The “pre-history” of the Society for the History of Technology begins with the Humanistic-Social Research Project (1953-1955) of the American Society for Engineering Education. Under a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Humanistic-Social Division of the ASEE undertook a survey of the Humanistic-Social stem in engineering curricula and issued a report (published under the title General Education in Engineering [1956]) which pointed out that the study of the history of technology was “of special interest and importance for engineering education” and recommended that it be “encouraged,” while at the same time guarding against possible over-emphasis and distortion.

A special committee, headed by Dr. Melvin Kranzberg, was appointed to implement this aspect of the Humanistic-Social Research Project’s report; this committee soon discovered that the history of technology was being taught only sporadically and that there was no organization or publication specifically devoted to its study. Despite this lack of a systematic approach, it was evident that there was tremendous interest in the development of technology, not only among engineering educators and historians, but among all academic disciplines. Indeed, the demand for the systematic, scholarly study of this field was found to extend far beyond academic circles.

With encouragement from many individuals, most notably Drs. Carl W. Condit and John B. Rae, Professor Kranzberg formed the Advisory Committee for Technology and Society, which included academicians, engineers, and industrialists who had evinced interest in the history of technology. A preliminary meeting at Cornell University in June 1957 discussed the areas of study comprehended within the field of technology and its relations with society and culture. These areas of study were circulated among the members of the Advisory Committee, as were various proposals for promoting the study of the development of technology.

In January 1958, Case Institute of Technology sponsored a meeting of the Advisory Committee for Technology and Society in Cleveland, Ohio. At that time it was decided to establish The Society for the History of Technology, which would conduct programs, publish a scholarly journal, and take any other steps necessary to encourage the study of the development of technology and its relations with society and culture. The Society for the History of Technology was incorporated in May 1958, as a non-profit educational organization, in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio, and the constitution of the Society was adopted at a meeting at the University of California (Berkeley) in June of that year. At the same time the first program of the Society was held in conjunction with the Humanistic-Social Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. . . .

The daughter of anthropologist Franz Boas, Marie had studied the history of science with Henry Guerlac at Cornell and would soon become the spouse of A. Rupert Hall, co-author of A History of Technology, published in five volumes between 1955 and 1958 by Oxford University Press. Mel’s correspondence with Boas—and later with Guerlac, who was president of HSS—was unfailingly cordial. In the sequence of letters, one senses some impatience on Mel’s part, but only in the memo addressed to Carl Condit, among others, do we get any indication that he felt that HSS was being dismissive—and even here he notes that members of the HSS council had expressed encouragement for his plan to organize a new society.

This is worth emphasizing because in the 1980s Kranzberg would often say that the decision to launch SHOT followed a confrontation in which Guerlac demeaned historians of technology. In the epigraph to Technology’s Storytellers, John Staudenmaier quotes from a Kranzberg letter dated 4 March 1983, in which he tells of heading a deputation that met with Guerlac in June 1957, a meeting that “proved to be a disaster.” Mel elaborated in his 1989 interview for Invention and Technology: “History of science was then under the intellectual dominance of the followers of Alexandre Koyre, who believed that the only proper focus was on the minds and thoughts of intellectual ‘giants.’” What was important to them were “thinkers, not tinkers,” and Mel reported that “Guerlac said as much to me.” It was in the aftermath of this episode, so Kranzberg’s story went, that the decision was made “to start our own society and our own journal.”

But there is no evidence in the documentary record that Guerlac demeaned historians of technology, and one is left with a sense that, late in his career, Mel was deliberately shaping a creation myth, a classic tale of redemption and triumph in the face of adversity.

Excerpts follow from that early correspondence concerning the textbook project and plans for cooperation between the Humanistic-Social Division of the ASEE and the History of Science Society. In the midst of his exchange of letters with Boas, Mel first heard from Lynn White, jr., the eminent medievalist and future president of the American Historical Association, who would become one of his most valuable allies.

At the meeting of the American Historical Association in Chicago (December 28-30, 1953), I had occasion to speak with several publishers’ representatives regarding the text and anthology which we are preparing for our course in Western Civilization. . . . The points regarding our text which seemed to impress them most were as follows: (1) it will provide a more through integration than other texts; (2) more attention will be paid to science and technology than in the standard texts now in use [italics added]; (3) the final section on “what’s it all about and where will it all lead” will provide an admirable synthesis of the meaning and significance of civilization and also be a “thought-provoker” and meaningful end to the course. . . .

Dear Mr. Mitchell:
. . . The reason why I did not answer you sooner was because I was immersed in writing part of a text on the development of Western Civilization. Now that I have completed work on a healthy chunk of the text–namely, that dealing with Greek civilization–I thought it would be a good time to write you concerning what I and my colleagues are doing.

. . . inasmuch as our students are professionally motivated, we appeal to their interests by paying more attention to the role and impact of science and technology on civilization than do usual texts. This increases the value and interest of the text not only for our own students [but] in liberal arts colleges as well. Do not forget that the coming generation of college students is a generation of “hot rodders” and “space cadets” [italics added].

Cordially yours,

Dear Mel:
Carl Condit has just written me that you will be the chairman of the committee for cooperation with the History of Science Society on behalf of the ASEE. As I have just taken over as secretary from Tom Kuhn, I would be very grateful if you would keep me informed of your activities when there is anything to report. I expect that the Council of the History of Science Society will discuss possible participation in your activities at their meeting on October 20th.

Sincerely,
Marie

Dear Marie:
Condit is very much on the ball; only last week I was appointed chairman of the Committee for Cooperation with the History of Science Society. I was going to write you a very formal letter informing you of the existence of the Committee, but Carl beat me to it. . . .

The members of my committee are as follows:

C. A. Brown, General Motors Institute, Flint, Michigan
Donald Stillman, Clarkson College of Technology, Potsdam, New York
Howard Bartlett, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
Carl Condit, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Raymond J. Seeger, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
George A. Gullette, North Carolina State College, Raleigh, N.C.

Ex-officio members:
Harmon Chapman, New York University, New York, N.Y.
(Chairman of the Humanistic-Social Division of the ASEE)
R. J. Woodrow, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. . . .

