what's the great advantage of owning your own newspaper? it's not a hard question. >> you control what the paper says about you. >> exactly. if you want to control your own message, it's helpful to own your own newspaper, and he has another great advantage. yes, it's called the deerborn independent but it's not just for people in deerborn. what's his great advantage? how can he distribute this paper? what does he have? yeah. >> he has cars. >> he has cars. and if you want to sell cars, you need then and now -- >> advertising. >> dealerships. >> dealerships. you've got car dealerships. and they are beholden to you because they don't do what you say, you won't let them have any cars and they won't be able to sell them, won't be able to make any money. but he has a whole string of car dealerships and all of those car dealerships now have to carry

and distribute the deerborn independent. so it is going to be a much more important newspaper than you know had he just remained a very local newspaper in deerborn, and he buys the paper and sets it up, gets going in 1919. it's called the deerborn independent but honestly it wasn't independent at all. it's a free country call it whatever you like, independent but it was actually totally dependent on the ford motor company. and not surprisingly if you were to read a run of the paper, its views and the views of henry ford are remarkably similar. that shouldn't surprise us.

you know, that would be true of any newspaper that reflects the views of its owners. but the paper is very much in favor of pacifism. it likes prohibition, meaning thateíh ñ it's in favor of limiting alcohol, which ford thought was wicked. it supports all sorts of old traditions. one of the most interesting articles and the title of the article tells you a lot about the outlook of henry ford is an editorial that was entitled "the old ways were good." now, what's the irony? there is an astonishing irony. yeah. >> ford was modernizing america he made the car and then he's saying that the old ways were

better. >> yeah. exactly right. there's nobody who did more to bring new ways to america, to transform america, than henry ford in his day. the automobile was one of the most transformative inventions in the 20th century. the fact that people could travel significant distances easily was enormously important and very rapidly, horses disappeared from the streets of the city and automobiles replaced them and with a need to have highways and the like, nothing transformed america in those days more than the automobile. yes. >> do you think that henry ford built, you know, the ford motor automobile to modernize america or was it just kind of an

accident [ inaudible ]? >> oh, he certainly continued to support the automobile. he wasn't sorry that automobiles existed. i mean it's an interesting question. what you're really asking is was he aware of this irony or is it only something that we see. my sense is he's not aware of it. he's a country person. he remembered small towns. he liked small towns. it didn't occur to him that nobody had done more to change america from the old ways to the new ways than he himself. one of the lessons is that one can be a great engine of change and be totally oblivious to the changes that one has in fact

brought about. if one looks, there is a whole group in this period who are anti-modernists. we think of this era as the spread of modernity and so on but still a lot of people opposed it and ford is -- illustrates both anti-modernism and anti-urbanism. in the 20th century the city is going to become very significant and the truth is and this will be important as we turn to jews, the jews are very much associated with american cities. jews tend to be urban. but henry ford even though he lived near a city he's really a

champion of old rural america. to him, much like to thomas jefferson before him, all of american virtues were connected with rural america and he very much was opposed to the very cities where so many of his automobiles would be sold. so what's interesting to look at is that anti-semetism is going to bring together a lot of the themes that ford champions. that is to say jews to his mind are symbols of modernity are symbols of urbanization.

jews to his mind were opponents of prohibition and that was largely correct. a lot of immigrants disliked prohibition. there is a wonderful new book on the jews and the liquor trade entitled "jews and booze." very good title. "jews and booze" by marney davis which gives us the full picture of jews in the liquor trade. ford has some dim awareness of this but he certainly knows jews were opposed to prohibition and one can really see how jews begin for him to reflect the antithesis of many of the things he most believed in. not necessarily many of the things he did, but many of the things he most believed in. now, i said earlier that writing

