Who sought to improve industrial efficiency. This class is about an hour and 20 minutes. All right. Great. Hello, everybody. As you know, we will take up the topic in janay ring and worth as andrson engineering worth as a person. I put up here the cover of one of Theodore Dreisers novels, and what wee, have been considering is a kind of fictional assault, right . On the victorian moral order. Oks, inre dreiser for naturalistic fiction. In Theodore Dreisers case, in naturalistic fiction. He set his story, as you know, in the booming, bustling town of chicago. And to use chicago as a kind of character in this story, to look busts, thems, the travails of the characters in his novel. Just to summarize where we got we saw the workings of many things. Not just a story, but a kind of commentary on early 20thcentury Century America and especially urban industrial america. We saw the workings of a new economy. The novel espoused as a kind of allegory for capitalism and especially consumer culture that was constantly on the move, in which styles, fashions, all ies, characters fall and rise. And importantly, they fall and rise without rhyme or reason. In identity that you put on like a costume and shed as costume as searchers move on to their own world. This has to do with kerry being in the culture of the earliest 20th century. And we keep this moving. We focus on one more. Desire. Desire as a kind of engine in the story. Wanting what you cannot have. Always being able to see what is ahead of you. That is what makes things happen in the novel. Ember ,carrie is never neverer, carrie is satisfied. She feels the claim of each trinket and valuable on her. We talked about the moral of the story, amoral for the 20th for themaybe a moral 20th century maybe that there are no morals. Good things happen to bad people. Sometimes, like kerry, they are rewarded. What Theodore Dreiser did was invert the Success Story of the victorian period. He turned it right upside down. You think back to Horatio Algers story. Fortune was the result of accidents. Random occurrences. Theodore dreiser tells us, think what henry adams. So much. Dreiser isto see how picking up on these anxieties of urban20th century commercial life. And finally, i think this takes us into the discussion for today. Us a model for the self, one that is much less anchored than in booker t. Washington or even Horatio Algers story. Kind of darwinian. Was a waste and it forces, a lone figure. And importantly in chicago, she occupied a world of surfaces. Always concerned with her outward appearance. Engaging with others as mirrors. The surface is purely extra no. It is not internal. It is something that is very much radiating outward. Dreiser helps us answer a question, which im going to put this way how does a culture come to an end . There are no beginning and ending dates there are no dates to anything, but i think the novel coming at beginning of the 20th century shows us the morris of the morals of thethe victorian age coming to a close. He is putting a nail in the coffin of the victorian age. It is the imagined system, and maybe even the utopia of the engineer. A new kind of hero in this new century. We are going to turn to a new class of experts in the early 20th century, the socalled machine age, an age of mass production, skyscrapers. And the experts that would become prominent, not just to out howout to figure society works, but also to their promise that they could design an American Society a new, right . Morethey could design a seamlessly running United States. Ok, one of the watchwords there is certainly efficiency in our reading for today. Ok, so we have already seen hints of this expert character coming to before in american culture. This is a character not unlike inrie, who becomes prominent this. , and i would say especially during world war i. Which much8, around of our readings for today prosper. Progressives were pragmatists, people like tom dewey who we we have read, and walt whitman, who you read for today, all part of an intellectual circle, in this case centered in the new republic. Was a tool. Lf it was not just an event. A tragedy. Just it was a tool that could be used like a cell phone. World war i was a war of technical management. Of the waromise itself. It is something that comes out of the war era. Create new bureaucracies, new careers and it will help to elevate the status of expertise in american culture. Remember here the prescient riseue about the of war technique and his deep the warn terms of what was doing and producing people who could just get things done. So, during the war, it was not just troops and arms and people who were organized, but minds were organized as well. This was one of the first modern wars in terms of propaganda, advertising, morale building strategies that keeps people in support of the war. Did not always work, of course. Government euros devoted toernment bureaus devoted shaping opinions. Advertisers would be pressed into a helping win this war. They would help americans decide think about this war. There are many new industries coming into being to organize, administer them accord and eight the society. As i mentioned, early 20thcentury culture heroes were not preachers particularly, didactic preachers of the 19th century. They were not synnex like Theodore Dreiser. Those we might say new how things worked. Engineers and experts. Likeey were not cynics Theodore Dreiser. Henry ford who helped incorporate the vertical integration of a whole industry. We might think of someone like Frederick Winslow taylor, who you read for today, the inventor and proponent of Scientific