Off the top of my head, I can think of two possibilities for cooperation between the Humanistic-Social Division of the ASEE and the History of Science Society: (1) Situated in engineering schools, my colleagues are “naturals” to explore the history of technology [italics added]. This might be the basis for a fruitful division of labor, since your membership is probably, concentrated largely in liberal arts colleges and might tend to concentrate more on “pure” science rather than its technological applications. What might come of such a division of labor and cooperation, I am not sure. Perhaps a History of Technology Society? (I am seriously thinking of getting one started [italics added]). Perhaps a joint meeting of the H-S Division and. the History of Science Society? (2) . . . the H-S Division is presently involved in working out a proposal for a summer institute on the history, philosophy, and sociology of science and technology–for teachers of the Humanities and Social Sciences in engineering colleges–to be sponsored by the National Science foundation. Maybe we could work out some sort of joint sponsorship with the History of Science Society for such an institute.

I hope that your Council will come up with some ideas, and that .my committee will do the same. In any case, I do not expect immediate and whirlwind action–such being the nature of committees.

Personal notes: I’m fine. How are you? Did you enjoy your stay in Europe? How are things at Brandeis? . . .

Sincerely,

Dear Mel:
Many thanks indeed for your letter, which unfortunately, because of the crazy mail services in these parts, did not arrive in time for me to read to the Council at the meeting on October 20th. However I have showed it to both Henry Guerlac and Bernard Cohen, both of whom expressed interest, and I have just incorporated the substance of your letter into the Council minutes, as something I should have reported even if I did not. Everyone expressed great desire for closer cooperation between you and us, in any case. If you can keep me informed of any developments as they may arise, I can report on them at the next Council meeting, which will be at the time of the AAAS meeting, on December 27th.

Have you noticed that the joint session of the History of Science Society and Section L of the AAAS is to be on the interaction of science and technology? [italics added]. You might call the attention of anyone who might be interested to this. We welcome all and sundry to this as to all activities (especially membership) of the History of Science Society.

I am sure we would be glad to help you in any way possible in the excitation of interest in the history of technology [italics added]. We have always included this within the Society’s interest in any case, and would welcome anything you could do to stimulate interest in it. I am also sure we would be interested in joint meetings between the HSS and your humanistic-social Division. About the Institute I cannot of course say for sure, but individually we are all bound to be interested, and very likely if enough information were forthcoming the Council would express collective interest.

It is good to hear that you are making out well at Case. I duly gave your regards to Don Bigelow, and we had a great meeting of the minds about how much we both thought you had livened up Amherst during your stay there. Brandeis is whirling along in its usual hectic fashion, building buildings so fast you lose yourself if you stay away from campus too long. Personally, I had a wonderful time last year in England, and even got a lot done. I played visiting fireman at Cambridge, Oxford and the Sorbonne and was royally treated. I can hardly wait to get back, in fact the only problem is t o decide what to do first.

I hope I’ll have a chance of talking these matters over with you personally some time; if not this year with the AAAS, perhaps next year when we meet with the AHA.

Sincerely,

Lynn White jr.

Dear Dr. Kranzberg:

In reading the minutes of the latest meeting of the Council of the History of Science Society in New York City (the continent being extraordinarily wide I was unable to attend), I was delighted to see the report that you are the chairman of the committee which is pondering the setting up of a society for the cultivation of the history of technology. It has long seemed to me a matter of high comedy that the United States, probably the most technological nation in all history, has thus far exhibited so little interest in the contemplation of technology as a human activity which we must understand in great detail if we are to understand the central enigma of human nature [italics added].

The purpose of my letter is to tell you that if such a society is formed I should be much interested in joining. I have talked with Stanley Pargellis of the Newberry Library and John Burchard of M.I.T. about such a project, and I know that both of them would likewise be interested. Simply to demonstrate that this is more than a passing fancy I enclose a review in Isis which I regret could not have been more flattering to the volume in question. And unfortunately in a coming issue of Isis I am reviewing the three volumes of R.J. Forbes’s Studies in Ancient Technology with similarly deplorable results. Indeed, is there another field of erudition in which the standards of scholarship are so lax?

Very sincerely,

Dear Marie:

There have been no new developments, so this letter is simply an acknowledgment of yours of October 29. It does appear, however, that we were a little late in getting started on our application to the National Science Foundation for a summer institute on the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science and Technology. Consequently, we will probably apply next year for an institute during the summer of 1958.

Also, my parenthetical remark in my letter to you regarding the formation of a history of technology society seems to have excited some interest. Public pressure might actually force me to get going on the deal–as if I didn’t have enough to do already! And how does one go about forming a new scholarly society? I suppose one finds out simply by going ahead and doing it [italics added]. Well, I think I’ll set on the idea for a couple of months and see if it hatches. (A good metaphor for an egghead, don’t you think?). . .

Sincerely,

Gentlemen:

First, my apologies for being so late in communicating with you in regard to the Humanistic-Social Division’s Committee for Cooperation with the History of Science Society. My tardiness is explained—but not excused—by the multitude of factors, including heavy committee duties at Case, the pressure of work, and my recent marriage to a lovely and talented lady whom I hope you will have the pleasure of meeting soon.

However, I have not been completely idle in connection with my duties as chairman of our committee, and here is my report on our activities so far. On October 16, 1956, I wrote to Dr. Marie Boas, secretary of the History of Science Society, informing her of the existence of our committee, its personnel, and its dual nature as a Committee on the Summer Institute. I then offered some tentative suggestions. . . .

On October 29, 1956, Miss Boas replied, saying that the Council of the History of Science Society had met and “expressed great desire for closer cooperation” between the H-S Division and the History of Science Society . . . .

Since then, this correspondence with Miss Boas has been at a standstill. However, my parenthetical remark of October 16, regarding the formation of a history of technology society seemed to excite some interest, for my letter was spread on the minutes of the Council of the History of Science Society, and I received mail encouraging me to organize such a society. I have given the matter some thought and there is a strong possibility that I shall do something about it in the near future [italics added]. I am all the more minded to do so since I am convinced that, despite Miss Boas’ observation that the History of Science Society has always included technology within its interest, the history of technology has been neglected by that organization. In proof of this, one merely has to look at Isis, the quarterly journal of the History of Science Society; a quick analysis of its contents from 1950 through 1956 reveals only a half-dozen articles remotely connected with technology. This is not meant to disparage the History of Science Society; it is, and should be, primarily concerned with the history of science. An analysis of other journals, including the Journal of Economic History and the Business History Review, reveals a similar neglect of the history technology. This to my mind, would indicate the desirability of the formation of a new society, with its own journal, to stimulate research in the history of technology—and I intend to do something about it . . . [italics added].