and reading were not things that henry ford excelled in and what does that suggest about the deerborn independent, especially when you remember that this guy was simultaneously head of the ford motor company? what does it suggest? >> that [ inaudible ]. >> exactly. do not for a minute believe that henry ford did all of the writing or indeed, any of the writing for the deerborn independent. that doesn't mean he didn't oversee the writing or know about the writing. it does mean that he employed other people to do most of the writing for him. and we know quite a lot about some of the people who worked for ford. yeah. >> was it ghost writing? did they claim that it was by him? >> i suppose you can call it ghost writing meaning that very often, these were people who

wrote things in ford's name but he did not himself write them. later, ford would claim that in some cases, he didn't know what appeared in the deerborn independent. that seems quite unlikely to most people. some of the articles in the deerborn independent certainly are signed by other people, but in any case, most of the articles that are -- those that we are going to focus on in the deerborn independent were written by a man named william j. cameron c-a-m-e-r-o-n and cameron is part of a very interesting little group called the anglo-israelites. anybody by any chance ever hear

of the anglo-israelites? the anglo-israelites and remember when we talked about race in america, the anglo-israelites believed that anglo-saxons were the real heirs to the jews and the jews the people who called themselves jews were usurpers. in other words, this was a way to square a certain circle by saying that the master race is really the anglo-saxons. they are the true heirs to the jews and these pesky jews who now exist, they're not real jews at all. indeed, there is a long tradition in the 20th century of people who argue that contemporary jews are not really heirs to those jews of the bible, that in one version they

converted to judaism. there are a whole series of such stories. but the important thing was that for cameron, it was an article of really religious faith that he was the true jew and the jews he saw in america were usurpers and he believed that, as anglo-israelites did the anglo-israelites believed that there were really two people vying to be chosen people, the anglo-saxons and the jews and that it was essential for the good of civilization that which group should win? >> anglo-saxons. >> that anglo-saxons should win.

and the -- this was not the only anti-semite, a word they would not have minded. it's not just that we're imposing that word on them. some of the other people who work in the deerborn independent clearly viewed themselves as antisemites. they wouldn't have minded being known as antisemite and indeed we know that ford's own wife clara didn't like jews very much. ernest liebold another ford associate, doesn't like jews and so on. now, we reach here the 1920s. just in terms of the economics of the auto industry, the '20s are not a very good decade for henry ford and the reason was

that he was facing very significant competition. and some have argued that indeed he began searching for enemies. sometimes -- excuse me. sometimes when times are bad people search for enemies people to blame for their troubles. whether or not that is the reason it is worth remembering and it will also shape the way jews respond that these are tough times for ford. we also know and this brings us back to the protocols of the elders of zion that we looked at, that russian royalists meaning people who supported the

czar had actually brought to ford to cameron to some of these people surrounding ford, the protocols of the elders of zion and they had persuaded ford that the overthrow of the czar was all the responsibility of who? >> the jews. >> the jews. right. and that this too is part of what shapes henry ford. in any case, whatever the psychological or economic reason ford begins a series called the international jew on may the 2nd 1920. now, step back and think about that. you have got a newspaper that is

being distributed somewhere between a quarter and a half a million copies are distributed of every issue, and suddenly, it begins an expose of quote, the international jew. and when the articles are in publication, they are eventually going to be 91 of them 91 weeks of antisemitic articlesc8ñru but periodically ford claimed people asked for reprints of the series and newspaper what's the problem with newspapers, then and now? are newspapers things people keep? >> no. >> no. you wrap fish in them and so on.

so he wanted to make sure that they would be preserved. so after he produced these newspapers every few months this one has 20 articles he would gather together the newspapers and he would produce these little books. i only own two of them. there were four of them that were produced. that brought together these articles. now, i was very lucky because the copy i managed to procure included this little note which reads, to the librarian, this copy of the international jew, the world's foremost problem, is for your reference library and

reading table. please accept it with our compliments. the deerborn publishing company. now, what do we learn from this? >> that he was sending them to libraries for free and encouraging people to read them. they weren't being like requested, necessarily. >> he sent free -- he was a very wealthy man. he believed in this cause. i will pass these around. please take care of them. they are irreplaceable. but he believed that they should get maximum publicity and the way, what he did, as i said, he knew about public relations. he knew how to get it done. he sent free copies to every library in america and these were very very cheaply produced