Management. Tasks, analyzing them systematically, right . To find the one best way. Importantly note that taylor is an engineer not just of machines and materials, but of people. Of workers. Come with,uld even close with and experts resident. Herbert hoover. We often think of them for other reasons, the great depression. This era would even come with, close with an expert president. He made his career, as one of those experts, running the u. S. Food administration and he is a worldwide champion for his incredible economy and and efficiency in helping relief victims during the war. The 19the experts in century. Expert saw a sort. But they did not doing a lot of good. If you think about the practice of medicine, for example, and they were not subject to professional regulation in the way that they would in the 20th century. This is true of doctors, lawyers, professors. It is really the u. S. Army in the early 20th century, really during world war i, that the United States gets its first modern experts. They are in janay errors. They are Bridge Builders and so forth. They are in janay ors they are engineers. They are Bridge Builders and so forth. By the 20th century, there are of all sorts. Of cities, subways, machines, and factories. Also personnel and personnel techniques. There are engineers of households. Even ofe engineers desire, if you want to think of advertisers that way. Publicists, right . Of politicsgineers as well, and this is where i want to begin today, because were going to start with walter litman. In all of these cases we see what we recognize as the rather tight grip of protestant aglosaxon culture ceding to new class of engineer who takes the reins in the 20th century and takes charge of the culture itself in certain ways. So, people and the texts we are going to look at today Frederick Winslow taylor, andne frederick efficiency engineer of the household in her book the new thesekeeping in her book new housekeeping. Watson, famous for his advocacy of behaviorist psychology. Walterter litman become a kindill of fixture of american punditry, social commentary. He may seem out of place in this group, but i want to suggest he hean engineer, too well, is an engineer, too, coming right out of the protestant tradition, an engineer of politics and public life. People like him and his colleagues most famously at the new republic, were in favor of factfinding and experimentation in politics. Dewey. Like john they were in favor of things like city utility commissions to there out rates and distribution of prices and the ownership of public utilities. Yeah. They wanted experts on workplace regulation to draft legislation, not politicians. People who knew something about regulation to draft the regulation. They were for collecting data about social trends, so they could become the object of not just investigation, but action by the federal government. They are very much fact finders. In a different way than dreiser was. Towants to give you facts show you how things work. Ppmans circle wants to give you the facts and act on them. Colleagues advocated that the government just be scrapped, abolished and interplays just put experts to run the states. In time sanitary engineers, the city commissioner, legislation like the pure food and drug act that come out of this interest in putting experts in charge. Rather than everyday politics, right . In its tumbling, messy way. At this point very much part of an object of critique by progressives. No, there is a dark side to all of this administration and organizational politics. This is also the age were voting restrictions are really perfect did in keeping certain white workers, but also certainly africanamericans thomas out of the voting booths in the name of better government. Middleclass women on the other hand, just on the cusp of obtaining the vote, could make the case that they are better, more educated, better 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 dependence on experts and expert judgment, but from the point of view of our authors, and this is where we will stay, i think today, it all looks good, right . They celebrate the new abilities of experts to design american culture. All right. So lets begin with walter lippman. Masterwork here drift and mastery. It comes out in 1914. Look at this quote. Men find themselves working and thinking and feeling an environment that is without president in the history precedent in the history of the world. Lets talk about lippman, what he thinks the way he does and what is at stake for him and all of this. Yes . One thing that i thought resonated in all of the texts, purpose in place of tradition. We had theguess victorian order of to this point, just doing what was dictated or expected of us, and were otherd there ways, namely the Scientific Method. Yeah, does he remind you of anyone we have read before . [indiscernible] right. The Scientific Method as a way of living. Of shedding our assumptions about authoritarian and iori ways ofa pr thinking. He is right in line with William James in that regard. But he used this word purpose. What does he mean by purpose . What does he contrasted with . It withntrasted tradition, which kind of made me , how we can make our own mark on the world instead of letting life bring us along . Who we read in the late 19th century, showing some resonances here, absolutely. This notion of action, being very important. Against thes liberally tradition. Look how he against. Tradition will not work in the complexity of modern life. Something in that language to notice he says it will not work. Not that it is bad or immoral. The emphasis on getting results. Tradition