Sincerely yours,

Dear Marie:

I have several items to write you about. First, as I wrote you last Fall, the Humanistic-Social Division of the ASEE is trying to get the National Science Foundation to sponsor a summer institute on the history, philosophy, and sociology of science for teachers of the humanities and social sciences in engineering colleges. The first of these institutes, if they become an annual affair, would be held in the summer of 1958 and would probably become an annual affair, would be held in the summer of 1958 and would probably be four weeks long. What help could the History of Science Society give us in planning the program for such an institute? What suggestions do you have for lecturers? (Incidentally, your name was suggested by one of the committee members.) I do not think we can assume much knowledge of the history of science among the participants. If you or any of your H of SS colleagues have any ideas or suggestions, we’d like to have them. Unfortunately, this is rather short notice, for we need them soon.

Second, I have not heard anything from your side of the fence about possible cooperation with the H-S Division. As you know, we appointed a committee, of which I am chairman, for cooperation with the H of SS, and I also wrote you about this last Fall. Since then I have circularized my committee, and they have come up with various suggestions, which I am in the process of summarizing. I shall send you a copy of my next communication to the committee, so you will know along what lines we are thinking. But before I write them again, I should like to know if the H of SS has appointed a committee to consider ways and means of cooperation, or an individual for liaison between the two groups–or is this going to be unilateral cooperation with the H-S Division doing all the cooperating? In other words, has the H of SS done anything about our vague offer of cooperation? (Marie, this is not meant to be critical of the H of SS; it’s just that I’m chairman of a committee, meeting time is approaching, and I’d like to have something to report!)

In the meantime, my suggestion for a history of technology society seems to have been gaining support. Perhaps I’ve grabbed a bear by the tail, and I shall be forced to hang on and actually organize such a society. We shall see [italics added]. I’ll keep you informed about developments along those lines, for if such a society is formed, with its own review, it will undoubtedly want to maintain very close contact with the H of SS. Never fear, I do not visualize the proposed society or its review–if these materialize–as being competitive with the H of SS or Isis; it would complement, not compete. Do you have any ideas on this subject. . . .

Sincerely,

Dear Mel:

Thanks very much for your letter of March 29th with its heartening news of the activities of the Humanistic-Social Division of the ASEE.

As I believe I wrote you, the History of Science Society is much interested in what you have talked of doing, but when the Council met last December you had not much information available. The decision of the Council then was that the Society would not appoint a committee until more definite plans had been made by you. We are, however, planning a meeting of the Executive Committee on May 4; if you could send me more concrete information on what your committee is thinking of, and along what lines it would like to act, I could bring it to the attention of the Committee. It is probable that we should then want to form a committee to cooperate with yours. The HSS is much interested in cooperating with the ASEE; but the general feeling was that it was so occupied with other things that it would wait for some slightly more concrete proposals from your side. Especially as Carl Condit, on your committee, is a member of the HSS and was until recently on the Council (but I must say he has so far been poor liaison).

On the matter of your summer institute, individual members of the Society would certainly be interested, and I should again like to wait to consult the Executive Committee. You would presumably want as lecturers people with some experience of teaching engineers, as well as the pure historians of science—people like [Henry] Guerlac and his Cornell pupils, like Harry Woolf (now at the University of Washington in Seattle) and Pearce Williams (now at Delaware).

The history of technology society sounds like a very good idea. Had you thought of some formal relationship with the HSS? This might have its advantages, as many people are interested in both aspects, and are always more inclined to join affiliated societies, than absolutely new ones [italics added].

I’ll hope to hear from you again soon. Meanwhile, my cordial greetings.

Sincerely,

He provided other leads as well, noting the existence of an enthusiast organization, the Railway and Locomotive Historical Society, headquartered in the Baker Library at Harvard. The R&LHS had been founded in 1921, a year after a similar organization in Great Britain, the Newcomen Society. And Mel himself had gotten wind of yet another society while searching through Isis for articles on the history of technology. Prompted by Condit’s letter, he sent off a letter of inquiry the next day. Thus he would become acquainted with S. Collum Gilfillan, who, quirky style and all (besides the odd spelling, he made liberal use of red typewriter ribbon), would become a frequent correspondent in coming years.

Dear Mel:

The excuses given for the delay of your letter seem to me to be pretty thin, especially the one about your marriage. However, I congratulate you, and if your wife is as attractive as you say, I insist that you bring her to the next meeting.

Now for business. I shall put down in a rather random way all the ideas I have so far entertained on our subject and thus advance them as a basis for discussion and fuller formulation at a meeting of our committee. First, I feel that it is a mistake to found a new society and journal devoted to the history of technology [italics added]. This is partly the result of resistance to further multiplication of learned organizations, but more the belief that each new society or journal further extends specialization and fragmentation instead of breaking down barriers and bringing ideas together.

I think that the History of Science people may be taken seriously when they say that they are interested in the history of technology [italics added], that is, interested in hearing papers on the subject at their meetings and in printing them in Isis if they come up to their high scholarly standards. Those of us in ASEE concerned with the history of technology ought to be prepared to submit papers for reading at the Hist. of Science meetings and for possible publication in Isis. This means, of course, the presence of someone on the program committees of the Hist. of Science Society and on the editorial board of Isis competent to judge papers in the field, men like Robert Multhauf, Frederick Kilgour, Richard Kirby, or yourself.

The Hist. of Science Society always meets at the end of December. Those of us in the H-S Division ought to try to attend meetings and raise whenever possible discussions of the historical relations of science and technology, differences and similarities of method, their cultural functions.

The book review sections of Isis offer further possibilities. Again this means personnel, regular reviewers competent to handle the subject. There may be a number in our HSS Division. So far the burden appears to fall on the Isis staff. I would extend the foregoing suggestion to include some of our people for the rest of this work–editorial advice, programming, etc. [Editor I. Bernard] Cohen on Isis is badly overburdened; we can’t ask him for additional time.

But all this suggests something which perhaps ought to be antecedent to everything else. First, a round up of all the people interested in the history of technology, the extent and nature of their interest, the amount of time they devote to it [italics added]. Here are a few I know of: R. S. Hartenberg, Northwestern; Frederick Kilgour and Richard Kirby, Yale; Robert Multhauf, Smithsonian; Tom Smith, Cal Tech; John W. Oliver, Pittsburgh; Sigfried Giedion and Philip Le Corbeillier, Harvard; Lewis Mumford, Amenia, New York; a few men in the Society of Architectural Historians, e. g., C. L. V. Meeks, Yale, Turpin C. Bannister, Illinois, and James M. Fitch, Columbia.