books. why do you think he produced them cheaply? why are we interested that he produced them cheaply? but the fact that they were very cheap meant what? >> that he wanted everyone to have access to them. >> yeah. this isn't a book for the elite. anybody can afford to get the four volumes of henry ford and he's sending free copies to many many people, and in fact, every ford showroom had available these books. this will help you to understand why many jews refuse to buy ford products in those days because the publications and the automobile were closely linked. now, i gave you out some

material, just photocopies from these books. the table of contents, take a look at them and tell me, you know, what we learned. i mean, even from the very title, what do we make of this? this title? some of you have it, i would start this way. what do you make of this title? >> the international jew, it's saying it's a world problem, so it's saying that not only are jews a problem in america but jews are everywhere and everywhere they are causing havoc. >> right. it's absolutely right. the very title the international jew. and stated as a declarative. this of course does suggest certain elements of influence in the protocols of the elders of

zion but not only is it the international jew and this in 1921 is the international jew, according to the cover of the book. >> the world's foremost problem. >> the world's foremost problem. not the flu epidemic. not warfare which killed millions and millions of people. not warfare. not the arms race. not economic problems. the world's foremost problem, he declared, and he didn't put a question mark there, was the international -- was the international jew. now, take a look. i have given you i think on the next page the preface.

is there anything that you learn from this? >> i think it's really interesting that it says the jews have -- they have control over the news that america reads. >> again one of the great ironies, here's a man who is working very hard to shape coverage of himself and who has bought a newspaper and distributed it in the hundreds of %owpthousands but nevertheless, he believes that the autocratic direction of the very news that the american people read is all due to the jews. good. what else? yeah. >> in the preface he keeps talking about the jewish question, he never says what the question is and it even makes it

seem like he's creating the question. >> it's great and indeed the term the jewish question is going to be much discussed in this era, so much so you can try this. if you go to very old libraries like the boston public library, you -- harvard you will find that the jewish question was a subject matter, as if this was a real question. somebody cleverly says it's not a jewish question, it's a non-jewish question, but i don't think henry ford created the term. he did a great deal to elevate the idea that there was a jewish question all over the world, including america, and that this question which really was not so much a question as a problem, needed to be on the agenda of

the american people. anything else that people see in this? >> what exactly is the jewish question? >> well anybody? what do you think he thought was the jewish question, and think back to the protocols of the elders of zion. not so easy to define. anybody have a sense what he thought the problem was? so take a look here. buried but a very important sentence in his preface. the international jew and his satellites as the conscience -- conscious enemies of all that anglo-saxons mean by

civilization. and so as i mentioned this is anglo-israelite thinking but the jewish problem as he saw it was really that the rising number of jews, were the number of jews rising? yes. 1920s before immigration restrictions so you still had hundreds of thousands of jews coming into the country and from his perspective, and indeed from the perspective of many who viewed america in racial terms the anglo-saxons were under attack and in this case, from his perspective, this is all a real war between anglo-saxons

whom he defines as good and jews, and jews really are to blame for everything that he viewed as bad. i mean, that's what -- that's why i wanted you to take a look at the table of contents here. i have given you two. the first table of contents from volume one is the international jew, because it is talking in part about what goes on outside of the country, a jewish world problem. it is very much, as you can see, take a look at chapter ten, what is chapter ten of volume one? >> introduction to the jewish protocols. >> right. now, anybody have a sense of why he doesn't even though wikipedia says he reprints the protocols, actually he's not reprinting the protocols.