is not going to work for us. What tradition anyway . There are so many different kinds of people in this nation who have many different fathers, right . You have the southern plantation, refugees from russia, this is not going to work. On some imagined tradition. It might be useful to know that Walter Lippmann himself comes from a jewishgerman family, so opens up to a sense of who are the ancestors here in america. It is like a call for action. For not living life passively. He says you have to deal with life deliberately like it is something you have to run up against and formulate your own methods. I mean, it connects to all of the other readings in applying a method to all of the other ways of going through life. Right. Applying a method. The fact that you need a method, number one, and number two, you have to apply it. And if you do not do that, what is the alternative . What are you doing . What kind of language do they use . Drifting. Drifting. Wandering around. You are drifting. What else . Matthew. He calls it [indiscernible] yeah. He says [indiscernible] progressively powerful way of domesticating the brute. Yeah, thats right. Again thats right. Ward, people can take charge of this brute existence. They do not have to drift. Note the title of the book. Drift and mastery. Uses this language of dreaming and sleeping. Why does he use those words . Look at it is the paragraph, i dont know, two thirds of the way down on 273. There is indeed a dreaming quality of life, moved as it is from within ryan unconscious desire by an unconscious desire and from outside by brute forces of climate. And then he goes on to talk about the beginning of reflection, which he characterizes as being awake during our own lifetime. Why does he use that language of dreaming and sleeping and unconscious . Any clues . Yeah. I think it has to do with what you were talking about in earlier classes about how there is this real consciousness about americans entering a modern period, leaving behind entering a modern period, leaving behind an age where we did not know anything. Consciousness, reflection. Think of words like rationality. Also, you start to see here, i think, the rise of new psychological concepts. The unconscious, the subconscious boyd, all of these things that are helping to move us around the subconscious a look the things that are helping to move us around without us knowing it. Also being called to action instead of taking a more passive stance, but also the context of freud named freud me and psychological he does not mention freud directly, but all of these ideas. They are not that popular yet. That will be a later date, but freud has been to the United States by now and this notion of this unconscious roiling cauldron in the bowl making them do things they are not aware they are doing is there as well. Yes. Also by using the word dreaming, what comes to mind is a kind of idealism and he talked about this before when i thought he was a pragmatist, but when he says it calls to return back to nature, this is like an animal that tried to eat itself. It could manage with the hind legs, but the head presented difficulty. When we are dreaming, we are doing things that are not moving us to an action, falling back on this pair adopts almost. Thats right. And when we are moving and living our lives in that way, we nreflectively, unconsciously. The task of the modern person is to master that. Notice at the bottom of the first full paragraph, this could be a description again of carrie in dreisers novel. He says, you put yourself at the mercy of stray ideas. Accident becomes the master. The accident of your own become what you ever has accumulated at the bottom of your mind. Priorihe first of a thinking. Carrie adopting whatever standard is right in front of her. Yeah, rebecca . [indiscernible] living in an unaccountable world, which often made me think of carrie. It is not going to work. Youre going to have to find some the better. Dreiser was content to describe it. This is how things happen. He did not try to correct it. He did not try to critique it. I do not know if he ever read sister carrie. He might have. He says that model is not enough. We have the responsibility of reflection and consciousness and bringing these root desires, impulses under our power. What does he toward the end of the excerpt here, what does he raise as perhaps the biggest concern about this World Without world in which conscious action is the only rule . What does he worry about there at the year at there at the end and try to preempt . Page 176. K at yeah, libby . It is no idle question to ask what prompts the modern man to bind his world together. Be, like, aight confusion and wonder of what mans place is, and we have to answer that there is no such certainty, and you were kind of accepting the uncertainty. He is accepting the uncertainty, saying you have a kind of antifoundationalism, right . And he is saying this is the real question what binds people together . This is all we have got. We do not have a common tradition. We do not have a common god. We do not have a common code. Yeah, he is saying it requires a certain courage, that you are essentially confronting this modern World Without the meaning provided by these traditions. Yeah. So, that responsibility is [indiscernible] he seems to be offering science as a substitute to provide some of that meaning, but it is to go offs scary and acceptraditions modernity and all of its reality. Yeah, absolutely. You are capturing his tone for cicely. This is threatening, but also thrilling. You are capturing his tone precisely. Alsois threatening, but thrilling. What