Second, a round up of research at present going on in the history of technology. This reminds me that there must be something going on at MIT, since their press has published a number of works in the field. The business history crowd, there and elsewhere; the Railway and Locomotive Historical Society, Baker Library, Harvard. Finally, an outline of a proposed course or courses in the history of technology for discussion as to possible adoption by universities; either in the LA or engineering schools or both. And an inquiry as to whether such a course is now being taught anywhere. Try to have some of this printed in Isis in their notes on dissertations and courses.

It seems to me that we have to have a meeting to chew the fat about these matters. I have already suggested to Gullette that both committees meet following the ASEE meeting at Ithaca in June. We ought to invite to it a representative of the History of Science Society, preferably someone on the level of [I. Bernard] Cohen, [Marshall] Clagget, or Dorothy Stimson.

I herewith submit all this for your consideration, Mel, along with my best wishes to both of you. Let’s get together.

Sincerely,

Addendum: Get in touch with Charles Singer and some of the contributors to that big 5-volume history of technology he is putting out for advice, etc.

Dear Dr. Gilfillan:
While thumbing through some old copies of Isis, I came across a notice in the March, 1950 issue that a Society for the Social Study of Invention had been organized with you as secretary. This item caught my attention for I have been seriously considering the organization of a society for the history of technology with a view to eventual publication of a quarterly journal.
What has happened to the Society for the Social Study of Invention? Is it still in existence? Does it have a regular publication, or did it ever have any publications? I should like to learn more about it because our interests have so much in common and because of the possibilities of future cooperation between your Society and my as yet unorganized group.

Sincerely,

SOCIAL STUDY OF INVENTION — Organization of a Society for the Social Study of Invention was achieved at the AAAS meeting in Chicago. According to the organizational procedures, which were proposed by S. C. Gilfillan (research associate in sociology at the University of Chicago) and adopted with certain amendments, the aims of the Society are “to study, promote, rationalize, and economize invention and its utilization, and incidentally to build the structure of culture generally.”

Fields to be covered by the new Society include: (1) the social causes of invention, (2) the social effects of invention, (3) prediction of inventions and effects, (4) description and measurement of invention in its present settings, (5) the history of invention and inventors as a craft, not individually, and (6) the psychology of invention. The Society will promote scientific study of these matters, divulging its findings, especially to governmental authorities. When feasible, one or more serial publications will be issued.

Dues are now set at $2.00 a year, and any person, scientific, academic, or governmental body, or commercial corporation, except a library, may become a member. All powers under the Constitution are to be exercised by the directors and by committees and officers designated by them. The directors are: Wm. F. Ogburn, Dept of Sociology, U of Chicago; Waldemar Kaempffert, science editor,
N Y Times; Joseph Rossman, patent lawyer, Wash. D.C.; Watson Davis, director of Science Service; J. W. Oliver, Dept of History, U of Pittsburgh; Robert K. Merton, Dept of Sociology,. Columbia U; J. B. Gittler, Dept of Sociology, Iowa State College; C. W. Ooms, recent Commissioner of Patents; and S. C. Gilfillan, who is also serving as secretary.

Dear Prof. Kranzberg:

Responding to yor inquiry of the 13th, I must report that the Soc. for the Soc. Study of Inv. died a-borning. It appeared that there was no one else much interested, and I had not the varid capacities it wud take to create a society without such assistance. So it never got going.

I am interested to read of your own thot of founding a society for the hist. of technology. I do not no why yu think the Newcomen Soc. and its Americn branch shud be duplicated; but if there is a good reasn I cud recommend a coupl of possibl membrs. I am much interested in technic history myself, in lines of erliest steamboats (I suppose yu no my Inventing the Ship and The Sociolgy of Inv.), the origin of the modrn harness, the ancient battery, and especially led poisoning as the principl destroyer of the ancient aristocracies. But I am at presnt tied up with a monograf on Invention and the Patnt Systm for the Senate Subcom’ee on Patnts, inc. the first serius attempt to mesure inv. over the last 75 years. And I hav not felt the need of belonging t2 such a society, since I let my Newcomen Soc. and Marine Hist. Soc. membrships laps.

Sincerely yours,

Dear Mel:
. . . A more promising relationship may grow up if we ask the History of Science Society to help us plan the programs for our Summer Institutes and even, though I am not so sure about this, to co-sponsor them with us. I feel confident the National Science Foundation would welcome their help in planning and suggesting lecturers, but I am not so sure that members of that society would be eligible for participation under a grant since so few of them probably deal directly with engineering and science students. This I take it is a requirement the Foundation would have to insist upon.

I like your idea for the History of Technology Society, but I frown upon the multiplication of organizations and this would likely a small and struggling one at least in its early stages [italics added]. Would there be any way of attaching it somehow to the ASEE either as a new Division or as a Sub-division of the Humanistic-Social Division? There are certain practical advantages if something of the sort could be done. You may recall that in our Report we hinted at the possibility of doing something also with the philosophy of technology. . . . The point I am getting at is that I think it may be a mistake to break groups down too much, especially since there is a relatively small nucleus of professional people interested in the whole area. I think it would be silly to end up with separate organizations for the Philosophy of Science, the History of Science, the Sociology of Science, the Philosophy of Technology, the History of Technology and the Sociology of Technology. Wouldn’t it be better that a single organization should concern itself with these various facets? . . .

Gentlemen:
Approximately 80% of the committee responded to my letter of February 15–somebody didn’t do his homework, but I shan’t mention his name. This letter is to acquaint you with the thinking of the other members of the committee and to provide you with material for discussion at our meeting next month. I have also been in communication with Professor Marie Boas, secretary of the History of Science Society, and her observations are included herein.

Although our official title is the Committee for Cooperation with the History of Science Society, we have enlarged the scope of our commission somewhat, by discussing the history of technology, which may or may not be peripheral to our original mandate [italics added]. For purposes of clarity I shall divide the report into two parts, the first dealing with proposals for cooperation with the HSS, the second with questions concerning the history of technology.

I. Cooperation with the History of Science Society:

A. Summer Institute Program – Harmon Chapman certainly displayed great wisdom in appointing committees with joint membership for the summer institute and for cooperation with the History of Science Society, for our functions merge on this point. No one seemed to think that the HSS should be invited to co-sponsor the summer institute with us, although several believed the HSS could be helpful in our planning.

The National Science Foundation, according to George Gullette, would probably welcome the help of the HSS in planning our summer institute, but the NSF would probably insist that participants be actively engaged in teaching engineering and science students. We will undoubtedly draw upon members of the HSS to staff our summer institute, but this should probably be done on an individual basis, rather than through formal cooperation between the two groups. Miss Boas is apparently of the same opinion. . . .