what he's done is in some ways, publicizing the protocols. why didn't he reprint the protocols? somebody say it? >> they weren't well written? >> they weren't well written. there are translations they are hard to understand, they are vague, they are generalized. this isn't going to get all sorts of people's riled up and what he does is take the protocols but actually apply them to day-to-day situations that people did know about and he would say this is an example of what the protocols are talking about. so that many chapters will begin with the protocols and will have

a line or two from the protocols, and then go further. take a look. what else do you see just looking at the contents of volume one which, as i said is the international volume. then we will move to volume two, which was jewish activities in the united states. but what kinds of things is he talking about, if you read no further, we will read further eventually but if you read not probably today but if you read no further than the table of contents, what kinds of things would you learn? michelle? >> like you said it kind of looks like the jews have their hands in everything. >> give me an example. >> including all the things that were going on in russia and as well as like the world press magazines, you know, ruining farms, the recent world war.

but i think what becomes kind of clear is a pattern and the title the international jew, it kind of like goes back to like the old -- like the old idea that jews around the world are somehow connected and somehow are in this really large conspiracy, saying like the cx%v(t&háhp &hc% international jew means that like the jews kind of are able all over to distribute these sort of plans that have been concocted. >> no, i think that's exactly right. a sense of conspiracy, a sense of world, does a definite world jewish program exist and his answer, it will not surprise you, was yes. and some sense that jews are responsible for world war i. world war i, as time goes on is viewed as a catastrophe, as i

said. everything bad is blamed on the jews, even though there was no jewish country and none of the leaders, ferdinand wasn't jewish and the czar wasn't jewish. nonetheless, as time goes on he began to argue the jews stood behind all of these people an idea very much buried in the protocols of the elders of zion and as we move down, we see the great fear connected to the red scare of that time and what are they really worried about? and here of course, it was easier to give details. what are they really worried about? >> that the jews are communists and the communists are going to overthrow america. >> good. exactly. the fear of bolshevism as he

puts it. the communists have taken over in russia. now, were there jewish communists? no question about it. undoubtedly trotzski was very famous. lenin had significant jewish roots as the new book shows. but that of course didn't mean that all jews were communists. the fact that certain number of communists were jews doesn't mean that all jews are communists. nevertheless, from the perspective of readers of the deerborn independent, here was another problem that they could blame on jews. and then we move to the second which is entitled jewish activities in the united states.

and then again take a look at the table of contents then we will go back and look at what we might learn from the preface. but let's take a look at the table of contents. just what do you learn from the table of contents? yes. >> one thing that i noticed was that he thinks that the jews have a lot more power than they probably might have at this time. >> give me an example. >> he talks about control, kind of just this overtaking of -- >> good. these words as if much is by the way, in the protocols of the elders of zion, that a real fear that jews are hiding but secretly in control of many

aspects of american and indeed world life but they are experts in doing what? take a look at the very first item, what he calls chapter 21. what are they experts in? >> [ inaudible ]. >> i'm sorry? >> [ inaudible ]. >> concealing. so now let's understand how conspiracy, this is true of all conspiracies conspiracies. there is a conspiracy theory that blames the jews. you say i don't see all these jews running things. and the answer is? it's concealed. no wonder, that's part of the conspiracy. you can't see it. can anybody negate that argument? if i do see it, jews are visible. it's jews. if i don't see it well, they're concealed. and this is quite typical of

conspiratorial claims of all kinds. the same was true of people who thought that the masons in the 19th century controlled everything or the catholics controlled it. but there is always the part that's visible and then the sense is well how can you possibly see it they're concealing it it's going on in hiding. the fact that you don't see it is itself part of the conspiracy. and that's very much the case here. what kind of a world, and this of course is what worried jews so much, they had come to america to be part of america. they didn't want to continue to exist in a european sense where they are a separate people

utterly apart. legally many times apart. what kind of a world is henry ford propagating here? >> well, he says like jewish rights clash with american rights so saying that jews aren't trying to assimilate to american culture they are trying to -- i know he writes this, form their like -- meld american culture into#rfyt what they want it to be so they can't exist in the america that exists so they have to tear it apart. >> right. either it's a battle of jews versus non-jews which is jew versus non-jew in new york finance chapter or indeed, as michelle says, he believes jews want to change america and that means that he's got an answer for why america had shifted all of these innovations and indeed,