we have is none of these crutches, what we depended on the past. Science. O have is the scientific spirit. This is the top of 175. Of democracy. This is what might yet bind people together. Just going to that general note of it, it seems that the framework for which political rhetoric has taken off since the onlytalks on 173, possible confusion is the loyalty that only looks forward. The description of what defines america, the emphasis on only looking forward. That a little extra oomph unites us all. Right. That idea, loyalty only moving forward. You have to think of this is a very modernist notion of what loyalty is. Loyalty is to be something that you know. Something you are already aware of. Something you have already committed to. He says the only loyalty is for moving forward. I thought it was interesting the connection he drew between science and democracy instead of government and both are the embodiment of modern self purpose and self direction and moving forward. Yeah, exactly. John dewey, the philosophy of democracy. Really, lippmann is talking science and democracy. Takingre is a way of Political Action that is consonant the science of ways of thinking. At this intellectual predisposition with a kind of government, i kind of order. Terrific. Ok. Anything else about lippmann . You noticed his antireligious arguments here. Right. Kind of religion a mirage, something to make Little People feel big, right . He is a relentlessly secular much like another who thought religion was an authoritarian way of thinking had notle who arrived at reflection and consciousness. All is not well therefore religion. Friendly here is the opposite of rigorous. Charge of ones intellect and ones own consciousness. As a kind ofpmann backdrop. His work as a rider and public intellectual thinker his work as a writer and a public intellectual thinker to what we might think of as engineers during today from such an. Beginning with Frederick Winslow taylor. Just a tiny bit of background on taylor and what he was responding to. Book, which sums up his theories of management, his Scientific Management he really introduces that term into. He discourse in 1911 he is responding of course in part to new workplaces in which mass Production Assembly lines were the rule rather than the exception. We know by the 20th century it is clear that crafts and partisanship are on the decline with the mechanization of factories, that work is being rationalized and all kinds of , even intematized normal management, right . That he critiques. And there are many worries over what are called works discipline in this period. Who are not as malleable as employers would like from the them,ng, and since he is soldiering. You all know what that is now. Are a problemgs and there is incredibly high turnover rate in these factories as well. This is the industrial scene taylor is looking at. Struggle history of over labormanagement regulations, sometimes turning violent. Battles really for control over the shop floor. Ok . Where taylor is coming in. His solutions are meant to solve those problems. Taylor himself these are just a couple of photographs from workplaces. I actually do not know what this one is. Some sort of mechanical but here, we know Frederick Winslow taylor, he was educated. He had poor eyesight, actually. The story goes he was headed to Harvard Law School and winds up a mechanical in junior in a factory who moves his way up and becomes famous and mechanical moveser in a factory who his way up and becomes famous. He becomes a public figure in the middle of a railroad dispute where he is brought in as an expert to testify. He in this way positions himself in certain ways outside the laborcapital nexus. Right . He claims to be on neither of those sides but on both sides. His effort ave for gold medal at the paris expedition of 1900. For henry adams. And he went on to teach Business School at dartmouth. Taylor hings about the stopwatch, a kind of symbol that taylor brought into the factory. The stopwatch in the case here. Arend others in this period fascinated by what is known as time and motion studies. He is really a time study or, to see how long things take him up but he becomes a motion study her, made possible by photographer, to capture movement that was before not captured and seen by the human eye. The motion studies captured here. Also someone leapfrogging. I am not sure why he would need those. Nevertheless he became famous for these motion study is. As did frank and lillian gilchrist. Are those names familiar . Anyone read cheaper by the dozen . That was written by their children. And they did studies to analyze things like here, a golf swing. And you start seeing appearing in factories the expert, here in the white court, noting things down. Watching workers of all sorts do their tasks and do them better. Taylor uptodate. The managers are on his back. The novel about the efficiency experts. And this is the clock watching the woman typist here. Here, i want to ask you, having read a portion of taylors tract, whataylors does it say for taylor . What are his rationales . What is the subtext . Why is management the solution . What is he worried about . We might even say what is he up sussed about . . Es efficiency. Efficiency. Efficiency and the flip side to that is how does he begin . Do you remember . There is this introduction about roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt. About how humans are now not lazy andficient, but how we have to mobilize and efficient populace. Writes. He pulls on the face of roosevelt on natural conservation. Right. On the heels of that, what have we missed . All of this wasted motion, wasted human effort. He says we can see and hear the waste of material things. Awkward, inefficient, or ill directed movement of men leave little tangible behind them. So, he is interested in waste. The problem of waste. The solution, of course, is efficiency. We could ask why, if he is so worried about waste why . Any ideas there . Why be obsessed about waste . It is not just taylor, of course. Yeah, kelly . [indiscernible] the profit incentive. We can use the same amount of workers or less workers. Even if you pay them higher wages, if they put in more effort. Employees haved that incentive. One part of it is simple profit maximization. What does taylor seem equally concerned with . As he claims, he is not only on on theloyer he is not employers side. But he is not on the employees side either. He is interested in solving the problem of industrial capital. Think of henry george, right . He had a solution to this. Carnegie had a solution to this, which was philanthropy, and the careful manipulation of wealth. What is taylors solution . Tryingeems very he is to create a place within the changing modernization of the workplace for the worker and the that fromnd i got frederick as well. Things are evolving in terms of how humans fit in this place question mark definitely creating a place. You could even say a wage. A different kind of man. Right . Himself hadhe occupied those positions on the floor. But a place for the manager. 90 e talks that presently or 95 of the work is done by the workers doing all the jobs, but he proposes if it could be 50 workers doing their job and 50 manager is taking training and explaining how it should be done and correcting people, soap making a much bigger role in much more responsibility for so making a much bigger role and much more responsibility for the manager. What was the old way of doing things . The workers have a lot of knowledge, the knowhow in the running of the factory floor. And what about the role of the owner . The head of the corporation. Carnegie, the andrew right, who has the brilliance to run these enterprises . Yes . The old owner would be really detached from their employers from their ploy ease. Yeah. Manager manager the is in between, right . As kind of, if you think in machine terms, kind of a modulator between the owner of capital and the worker, and it is not just one person either. We are talking about an office, a desk, data recording. Phalanx ofng about a new people inserting themselves and that latter that used to go from worker to floor man, to maybe a Managerial Position in the factory. Instead, taylors scientific managers are going to swoop right in on that middle plane. We are talking about changing the structure of work. Changing social mobility, too, changing the latter, although he does not dwell on that. He hed does dwell but does dwell on the fact that you need a different kind of man man is on the floor. Why is that . What is so complicated about management that you need this rather elaborate structure . Manager is responsible for figuring out the most efficient way of teaching to workers on the floor because they get stuck in there will look on. Rule of thumb, right . Anyway, he says, it has worked for centuries and it certainly has improved. Techniques have gotten better. But it is no match to the scientific observation and study of the best possible technique. Also, the harsh assessment you made of the machine workers says [indiscernible] has nod percentage meaning to him. He is putting am really far below the planners manager type. He also says there is always going to be people like that. Kind of a nature over nurture thing. He says, some people will always be born lazy and inefficient and greedy and brutal and the manager is the key to harnessing their physical strength, which it seems like that is obvious. He does apply this in many different industries. He begins with the most rude kind of work. Those men just picking up pig iron and moving it from one place to another. He cites these remarkable statistics, right . And a half 12 pounds or something . By the end of his experiment they are carrying 47 pounds of pig iron in a day without being tired and trotting home. Aree are people that essentially made for doing that kind of work, right . Not the manager, but a certain kind of human is made for that. I think the other thing he thinks the manager is responsible for at the very end of the piece looking for laboralities the lower class does have an putting them in the correct position. Not have the same skills as the manager, but they do have a skill set that can be used. So it is the managers responsibility to figure that out for them. Yeah, very nice. The manager is not just recording, breaking down tasks. He is fitting the right man to the right job. There are a couple things going on here. One is systematizing. Finding the one best way. For every job, there is one best way to do it. At the same time, there is this standardization as creating men in a way you have to have an interview with each of these men to determine which job they should be in. On the one hand, there is the individualization of the worker. On the other hand, the slotting of the worker into just the right place in the industrial machine. An interesting tension to think about. He uses that word individual and individualizing quite a bit. A bit of timee talking to workers, making sure they are doing things just right, that they are in the right decision in the first place. The right position in the first place. Scientific management as taylor describes it is the modern way to work. How workersussed and management were doing things in an outmoded, less scientific way. What are things that he identifies as waste . That he is very concerned with. That might be his prime bogeyman, right . Waste. What does he come up with in terms of the ways workers conduct themselves . We talk about soldiering a little bit. What is the problem with soldiering . What is soldiering, first of all . A word that has gone completely out of our vocabulary. 