusual was when henry ford in the midst of these articles sent a gift as he regularly did to detroit's

famously formed rabbi rabbi franklin, leo franklin. in the middle of the whole series of anti-semitic articles, what do you think franklin did when he got a free card from henry ford? returned it. you know. you must have the wrong person here. you're just accusing jews of all sorts of things, how can you offer mo a gift? henry ford was deeply surprised. i'm talking about the jews, i'm not talking about you. and even though this is humorous to us it does remind us of an important theme in the scholarship, which we talked about early on. the mythical jew and the jew next door. to henry ford, he's the jew next

door. he's highly respected, honorable, an important religious leader. i want to be on good terms with him. he's an important figure. i'll send him a card. from franklin's point of view, if you're writing all of these negative things about jews, then i side with them. but it's an interesting k356r78. an interesting example how in the antise-semitic mind you can simultaneously sometimes, you know, oh he can't, my best friend is a jew. so here you have rabbi franklin, the jew next door, and then you have the mythical jew, i would like those books back please. there, the international jew -- thanks. you know that he's writing about here. and that's a moment that

suggests to me that ford really did have this tension between the mythical jew and, and the jew next door. i think i'm going to put off until next time. what i want to do next time, first i want to actually read with you and i'll send it around, one of the chapters so we get a sense of thousand works. how does anti-semitic writing work, why was this so much more successful than the protocols? and you'll instantly see because he seems to be explaining contemporary events. and then we'll talk about aaron sepiro who is the person who sues ford and there's actually a new book on that subject.

and rather interesting, a rather interesting court case. any questions? comments? >> you've been watching a special presentation of our lectures in history series. we've got 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. lectures and history ere saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern here on american history tv. we want to tell you about some of our other american history programs. join us every sunday at 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. eastern for a look at american artifacts. travel with us to historic sites, museums, and archives to learn about what art facts reveal about american history. again watch our show, american artifacts every sunday at 6:00 p.m. and 10e p.m. herein here on

cpsan 3. follow us on twitter connect with us on facebook at facebook.com/cspanhistory where you can leave comments. check out our upcoming programs on- our website. >> new year's day on the c-span networks, here are some of the featured programs, the washington ideas forum. energy conservation with david crane. business magnate t. boone pickens. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, the brooklyn historical society holds a conversation on race. then at 8:00 p.m. eastern from the explorers club, apollo seven astronaut object first man to space flight. new year's day on c-span 2, just beforen in author hector tobar three men buried in a mine.

richard norton smith on the life of nelson rockefeller. then former investigative responder for cbs news sheryl ad kinson on her experiences reporting on the obama administration. new year's day on american history tv on c-span 3, at 10:00 a.m. eastern. wanita on her experiences and the role of women in the civil rights movement. at 4:00 p.m., brooklyn college professor benjamin carp between alcohol and politics. then at 8:00 p.m. cartoonist draws ten characters at historian david discusses the presidents and some of their most memorable qualities. new year's day on the c-span networks for our networks. >> for live coverage on the senate on c-span 2, here on 3 we compliment that coverage by showing you the most relevant

hearings. then own weekends, c-span three is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story. including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary. visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history book shelf with the best known writers. the presidency looking at policies and leg sis of our nations commanders and chief. lectures and history devilling into america's past. and our new series, real america featuring government and educational films from the 1930s and the '70s. c-span 3 created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> next vanderbilt university professor sarah igal talks about the societal shift in the

earlier 20th century at modernization talked about the household. i focus on the literary works on frederick on home economics and frederick taylor who saw to improve industrial efficiency. this class is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> all right. great. hello everybody. today as you know we're going to take up the topic engineering, work and the person. and i put up on a slide here, the cover, one of the many covers of theodore's novel, sister carrie which we've been discussing this last week. and what we been considering is a kind of fictional assault right? on the victorian moral order. in this case and theodore's case, in the form of naturalist fiction. naturalist writing. the attempt to get close to urban reality and to record it in the form of a story about a female adventurer.

she chose to set this story as you know in the booming bustling town of chicago. and to use chicago as a kind of character in the story. so look at the booms, the bus the individual tremendous vails, the fortunes 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 he's talking about new people inserting themselves in the middle of that ladder which used to move from worker to foreman, to kind of a managerial position in the factory. instead, right taylor's i scientific managers are going tot swoop right in at the middle so point. we're talking aboualt changing the structure of work and changing social mobility too, changing the the ladder. although he doesn't dwell on that.that. but he does dwell on the fact fact that you need a different kind of of man. ma a different kind of mann. to the at t desk to the kind of man who's on the floor. why is that? that what's so complicated about managementrate or work that you need this elaborate structure?e >> you have to have the managers responsible for figuring out the

most efficient ways and teaching them to the workers on the floor because they get stuck in there, rule rule of thumbs. >> that's umb,right. ru yeah. rule of thumb,thum right?ay he says rule of thumb it's been worked out over centuries, ved it certainly has improved work techniques. they've gotten better. but it's no match to the scient scientific observation, theb)@aq study of the best possible technique.a]6ñ he libby? >> i was surprised by this, the harsh assessment he made of the machine workers. >> yeah. >> he says that he resembles the ox more than any other type, and more the word percentage has no meaning to him. he's really kind of like putting. them very far below, the planner manager type. the and he says there's always going to be people like that. kind of makes a nature over nurture thing.some peo he said some people are always o going to be born lazy brutal.