I do not see why our lecturers need have experience in teaching engineers, since the summer school participants will be teachers of the Humanities and Sciences to engineers but not engineers themselves. However, that is a minor point . . . .

Here are my suggestions for concrete action in this situation: (1) George Gullette might write Miss Boas, outlining the tentative program for the summer institute and asking the Executive Committee of the HSS for suggestions and criticisms which he can bring with him to our [New York City] meeting on May 4 or May 29 (at the time of writing this letter, I have not yet 1earned the exact date from George.) (2) Since Henry Guerlac of Cornell is president of the History of Science Society, we might ask him to attend our meeting in New York or [at] Cornell, at convention time, so that we may derive the benefit of his thinking on the institute program and staff.

B. Joint Meetings – One manifestation of cooperation between two organizations is a joint meeting. The HSS usually meets during the Christmas vacation and alternates between meeting jointly with the American Association for the Advancement of Science: and the American Historical Association. Our meetings, as you know, are in the middle of June, and we meet with the ASEE, of which we are a part. Several possibilities — and questions — immediately present themselves . . . .

It is obvious that such joint meetings should have a program of interest to members of both organizations. Their interest, of course, is primarily the history of science while ours is educating engineers in the Humanistic-Social studies. If the H-S Division of the ASEE were to father a History of Technology Society (see below), the community of interest between the two organizations would be more pronounced, but we ought not bother with hypothetical cases at this juncture. The point I am trying to make is this: as I review the programs of the H-S Division during the past few years, I am not certain our present programming could excite the interest of members of the HSS: there would have to be considerable change or augmentation of our programs to justify a joint meeting. This might be highly desirable, but we must also continue to act as the Humanistic-Social Division of the
ASEE with a program calculated to fit the needs of our basic function . . . .

C. Establishment of Formal Liaison . . . Unless I hear strong protests to the contrary, I shall take the liberty of hinting to Miss Boas of the desirability of an HSS committee as a counterpart to ours. On the assumption that Condit will attend our annual meeting at Cornell and that Henry Guerlac will also be present in Ithaca (to attend our summer institute committee meeting as well), it should not be difficult for the HSS to appoint an informal or ad hoc committee to begin working out concede measures for cooperation with us.

II. The History of Technology

A. The Jurisdictional Problem – In discussing the matter of cooperation with the HSS, our committee has been led rather far afield into a discussion of the possibility and desirability of organizing a History of Technology Society with its own review. It must be admitted that our committee certainly was not charged with that particular task. On the other hand, I feel this is a perfectly natural outgrowth of our deliberations and is certainly in line with the interests of the H-S Division [italics added]. If you will recall, the Humanistic-Social Research Project viewed the growing interest in the influence of science and engineering on social organization as a development which “should be encouraged” (General Education in Engineering, p. 13). While it is not part of our mandate to deal with this matter specifically, I do not think it out of place for us to begin deliberations on this topic. Perhaps the H-S Division at its annual meeting will want to appoint a special committee to cope with this problem, but no harm will be done if we indulge in some preliminary discussion.

B. Interest in the History of Technology – There can be no doubt that the members of our committee are interested in the history of technology, for some letters which I received were devoted almost exclusively to that topic. I have also received communications from members of the HSS expressing their interest in the history of technology and possible formation of a society and a journal. The question is then raised as to how the genuine interest in this field can best be stimulated and maintained—and where the H-S Division, and, more specifically, our committee fits into the picture.

C. Pros and Cons of a History of Technology Society – While there was general agreement about the desirability of fostering the history of technology, there was by no means unanimity regarding the desirability of a separate history of technology society or a review dedicated to that subject. Several members of the committee expressed concern about the proliferation of societies and learned periodicals, and the increased fragmentation and specialization of knowledge implied therein. Some members believed we could best foster interest in the history of technology by working through the History of Science Society, encouraging that organization to expand the coverage of Isis by increased emphasis on technology, and by forming an affiliated society or section of the History of Science Society, with representation on the editorial board of Isis. . . .

However, some members of our committee prefer to work through our own Humanistic-Social Division of the ASEE, with the hope that the H-S Division might act as the sponsor of any organization or periodical. There were others who felt that existing organizations and journals do not adequately fill the need, and that a completely independent society and review are necessary for building up this relatively untouched field. . . [italics added].

Robert P. Multhauf

Dear Mr. Multhauf:
Would you be willing to serve as a member of an advisory committee to guide the establishment of a research center in technology and society and the foundation of an organization for the history of technology, with an accompanying learned journal?

In twentieth-century United States—the most technologically-minded of all nations in history—it seems almost incredible that there do not now exist adequate research facilities nor a center for studying the interrelationships between society, particularly in its industrial aspects, and technology. Furthermore, there is no organized group nor scholarly periodical specifically devoted to the history of technology, although existing learned societies and journals occasionally touch on these subjects as peripheral to their main interest.

For these reasons, Case Institute of Technology is sponsoring, and expects to receive outside financial support for, the establishment of a Research Center in Technology and Society and the foundation of a Society for the History of Technology and a journal devoted to that subject. As a result of the enthusiasm displayed by many scholars in response to a recent well-publicized suggestion of mine for the formation of such a society and journal, I am convinced there is enough interest in the history of technology to warrant their creation.

As you perhaps know, Case Institute has a long tradition of cooperation with industry and has constantly thought in terms of the relationship between technological and scientific advances and their industrial applications. In an engineering and scientific education, Case has stressed the interrelationship of technology and society. All this, plus the central location of Cleveland and the interest of the Case administration in fostering such studies, makes Case a desirable spot for the development of a research center in technology and society and an appropriate location for the headquarters and editorial offices of a learned society and its journal.

However, since the interest in the relationships between science, technology, and society is something which extends far beyond our own campus – indeed, it should be a concern of all scholars interested in the development of civilization and in the understanding of past and contemporary society – we are anxious to have the advice and support of men who have already exhibited leadership in investigating those fields. For this reason, we are forming a committee composed of outstanding scholars from all over the country to give us the benefit of their advice and experience concerning the study of technology and society. On the attached list is shown the complete list of the committee on which we are asking you to serve.

We know of your interest in the history of technology and in the study of the relationships between technology and society, and we feel that you would be of great help to us at Case in our efforts to establish, in institutionalized form, the means to encourage such activities. Would you be willing to serve on this committee?

Although most of the work of the committee can and will be carried on through the mails, it might be helpful to have the members meet together. The convention of the American Society of Engineering Education, to be held at Cornell University this June, provides an opportunity for such a meeting. Could you attend a meeting in Ithaca on Monday morning, June 17? Of course, we still want you to serve on the committee even if you cannot attend this meeting.