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. , butitely under working there is effort going into under working. Yes. Work slowdown. Very deliberate. How do they happen . Why do they happen . They talked about the policy that if you work too much you are going to put other people out of business or out of work. And he credits that to the labor unions. And i got a sense through the this that if you insert level of management you can do away with the labor unions because you have someone addressing the issues you are. Aving yes. Very nice. Of theous definitely collectivity of workers either in a union or in a compact. Even without a union he would say among us and we won workers, you go as slow as you possibly can. You do not outpace your neighbor, because then it becomes clear that everybody could be working faster to read at the end of the day, that is going to hurt you and your trade, writes . Everyone will be paid less end of the day, that is going to hurt you and your trade, right . Everyone will be paid less. It is a way of breaking something that allowed workers to work together. Yes. He attributed some of the tube just ignorance. That the reason why people soldier is the inefficient rule of mom in all trades rule of thumb in all trades and how these rules are passed down from generation to generation, this is how to work, this is the best way, as opposed to with the scientific managers, they can find other ways to surpass the rule of thumb method. Yeah, so again when we zoom they are talking about the emphasis on novelty. Some of it is breaking with the past. I think taylor may show is in a more concrete form than most of our writers what that means. Ofmeans raking the old rule calm, traditions, workers solidarity it means breaking the old rule of thumb, traditions, worker solidarity. The control workers had over each other. He would argue it is the workers, not the owners, controlling the shop floor. And they shouldnt be because it encourages laziness and soldiering and it is also not in interest and best that, maybe the worker is not intelligent enough to figure out. This is what you need the educated manager to prove, as he , and he tells that story of his own struggle with his friends, right, to get them to work harder and the threats he was subject to. The intimation anyway of violence against him for trying to get them to speed up and become more productive. So, that is his own personal story, moves right into this Scientific Management. So he is arguing, if you want to think of it that way, he is arguing with owners and corporations. He is also arguing with unions thatorkers and the people are the key, ready to step in, the men, the man at the desk. Right. There is obviously more we could say here about taylor, his attitude toward workers, the kind of resistance that workers and unions mounted against taylorism,im which becomes a word in this period. But i would like us to think about taylors example, the template that he would set for other fields and enterprises during this period, too. Ofs wrap up the question taylors factory and think back to adams. Mode of production here. How do we make it more efficient . How do we get rid of the friction in the system . That is how you make things more efficient. And those concerns of the late 19th century about the goals of the workers, their humanity is put beside. Yes. Does he replace taylor, supplement taylor . Ford i think in many ways he adopts certain aspects of taylorism and others he doesnt. He comes up with the idea of the five dollar day and leisure as an incentive for workers to produce. And if you work at ford, you earn enough to buy the products. There is an incentive and a ford factory. But most industries at this time were taken up with the idea of systematizing the individual tasks, raking them down into ever smaller pieces. Them down into ever smaller pieces. Lets move on to Christine Frederick. I want to make sure we talk about the new housekeeping. She was not the first to hit on this idea of a household engineer. The profession of home to then Home Economics is becoming a new industry. Home economics will be taught in school. Did any of you take home ec . It has its roots and this period. A really interesting colonization of something that it was thought individual passed on did, was from mothers to daughters, think of the beecher sisters, talking home management. This idea of the home as a professional domain, experts creating curricula as a turn of the century invention. Again that is not restrained frederick that is not Christine Frederick. Christine like frederick. Here is Christine Frederick. Note the titles that she uses. Hell engineer and professional consultant. Health engineer and professional consultant. I think you can see how someone like frederick is indebted to someone like trailer. But think about the beecher sisters. What has changed and what remains the same. Nothing is totally a break with the past. With the idea of bringsfic management and it to household routines. Everything is planned out. Women are leaving, becoming mothers women are leaving becoming mothers to go join the workforce. [indiscernible] it was kind of her taking a methods, but keeping the