inefficient. so thege managerial key to the harnessing their physical strength. that they don't have a anything else. >> $ a he doesp applypl this to different indu kinds of industries. he said with the most brute kind of work.e those men who are just picking up big iron and moving it from one place to another. then he cites these remarkable statistics. that the average load a man can carry isca 12 1/2 pounds. the by the end of his experiment they're carrying 47 pounds of pig iron. his attitude -- there are ther certain people, right, who are esse essentially made for doing that kind of work. right? not the manager but a certain kind of schmitt is made for that. >> off ofgoin libby's point+ he thing thinks the manager is responsible for, he talks about

the pieces, looking for the qualities, like the lower class does have and putting them in the correct positions for the >> skills that they do have. clear that they don't have the same as kind of skills as the manager. but they do have a skill set s that can be used.skill so it isse the manager's he responsibility to figure that resp out for them in a way. >> y >> yeah. very nice. so the manager is not only studying recordings breaking he down tasks, he is fitting the right man to the right job. so there g are a couple things going on here.e. one is finding the one best way q p r(t&háhp &hc% for every job. there's one best way to do it.it. at the same time, there's this of standardization, right as kind of creating these mass men, something like that. he and he's also individualizing in a way, right? he has an individual interview, right, with each of these men to determine which jobtbç they should be in.s there's on the one hand the

visualization of the worker and the other hand the slotting of the worker in just the right strial place in the industrial machine. th he uses that word individual and individualizing quite a bit, ite a right? and that actually a lot of the manager's time is spent in talking to individual workers and andma making sure they're doing ar things just right and that they're in the right position ine the first place. scie if scientific manager as taylor describes it is the new okoran is the modern way to work we've discussed the way that both th working and management were doing things in kind of an outmoded less scientific way, right? what are the big. problems he identifies besides just waste? which he is very concerned with. it might be his prime boogie ogie man, right, is waste.he what else is he concerned with

in the way that workers conduct themselves? we talk about5so little bit ldieright? what's the problem with soldiering? what is soldiering, first of all? that i think has totally gone out of our vocabulary. >> it's like working the system. the in the form that you work aso]m little as possible to make it it seem like you're working as much as possible. simply underworking, there's effort effort going into underworking. >> yes. so work slowdowns right? very deliberate. how do they happen? why do they happen? >> he talks about how there's a fallacy where if you work too peop everyone, you'll put otherle people out of work. but he accredits some of that to of the labor union.r and i got a sense that through the piece that if you insert this new level of management, kind you can kind of do away with the labor unions because you have somebody addressing the issues he that you're having and the the issues that the person on top is having. >> yes. very nice.

suspicious right? definitely of the collectivity of workers, either in the form of the union or this social compact. even without a union right, he would would say, among assembly line workers, that you go as slow as you possibly can.mbly you don't outpace anyone your ou neighbor, because then it se the becomes clear that everybody at e could beve working faster right? the idea at the end of the day that is going to hurt you andê&wr your trade because everybody's going to be paid less for more work. he says all of this is a fallac fallacy. some of it isy. wrong thinking i that he's concerned about. maybe some of it is the t collectivity, ootoo. thinking back to alex's point point the individualism and finding ism the right place inan the ladder for each man, is also a way of breaking something that actually allowed workers to work together. yeah? >> heinte interestingly attributes it to ignorance.reason h the third reason he goes for why people soldier is the ficien

inefficient rulet of thumb methods, which are still universal in all trades. and he talks about how these rule of thumb methods are passed down between generation, and thi this is hows you should do your work, this is the best way when in actuality as we're a progressing as as society and industrial society, these scientific managers can find ways to better surpass these rpass rule of thumb methods. >> yeah.we zoo when we zoom out from taylor of thinking of this period some of it is breaking with the past. i think taylor might show us in more more concrete form than most of r our writers what that means, right? right? it means breaking the hold of kind of rule of thumb, of craft traditions, of worker solidarity, of this kind of , of t intricate nuance you know, ce quite subtle system of social trol control that workers had over ov each erother, and over their work,ir wor right? he would say that workers, not the managers pre-scientific ma management, not thena owners are

the ones controlling the shop e floor, right? it's wasteful and causesu10( laziness and soldiering. and it's not in5úñ thew[6 workers' best interests. best interests.telligen this is why you need the educated manager to prove as he did at bethlehem steel, or mid vail steel -- he tells that story of his own struggles with his friends, right? to to get them to work harder. and and the threats that7p subject to right? the intimation of violence lence against him for trying to get tryin them to speeg d up, and become more productive.uuz so that is his own personal story, moves right into this tract in scientific management. so he's arguing with, we want to think about it that way he's arguing with owners and corporations. he's also arguing with unions and workers.d

and the people who had the key right? who are ready to step in. are the men, the man, or the men at the desk, which he makes very concrete. there's obviously more we could say he say here about taylor, his attitude toward workers, the kind of resistance that workers and unions actually mounted against taylor-ism which became a a word, too, in this period. but i would like us to think ab about taylor'sou example, the kindof of template he will set for for other fields and other enterprises in this period, too. in so let's just bracket for the moment the question what's lost here, in the kind of taylor factories, james adams and d solidarity and what fellow lidari feeling, none of that is taylor's concern.ncern is his current concern is we've got a new mode of production here i how do we make it more efficient, how do we make the machine, which includes the people, right, smoother.

how do we get rid of the do friction in this system.ricti that's howon you make things more efficient. those concerns o in the late 19th century about the souls of the workers, humanity is put to the side. yes? >> like replaced taylor does he supplement taylor, like in his ideas? >> ford is less of a theory theoryitician. ford comes up with the $5 day and the leisure is kind of an pr incentive to produce.t if you work at ford you earn enough to buy the product.cts. there's a different theory, i think embedded in ford's factories. in certainnl aspects, most tries industries at this time were th taken up with this idea of systemizing the task the individual tasks and breaking brea them dowkin into ever smaller