take a look in the middle here. what's another innovation that he doesn't like? >> movies? >> movies. they're obscene, they're portraying wicked values. by the way, movies have been portraying wicked values since the beginning of movies in this country. but who is to blame for that? jews. so whatever -- now that's not to say that jews have no -- this is really before hollywood has taken over the film industry, but there were jews in the film industry. but he suddenly is able to blame jews for yet another element that he doesn't like and what makes this so very frightening, much more frightening in some ways than the protocols of the

elders of zion because the protocols of the elders of zion are so vague. what's going on here? >> he's showing specifics. >> he's offering specifics. and people can read those specifics and say oh the specifics are right the generalization must be right. that's always a danger when you generalize from an example just because so and so is a jew, certainly doesn't mean that all jews are like so and so. but very much the argument that he puts through, that he puts through here and as we go down here, you can see that he's worried about what's being taught in the schools. again, the sense, and that brings us back to mcguffie, that

the public schools are no longer teaching the old values that they should preach and used to preach, and did preach when he studied back when he was growing up. instead, because of jews, that the school curriculum is being changed. and again, very much talking about the jewish question. let's take a look just at the preface here. because he does something quite interesting that again is quite common in conspiratorial

writing. take a look at the second paragraph especially. what's going on there? yeah. >> it looks like people have tried -- jewish people probably have tried to refute the articles but he's defending his own articles saying they haven't shown any facts to refute them. >> if we were in a debate here -- >> i think he places more suspicion on them because they refute it, saying that makes them more suspicious than they were. >> again it's a kind of can't win. this is a tactic a tactic used in debate. i don't know if any of you ever studied debate. but what's going on here? what are you trying to do in terms of debating tactics here?

in this paragraph? the articles thus far printed remain unanswered. they have been denounced and misrepresented but not answered. a favorite evasion of jewish editors is to say that the statements made about the jews could be made about any other race, and that no race could refute the statements with facts. but these statements have not been made about other race and could they be. so what's going on here? as a tactic? so what you're trying to do is really disarm opponents in advance by saying oh, they're going to say a b, c and d and then of course when they say it, well that's just what we said you would say.

so again in many ways, it made it impossible to respond and he talks about unanswered and then of course, there were many answers but how does he define those answers? second sentence. they're not answers, they are what? >> evasions. >> they're evasions they're deannunciations, they're misrepresentations. obviously the people who made them didn't view them that way. so you want to be aware, this is very common in propaganda and we will see it again where people will try hard to prevent responses by in a sense telling you in advance what the

opposition will say in the hopes that then they will be disarmed from saying so. and that's very much what is going on here. it is of course very interesting that jews are defined here as a separate race. we have talked about that. this is an era where jews often were seen as a race apart, much as the hungarians, the poles, the romanians scots, irish and so on and it is the case some of the jewish language skewed it but others were prepared to accept race. yeah. >> i was wondering if any jews read the international jew and thought, they weren't observant

or religious and thought some jews were like this. >> i'm not sure the issue really was religious. nerd in other words, i'm not sure someone would read this and say religious jews were like this, non-religious jews are like this. what's the whole essence of race? >> it's everyone. doesn't matter how much -- >> it's in your genes. right. it doesn't much matter whether you are religious or irreligious. but the question$;jpu ask is a very important one, which is how do you respond to this and actually the american jewish community had a very difficult time with that question. what would you do? if we called a meeting, if a very famous person started issuing anti-semetic articles a whole series that were widely

publicized, what would be some of the possibilities in terms of responding? what would be some of the arguments? we talked about this the very beginning of the course, some of the ways of responding to anti-semetism. if you don't remember, what kinds of things might one do? >> well, we discussed in the beginning how like when the whole grant cases where the jews went straight to the government. >> okay. some people might have argued let's try and shut down this newspaper. let's try and prevent hate speed, which is whatspeed speech, which is what this is, from being distributed. in some ways it brings up a very contemporary question all over the world. how should one deal with hate