victorian idea of the household in sacks. Very nice. The end result is the same. The rationale maybe has changed. [indiscernible] someone focused on raising children and morals and family. And Christine Frederick is all l ike how to cook food quickly. Like it is very focused on duties of the household, but she does not want to talk about raising her children. Or it she mentions them, it is how to keep her children from getting in the way of her chores. Were almoste they like keeping her from cooking and doing that stuff. Yes. Interfering with her wellplanned day. Them interestingly as the boy and the baby, these stock characters. She is able to have the baby playing. She refers to them almost zed way. Ery unideali i was impressed how she included the children. She specifically had an hour every day to just sit and play with them or watch them play while she did something else. Incorporatenitely them into her schedule, which i thought was impressive and did remind me of the beecher sisters. Was like setting an example from a very early age yes, this is a long development, thinking him a very consciously, reflectively about how the household runs. It does not run on its own and there might be ways to improve it. At ahe beecher sisters more spiritual notion of it then Christine Frederick had a more spiritual notion of it then Christine Frederick. You can see them talking to each other across time. [indiscernible] kitchen and of the wanting to make it worthwhile. It gets boring after a while, so you want to make it feel like you are doing Something Like housework is not an importance and off thing to be doing. I could see it being a very unfulfilling thing for women to be doing. And she uses that word. Right . Y, and drudgery. So she is admitting in a way the beecher sisters might not have that this is work. So why not speed it up . If the dishes can be on the , they can air dry, and you do not have to wipe them down with a cloth. There are ways to systematize and actually a kind of pleasure in these systemization for its own sake. But also because it gets you more time to do other things, right . On the schedule, and every other week club dates. More social and more leisure activities in the schedule as well. Inc. Of this in terms of the emerging consumer and leisure think of this in terms of the emerging consumer and leisure culture. I think about the beecher sisters she makes it clear that the household sphere is for women only. All of these schedules are all the mother. Man and in that way it is similar to the beecher sisters. But it is like rebecca saying in that last paragraph, she says isically the place of women in the home, but basically using the scientific on the flip side she kind of the ofates the womens sphere the household as a similar task and job of importance as things done out of the home. Right. State ther sisters womens roles takes as much management skill as a world leader. Actually frederick is just doing it. Notice what she borrows from the factories. She talks about men in the factories do this. Im also using this index system card on index card system on my wall. I borrowed this from my husband. She iss a parallelism sketching which may keep women in the home to feel that their work is as professional, scientific, and as requiring of scientific attention and care. Yes, katie. An interesting and more subtle contrast that can be made between the two is have a deal with housekeepers and mothers of different classes. Was if you the focus were of greater means, you should be more philanthropic and set up homes for children and use your money in terms of philanthropy. It as an uses equalizer. She says while some women cant canrd a vacuum cleaner afford a vacuum cleaner, hundreds of thousands of women cannot. But any one of those thousands of women can reduce the drudgery of their work by better planning, systemizing, and experimenting with their work and how they do it. Beecher was how to spend your extra money. This is how you appear you have the same amount of money or housekeeping by standardization. And how you can gain some of the rewards of science no matter your class. I think that is right. It is a very tayloresque argument. This will help everybody by cutting out the waste and drudgery and getting to a higherquality product, even if that means the product are schedule babies. I love the line, sunday dinner on saturday because it saves time. You feel you are almost reaching absurdity in the scheduling of something, which at the time had not been thought of in these analytic, cold terms of what works better. That was not what i household was about. It was not just about work and technical sufficiency. I thought it was interesting she singles out herself as a suburban housewife nurses beforehand versus beforehand it talks about carrie and a woman in the city. It is a big contrast in her schedule from anything carrie would have encountered because of location. She talks about how anyone who lives in the suburbs knows you can have anyone dropped enough on you and shows aspects of it. Good. With a text like this, you want to be alert to those social clues. Like i couldngs use the telephone or call a driver. You get a sense of her social class and the infrastructure around her, of what is making the household run. She has perfected this laundering system, but someone else comes in to do the laundry. This is a household that is not only the realm of the individual woman. It is already a system akin to a factory system and benefits from the same kinds of tools. Specific point to this place on page 100, the last page of this excerpt. We do since what is motivating