American Studies ETDs

Allan Helsel

Publication Date

12-1-1973

Abstract

Lewis Mumford's fifty odd years of productivity has given us what might well be the most valuable history of technology yet written. But, despite its value, the shortcomings contained in his work sometimes obscure its insights. It is my conclusion that Mumford's methodology, while adequate for his descriptive concerns, has produced in his conclusions a fundamental dilemma. Because he has patterned so much of his inquiry on a methodological structure that is based on the division of man and technics into antithetical absolutes, he leaves us without conclusive answers. One is impressed only by the implication that there can be no compromise; no middle ground can be secured, and the root conflict of man and machine must continue unresolved. Mumford's conclusions leave us with no alternative but to play out the drama first envisioned by Samuel Butler who wrote, in what has been assumed was jest, of “the eternal war between man and the machine.” Lewis Mumford’s method has assisted him in writing an excellent descriptive history of technology, but this same methodology plays havoc with his attempt to provide us with a prescriptive view.

Structurally, this dissertation is divided into three separate sections, all of which contain three chapters each. The first two chapters of Section I are divided equally between a discussion of some of those writers who have concerned themselves with technological matters in the past, and those who are now occupied with their own contemporary analysis of similar phenomena. The third chapter contains a very brief biographical sketch of Lewis Mumford, and an introductory overview of his published work. The three chapters in Section II provide a detailed investigation of Mumford's methodology and its influence on his view of our technological problems. Section III includes primarily an elaboration on Mumford's theory of technical progress, his position on our collective future state, and an effort to define what I believe are the more serious short-comings of his prescriptive theory.

Most of the research for this study was conducted in Lewis Mumford's own writings. But because of its sheer bulk (over twenty books, a thousand articles, and numerous book reviews and unpublished manuscripts), a concerted effort was made to concentrate, as much as possible, on that work by Mumford that was published in book format. In addition, reading was also conducted in much of what passes today for contemporary social criticism. A category that includes a little of about everything: ecology, technology, politics, and man. What was attempted in this study was an avoidance of the danger Mumford warned about in his introduction to his own bibliography compiled by Elmer Newman. “My one concern about this lengthy catalog of my writings is over its possible misuses: might it not tempt some academic candidate seeking a fresh field to explore, to give too much attention to my more ephemeral writings, and give them an undue prominence, if only because he or she alone should have … the distinction of being the first to analyze them?”

Language

English

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

American Studies

Level of Degree

Doctoral

Department Name

American Studies

First Committee Member (Chair)

Illegible

Second Committee Member

Joel M. Jones

Third Committee Member

Charles DeWayne Biebel

Download

Share

COinS