speech? what do some countries feel about hate speech? yeah. >> in certain countries, holocaust denial is illegal. >> in some countries, forms of hate speech are illegal. actually, in egypt, any criticism of the government now recently was considered hate speech and banned. what about in america? what's the problem? >> first amendment. >> right. so the notion of a free press and free speech has made it difficult to ban hate speech. how did louie brandeis think one should respond to hate speech? anybody know? his idea was that the proper

response was more speech. that basically you responded with, with speech. but that is not -- there was a significant dispute in jewish circles and i want to come back. if you had been there, what are some of the things you might have said? what might one do in the face of hate speech? yeah? >> well, i mean it's kind of cowardly but just kind of well you know i think this happened a lot, they forgot they were jewish and ignored their judaism. >> let's ignore him. silence. and indeed, jacob schiff, who was probably the leading american jew of that time wealthy, proud, he was really at the end of his life but jacob

schiff was very nervous about taking on an industrialist like henry ford, who was a hero who some people thought should be president, and his sense was maybe let's not do anything. let's ignore it. if we give it publicity it will only make it -- >> worse. >> -- worse. said he. and that was a very powerful voice. not to respond do you think everybody agreed with that? why not? what's the problem with not responding? yeah. >> it's hard to just sit there and take it, and also, if you don't refute it, that's kind of saying like yeah, that's true. >> exactly. not to respond is to suggest that i can't respond, so

naturally, there were people very unhappy and you can certainly see in jewish newspapers and elsewhere various kinds of responses, actually although they don't quite mention henry ford by name the american jewish yearbook devotes a whole issue of the yearbook to responding to charges that really began with henry ford everything from the idea that jews are dishonest because on the day of atonement at the first service of yom kippur, they say all their vows are not vows and this was taken to be oh, well, they admit it.

and so the yearbook writes a long article about what it's really about and so on. really about, and so on. and, and various, and you have jewish responses to communism. so what's the problem which the yearbook admits? how many americans do you think read the american-jewish yearbook? not so many, yes, it was in many libraries, but they that really was, i think written for the jews you were talking about who didn't know how to answer who may be -- really uncertain. but many jews said, you know henry ford's allies are not people who are simply missing

mismisinformed and once we give them the truth they'll change their ways. this was an organized group opposed to jews and so what other options do people have? >> i know a lot of people boycotted. >> so then you had, you know, let's really make them pay for this. this is hatred against the group. let's respond, there is a danger there which is what, what has henry ford been saying about jews? >> they're controlling everything. >> they're controlled. they're a group they're a distant, and if you stage a boycott, that almost sounds like you're playing into his hands on the other hand, there were plenty of people who said i'm not going to give any of my money to this man, indeed there were some jewish dealers of

henry ford, meaning ford dealers who were jewish who gave up selling fords and so and many jews who would not, who would not purchase. yeah? >> moum jews that were -- how many jews were not buying fords, did it really affect the profits? were there enough people who weren't buying? >> it's a very hard question to answer. in other words and the reason it's a hard question to answer is there were lots of reasons why people were buying other cars in the '20s. you know, first of all they were car makers who offered you choices of colors. henry ford famously said in the beginning you can have any color you want as long as it was black. and mass production the whole point of mass production was we

made every car the same way. so how many of the people who didn't buy fords weren't buying fords because they decided chrysler or general motors or whatever were, were better cars more to their liking? and how many of them were specifically trying to hurt ford in the pocketbook? that's a little hard to know. there are some indications that some of the people around ford did believe that, as we move on in time that the antismetic campaign was actually a great drag on the company a diversion from selling cars.