If you can attend, I shall write and give you the details about the time and place of out meeting at Cornell. If you do not plan to be at Ithaca, will you let us know whether you will be willing to serve on the committee?

Sincerely yours,

Dear Dr. Kranzberg:

Thank you for your letter of May 31, inviting me to participate in an advisory committee for the establishment of a research center and society for the history of technology at Case.

I will be happy to be a member of this committee, and to do what I can towards the furtherance of this important objective. It is remarkable that nothing of the sort has existed heretofore. We are undertaking here a program somewhat similar, although we are delayed in the implementation of any elaborate program by the necessities attendant upon the planning of a new museum to be built here in the next three or four years. I am sure that the danger of having too many centers of activity in this field is a very remote one [italics added].

It is not certain that I can be at Cornell on June 17, although it may be possible. May I ask you to advise me whether, as you hear from other correspondents, you anticipate having the majority of the members present? If this is the case I will make every effort to arrange to be there.

Very truly yours,

Scholars Who Are Being Asked to Serve as Members of the Advisory Committee

Carl W. Condit, Associate Professor of History, Northwestern University

James Kip Finch, Dean Emeritus, School of Engineering, Columbia University

George A Gullette, Head, Department of Social Studies, North Carolina State College

Thomas P. Hughes, Department of History, Washington and Lee University

Howard Mumford Jones, Professor of English, Harvard University

Richard S. Kirby, Associate Professor Emeritus, School of Engineering, Yale University

Philllippe Le Corbeiller, Professor of Applied Physics and General Education, Harvard University

Edward S. Lurie, Department of History, University of Michigan

Hugo A. Meier, Division of Humanities and Social Studies, Carnegie Institute of Technology

Robert Multhauf, Acting Head Curator, Department of Engineering and Industries, The Smithsonian Institution

Lewis Mumford, Amenia, New York

William Fielding Ogburn, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Chicago

John W. Oliver, Professor Emeritus of History, University of Pittsburgh

Stanley Pargellis, Newberry Library, Chicago

John B. Rae, Associate Professor of History, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Warren C. Scoville, Department of Economics, University of California at Los Angeles

Richard H. Shryock, Professor of the History of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University

Thomas M. Smith. Division of Humanities, California Institute of Technology

Lynn White, Jr., President, Mills College

Dear Mr. Multhauf:

I am delighted that you can serve on our committee. Out of the nineteen men who have been asked, I have thus far received fourteen replies–all of them affirmative–and I expect about half a dozen will be able to attend our meeting at Cornell.

As I wrote you, most of the work of the committee will be carried on via correspondence, and I do not want you to feel it obligatory to attend this initial meeting, Most of the business at this first gathering will probably be devoted to discussing the procedures–questionnaires, etc.–for gathering advice from the Advisory Committee! Naturally we will be very pleased if you can attend, for your advice and cooperation are most welcome.

The meeting will be Monday morning, June 17, at 10:00 o’clock at Olin Hall, Room 218. Olin Hall is almost directly across the street from the ASEE headquarters in Willard Straight Hall, where you can arrange for your housing.

Thanks for your cooperation and I do home that I shall have the opportunity of meeting you next Monday.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Melvin Kranzberg, Chairman
Advisory Committee for Technology and Society
Case Institute of Technology
University Circle Cleveland 8, Ohio

Dear Dr. Kranzberg:

Thank you for your letter of June 10, regarding the Case Advisory Committee for Technology and Society.

I am sorry to say that pressing business here will prevent my attendance at Ithaca on June 17. During the month of July, and until August 10, I will be away, but mail will be forwarded, and I will endeavor to take care of whatever correspondence the committee may have during the summer.

With best regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Robert P. Multhauf
Acting Head Curator Department of Engineering and Industries

By Robert C. Post

When the history of technology donned academic cloaks in the United States, some three decades ago, the man most directly responsible was a professor at the Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland. His name was Melvin Kranzberg. For quite a while afterward Mel (almost everyone calls him Mel) remained directly responsible for sustaining the new field’s two key institutions, the Society for the History of Technology (SHOT) and the society’s quarterly journal, Technology and Culture (T&C). He served as the society’s secretary for fifteen years and edited eighty-eight issues of T&C between 1959 and 1981. Along the way he received SHOT’s highest award, the Leonardo da Vinci Medal.

In June 1988, at the age of seventy, Mel Kranzberg retired from the Callaway Professorship of the History of Technology at the Georgia Institute of Technology—a chair he had occupied since 1972—richly laden with honors. For one, the Georgia Tech regents had endowed a new chair, the Melvin Kranzberg Professorship of the History of Technology. For another, a group of Mel’s admirers had collaborated on a festschrift entitled In Context: History and the History of Technology—Essays in Honor of Melvin Kranzberg.

Yet retirement has scarcely diminished Mel’s missionary zeal on behalf of the history of technology. Bodies on which he has served and continues to serve important roles run a gamut from the Charles Babbage Foundation to NASA and the National Academy of Sciences. The list of his publications nears two hundred, still counting.

These days, even though he may still encounter “a knee-jerk hostility to technology” among scholars in the liberal arts, he often enjoys the luxury of preaching to the converted. But it was quite otherwise at the start. Mel often found himself stretched to the limits of his considerable persuasiveness in promoting the history of technology to academic administrators, to students, even to many otherwise congenial historians. Yet ultimately he succeeded “beyond my fondest dreams” in making the point that an understanding of the history of technology is crucial to a comprehension of the modem world. This interview took place last summer [1989] in Washington, D.C.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mel, you studied and initially taught modern French history. When did you begin to perceive the truth of the maxim that eventually became Kranzberg’s fifth law—namely, that “All history is relevant, but the history of technology is the most relevant”?

As a student I didn’t really know much about technology. I went to Amherst, a liberal arts college with no engineering school, then to graduate school in history at Harvard. When World War II broke out, one of my Amherst professors, Charles W. Cole, took a job with the Office of Price Administration in Washington. I went along as his administrative assistant, enlisting at the same time in the Signal Corps Reserve. My assistant at the OPA was Pat Nixon, a very fine, very bright public servant, whose husband also worked at the OPA, in tire rationing, as I recall. Pat seemed very sensible, but she would often say things like “Well, Dick said . . . ,” and I found I always disagreed with whatever Dick said.