most don't say you're a danger to america. that's not the best way of selling goods to people. you try and make them feel good and welcome and important and so on. that tends to be a more successful way of selling goods. but i don't think anybody can absolutely put a number on, you know, what what it meant. but what do you think all of this material, how do you think it actually affected jews? i mean imagine that you're living in that period of time and one of the most famous and most respected men in america, i

mean he's like gates or jobs today, someone who changed america, everybody respects his worth, billions and billions of dollars who made their lives easier, and henry ford has come out against the jews. how do you think the jewish community felt in the '20s? >> not safe or happy. just because everything in in these writings like everything can be attributed to jews, so if jews are involved with anything, it's kind of like you said it's a d ñwin-win, it's a lose-lose if they're involved in it then they are, you know helping to keep up these ideas, but if they are involved then for a lot of these things they aren't making a living because apparently the jews had control over every sort of option. >> no, absolutely right.

the jewish community in the '20s was deeply nervous. that's always a hard thing to prove. i will try in another class to bring in some material that suggests how unhappy and nervous they were. but, it's not hard to imagine here is a man regularly publishingpublish publishing attacks. what made it so difficult and hard to respond to was that so many of the attacks followed the system that yes, the pieces of evidence may actually be right about a particular jew but the generalization from the particular to the general was really where the mistake was.

and nevertheless a lot of people were prepared to generalize from the individual who was being described to to to the general. now, there were people who really felt that one had to fight henry ford. some wanted to fight him. and as we will see, that does eventually happen. eventually one of the people who ford writes about sues him. and that's going to have a big impact. there were others some of them are not easy to document, but there is this report that that william fox that's it the 20th

century fox that's william fox who was in hollywood threatened that he would make films about accidents with the model t. and that would scare everybody away from the model t. whether it's actually so or not, i can't tell you. brothers syncly would attack ford, ignorant ford may be a good inventor, but he really doesn't know what he's talking about in these areas. and so on. chicago a tribune, called him

1922 ignorant idealist and ford sued for a million dollars. that was a lot of money even more than he stole a lot of money, but it was much more money in those days that for defamation. they actually put him on the stand and the lawyer asked him a lot of questions. and it turned out he was kind of ignorant of lots of things. and ford was eventually awarded six cents of damages and that was deeply embarrassing to henry ford. and obviously people who didn't like ford, you know, were very happy. also i think explains a ford after that experience in 1922, he never wanted to appear on the

stand again. i don't know if any of you have had the misfortune of being on the stand it's easy to be made by the other side to look rather foolish, rather hard if you're not practiced to look great but anyway, they had a very easy time. of course truly he was not a man of broad intellect. that's why he was able to fall through all sorts of conspiracy theories. there is no particular reason why a genius industrialist who is also a genius at creating mass produced cars you know, necessarily an expert on all world affairs. that's a complete fallacy. anymore than anyone that's an expert on all world affairs who would imagine that he'd necessarily be a good inventor. i have no idea if henry kissinger can knock in a nail or cannot knock in a nail. nobody would expect he could do

that. it was a bit strange to think that just because somebody is a great industrialist you must be a world famous expert on everything. now there are very unusual moments in the whole ford affair. one of the most unusual was when henry ford in the midst of printing these articles sent a gift as he regularly did top detroit's famous reform rabbi, rabbi franklin, leo franklin well in the middle of a whole series of anti-semitic articles what do you think he did when he got a free car from henry ford? he returned it.

you must have the wrong person here. jews are all sorts of things. how can you offer me a gift? apparently henry ford was deeply surprised. i'm talking about the jews i'm not talking about you. and this, even though this is humorous to us. it does remind us of an important theme in the scholarship on anti-semitism which we talked about also early on. the mythical jew and the jew next door. to henry ford, rabbi franklin is the jew next door. oh, he's highly respected honorable, and important religiouskdz leader, i, you know, want to be on good terms with him. i live in detroit. important figure i'll send him a card. of course, from rabbi franklin's point of view, if you're writing negative things about jews, then i side with them.

but it's 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 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 t him for trying to get them to speed up and become moreoductive. 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