As for the Signal Corps Reserve, the enlisting officer wasn’t much impressed with my Harvard Ph.D. in European history, but at least it suggested to him that I might be “educable.” I was put into electronics training at Catholic University, then sent to Johns Hopkins for a three-year course in electrical engineering that was crammed into sixteen weeks—eight hours a day, seven days a week. I did so well in this course that instead of commissioning me immediately, the Signal Corps sent me to Philco Radio Laboratories in Philadelphia for another three-month crash course, this one in radar. But by then the Signal Corps no longer needed officers, so they put me in the infantry. The only electrical equipment I ever saw after that was field telephones.

After basic training I was assigned to the Army Specialized Training Program because of my language skills and sent to Indiana University for three months’ intensive study of Turkish. Then, when it became clear that we weren’t really going to invade Turkey, I entered a program in German and from there went to military intelligence, charged with interrogating German POWs, often right on the front lines. That assignment lasted from about September 1944, through the Battle of the Bulge, until the German surrender. Along the way I received three battle stars, a Combat Infantry Badge, and a Bronze Star.

So you came out of the war with some firsthand experience of major historic events and with an introduction to some of the substance of modern technology. Had you started thinking about teaching the history of technology?

Not yet. I spent a year as an instructor at Harvard, then in 1946 joined the faculty at Stevens Institute of Technology, in Hoboken. While teaching a Western civ course, and thinking about topics selected by others who taught that same subject, I began to wonder, What difference do these things make? What difference, for example, does it make whether the feudal system had Latin origins or Germanic origins? Historians had quarreled over the issue for generations, and it was a prime concern of the medievalist with whom I had studied at Harvard. But what difference did it really make in the world of the mid-twentieth century? It seemed to me that there were much better questions: How effective was the feudal system in providing security and justice? How did people make their living under feudalism? It seemed to me that some of the issues I had spent so much time on as a student were scarcely relevant anymore, if indeed they ever had been.

The more I thought about it, the more clearly I realized that the most important questions were those two that had been posed by Kant: First, “How did things get to be the way they are?” And second, “What can I do about it?” Clearly we were living in a scientific and technological age. Well, then, how did it get to be that way? If we could learn how it got to be that way, we might possibly be able to deal effectively with problems caused by the advance of science and technology and, conversely, to deal with problems that science and technology might help resolve.

This was in the late 1940s?

That’s right. In 1947 I moved from Stevens to Amherst and remained there for several years, teaching both Western civ and my specialty, nineteenth-century Europe. In modern European history the textbooks had chapter after chapter on topics like “the Eastern Question,” but they glossed lightly over science, technology, and the Industrial Revolution. Yet what had been more crucial in making the world of the twentieth century? The Eastern Question? Or science, technology, and industry? The answer was obvious to me. Historians seemed to have things completely upside down.

Were you familiar with the writings of Lewis Mumford and Abbott Payson Usher by this time?

Yes, I was. As an Amherst sophomore in Professor Cole’s course in economic history, I had read Mumford’s Technics and Civilization, which was brand new then. At Harvard I audited Usher’s course in economic history. Even though none of my fellow graduate students seemed very interested in his History of Mechanical Inventions, I began to realize that here was something that we historians hadn’t really thought about. Also, there was history of science at Harvard.. George Sarton was there as a professor, but history of science was not yet a degree-granting program.

In 1947 I had become involved with the American Society for Engineering Education. In fact, I published one of my first articles in the ASEE’s journal, on the importance of humanities and social sciences to engineering education. That was while I was still at Stevens. Then, in 1952, I was hired to teach at another engineering school, Case Institute of Technology, in Cleveland.

What happened there?

Case had a wonderful Western civ course, two years, five hours a week, which included literature, philosophy, art, political history, and economic history. But as wonderful as that course seemed to those of us involved in teaching it, the students remained profoundly uninterested because there were no figurative dollar signs in front of the course numbers. In trying to figure out how to overcome this lack of interest, I remembered a dictum of John Dewey’s about getting students interested in something by starting them out with something in which they were already interested. Our students were already committed to technology, so I just changed the basic questions to: How has technology affected the development of Western civilization? And how has Western civilization affected the development of technology? As it turned out, the students thought those were pretty interesting questions. Using them as an opening wedge, it was much easier to interest students in politics, philosophy, economics, and so on.

Did you know of others who were taking this tack at the time, teaching the history of technology?

Oh, there were others, but they weren’t teaching the history of technology in a humanities context. They were teaching it in connection with engineering courses—so-and-so invented such-and-such, and then so-and-so invented such-and-such. That’s what we call the “begat” approach. This device begat that device; there’s no concern about context.

Around 1954 didn’t the Carnegie Corporation get involved with the ASEE in studying liberal learning in engineering? Where was the impetus for that sort of thing coming from?

C. P. Snow’s The Two Cultures hadn’t yet appeared, but the engineers were increasingly having to deal with problems that were not strictly technical, and they simply weren’t prepared for that. I became chairman of the ASEE’s humanistic-social division after participating in its project “General Education in Engineering.” This put me in contact with people who shared my concerns, such as Carl Condit at Northwestern, John Rae at MIT, and, later, Tom Hughes at Washington & Lee. By then I was teaching a course in the history of technology at the Case business school. Condit, Rae, Hughes, and I began telling one another that we ought to do a lot more with the history of technology and that we needed an effective voice in some established historical organization.

You were in Ithaca for an ASEE meeting and you went to see Henry Guerlac, a professor at Cornell who had become one of the gurus of the history of science.

Yes, but before that I did some research. Isis, the History of Science Society’s journal, was something like thirty-five years old, and yet it had published hardly anything on technology. What we wanted was for Isis, and the HSS, to pay more attention to the history of technology, which we thought was at least as important as the history of science.

Why did you regard such a tie as more natural than one with the economic historians? Carl Condit taught history of science, but John Rae taught economic history, didn’t he?

Yes, but at that time, the late 1950s, the economic historians mostly thought of technology as an “exogenous factor.” And a little later a school of economic history flourished that treated technology as totally irrelevant: Robert Fogel published a book that asserted that the railroads made no difference to the country’s economic development. We thought of historians of science as our most natural allies. But we were certainly wrong about that. History of science was then under the intellectual dominance of the followers of Alexandre Koyre, who believed that the only proper focus was on the minds and thoughts of intellectual “giants.”What was important was “thinkers.” Technologists, so-called tinkerers, were simply not worth considering. Guerlac said as much to me.

So you retreated in a chastened mood?

I wasn’t chastened. I said, “By God, we’re just going to have to start our own society and our own journal.”To which Carl responded, “Okay, Mel, it’s your idea, you do it.”

But others certainly played key roles. Wasn’t Lynn White one of them?

He sure was. In 1957 we had a meeting in Cleveland to discuss how to organize, and who should show up but this distinguished president of a distinguished California college —Mills, in Oakland—Lynn White jr. Although his great book, Medieval Technology and Social Change, had not yet appeared, Lynn had certainly made his scholarly mark already. I got lots of support at Case because his involvement with our group made a big impression. After we had formally incorporated and had named our organization the Society for the History of Technology, Lynn White became our first full-term president.

You made a special effort to get “names” in SHOT at the beginning—people like Lynn White, David Riesman, Peter Drucker, and Lewis Mumford. And you published some big thinkers in Technology and Culture, but at first you did not have a very large pool of potential contributors, did you?

At the beginning every time I sent copy for an issue off to press I cleaned out the file. But I was able to get people like Mumford to contribute because they were genuinely interested in the idea of reaching out. “Why hadn’t historians thought of this before?” they asked. And some of them were just wonderful people; a Drucker, a Riesman didn’t have to prove anything. There were others of the same rank who never published in T&C but did appear as speakers at SHOT meetings, people like Preston R. Bassett, a former president of Sperry Gyroscope.

I arranged at the outset for SHOT to meet in conjunction with the American Historical Association, and for a long time we met in alternate years with the AHA and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. So we could draw prominent speakers from both those organizations. In 1962 we met with the AHA in Chicago, and the New York Times gave a major write-up to my paper “Are We in a New Industrial Revolution?” This precipitated a stack of letters on my desk about a foot and a half high. I arranged these letters carefully, putting one from Adm. Hyman Rickover right on top, and took them to my dean at Case. He was so impressed that I got a secretary for the very first time, which greatly facilitated the missionary work, naturally.

As we all know, in the ensuing years SHOT grew and prospered. As pleased as you must be, though, there must be some disappointing developments, one being a tendency to lose the sort of high visibility you just described.

Well, some of us thought we had become big and strong enough to stand alone, and in some ways we were. There are dozens of sessions at our annual meetings now instead of just a handful, as at the beginning. Yet, by not meeting in conjunction with large organizations such as the AAAS and the AHA we’re not nearly so able to attract as many distinguished people from outside fields.

Have we also become too specialized?

There have been trade-offs. And one’s scholarly success, initially at least, is definitely contingent upon fairly narrow specialization. This is true everywhere, in all the scientific fields as well. There’s an interesting tension between research topics becoming more narrow and methodology becoming interdisciplinary. That’s the case in science, in technology, and in the history of technology.

The book of essays recently published in your honor, In Context, embraces the work of two generations of professional historians, your own and a younger bunch. There are marked elements of continuity, but there have been shifts too. There are those who have been influenced by the “darksiders”—historians who are much less than fully enthusiastic about technology. Is there now a different way of looking at things?

The way we look at things and the questions we ask are clearly framed in a temporal context. The way we consider technology—all of us, not just the younger generation—is different now. Vietnam and the environmental movement did a lot to change that.

That’s the perfect place to ask about another of Kranzberg’s laws, the first: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”

Technology has short-range and long-range impacts. Impacts may differ according to the scale at which a technology is applied. Technology always entails trade-offs. In short, technology has different results in different contexts. DDT, for example, may be decried and banned in the industrial West for what it does ecologically, but in India in the 1950s and 1960s DDT cut the death toll from malaria from 750,000 to 1,500. As Nicholas Rescher has pointed out, technology tends to inflate popular expectations faster than it can actually meet them. That’s one reason why people do not always appreciate technology’s manifold benefits.

You champion the history of technology. But you don’t object to being characterized, as you were in a recent article, as a “champion of technology” as well?

Not at all. It’s obvious that people live longer, that they are stronger and healthier, as a result of modern medical technology, modern agricultural technology. That is not to say that there aren’t a lot of problems. But the solution to those problems depends on our using technology more intelligently, on social and political considerations. We are not helpless victims of our technology. This is where historians can play a big role by exerting an influence on the decision-making process. We can point to short- and long-term results, compare utopian hopes with the spotted actuality, contrast what might have been with what really happened. Historical perspective is badly needed by the politicians and the decision makers. It is frustrating, though, when our advice is ignored, as was often the case with the NASA Advisory Committee on which I served.

Do you have any heroes?

Mumford, even though the anti-technology stance he took in his later books disappointed me. Mumford showed how technology is intimately interwoven with all other aspects of society—how and where we live, how we work, think, play, and pray. People must be made to understand how important technology is and how crucial it is that we understand it in its historical context.

As a missionary, but at the same time as the founding editor of Technology and Culture, the premier journal in the history of technology, don’t you have some mixed feelings about an up-start with a much larger circulation, American Heritage of Invention & Technology?

Not in the least. Invention & Technology’s success shows that we historians of technology do have an audience besides just one another. And that’s the whole idea—to reach out, to convert people. If we’re just going to talk to ourselves, we’re not doing our job. Our job is to make sure that people—lots and lots of people—understand technology’s central relationship with society and culture. To have a big new pulpit such as this one is wonderful.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Robert C. Post succeeded Melvin Kranzberg as editor in chief of Technology and Culture in 1981. In collaboration with Stephen H. Cutcliffe of Lehigh University, he edited In Context, which was published by Lehigh University Press last fall [1988].

Upon taking office, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his cadre of young civilian “whiz kids” introduced a systems approach to defense budgeting and decision-making that persists today.  They reorganized the Defense Department’s budgeting process to better and more rationally fund essential programs and cut the fat of unnecessary ones.  Telling the difference between the essential and the fat was the job the newly founded Office for Systems Analysis.  The technique of systems analysis provided the decision-making rationale–the analytical content–underlying the programs appearing in the defense budget.  The Office’s civilian staff was charged with providing the Secretary with “objective” information on weapons systems, force requirements, and military strategy—even when that advice overruled the military services’ expertise or Congress’s preferences.  The Office’s proponents called the methods “quantitative common sense”; critics called it a typical political power grab in the guise of objective analysis and scientific language.  Yet as authority in the Pentagon shifted to the Secretary, and as Congress felt increasingly removed from Defense appropriations, critics wondered if American democratic institutions were at stake.  This paper will consider systems analysis as both technique and institution with an eye to the significance of its position straddling the two.  It will ask what we can learn from the interface between systems approaches and political institutions during the Cold War.  By considering why an Office that peddled in “quantitative common sense” was so extraordinarily controversial in the Department of Defense, I hope to shed new light on Cold War meanings of technology, expertise and democracy.