frederick beyond the duty of science. A couple of you have referred to it. Lets look at it. Talking about the women who say i do not want to run my home i can office or factory. But these same women and others are continually talking about drudgery. Tasksave been doing these in such a beautiful and poetic way. Why is it women are fleeing from how so professions to outside work . Why are they living in cooperative apartments it in delicatessen meals and refusing the burdens of motherhood . That is the vision of the urban woman, sister carrie. Hear Teddy Roosevelt carrie roosevelt not taking up the mantle of womanhood and her duties. There is the need for a persuasive case and the sense that the rewards of the family itself or the spirit are not enough to keep women in the home. They have to be persuaded, right . This is a complex task, a Scientific Task very equal of the manager in the factory. Taylor, you cents christine an overt caseng for a break from old ways of doing things. A break from the past, a break from tradition. The only loyalty should be to going forward, right . Them as modernist sorts of thinkers. They are after the new cover novel new, novel, better way. Let me show you quickly, these are a couple of the illustrations that appeared in fredericks book of the well ordered kitchen. This always makes me think i need to go back into my own kitchen and redesign everything. Is my sink the right height . You see those pathways . Think again up timemotion studies. This is the badly grouped equipment. Ugly,lk into this messy, zigzag. Here is the efficient grouping. The preparing route is a. The clearing away route is b. You get this nice, clean motion of how work is supposed to be done. Lets talk about an even more atizer andstem simplifier. Began his graduate education in philosophy with none other than john dewey, another link to our other thinkers in the course. Convinced of the field of psychology. He looks at how animals were conditioned by stimulus response and moves onto people. He will teach at Johns Hopkins for a time. That is a modern emblem of the modern university. But will be forced out due to his divorce brought on by an affair with his coauthor, one of his students, rosalie rayner. Not everything has changed. He can lose his University Position for his divorce and affair. He will become a popular expert as well scientific expert on child rearing, but eventually advertising. We might think about the links between stimulus response, experiments with children, and the burgeoning field of advertising, what is going to get a consumer like carrie to hat,nd to a dress, a so forth. This is a new psychology for a new century. Than ourting later others today. He is a simplifier, more like taylor than freud. A kind ofposited darwinian battle within the betweenwithin the mind, the subconscious and conscious. A mind always at war with itself. Watson will have a very different view, and a different view from his mentor dewey who thought of consciousness in complex ways. Watson says he sees nothing in the mind. All we have to go on is how people have behave and what they do, and that is the appropriate domain of psychological insight and action. He will call for it is him the dualism and mysticism fr mysticism and and a leader in the school of behavior. Stimulus response with rats or children is the way you build behavior. ,ou use rewards and punishment and you can build in instincts it. Children and have you can internalize things like a schedule. Inc. About Christine Frederick and her schedule baby. If you feed them at the same time every day, that is when they will get hungry. If you put them down on the same time, they go to sleep at the same time. This actually works, i can tell you. Some of that advice around childrearing is very popular at the time, even though you can also sense the radicalism and shock of a piece of writing like this. Case that all cultures invent psychologies, why this psychology now . What is it about watsons vision of childrearing that is of this time . Ust a few photographs the photos are grainy. I apologize. They are the only ones we have. This is whats in doing an experiment on the strength and grip of an infant this is watson doing an extreme and on the strength and grip of an infant. And some of the still shots that appear in his book. These were the little albert experiments. He did a host of experiments with this particular child and filled them. You see albert with a before and after reaction once he has been sensitized to the furry creature. Going to sayre something. On the Scientific Methods of childrearing, just like they factory or to the frederick would apply it to housework, he is applying it to how you raise a child and how people become scared of things or certain things like that. There is a kind of blank slate he is working with. Matthew . One thing that struck me is how overtly hostile he seemed to be at some points about mothers in general. Yes. On page 12, along with this conviction comes the search for facts. The search reveals almost a bankruptcy of facts. No one today knows the best way to raise a child. We talked about a lot of people trying to break tradition, but he was really more hostile to tradition than our other writers, absolutely. Nobody has any facts. Nobody knows how to be a proper. He goes into the line about the world would be considerably better off if we would stop having children for 20 years except for those rare for experiment will purposes, and then start again with the facts. Yes . Of aong with the idea blank slate to start over is through the readings we learned with the industrialization, it is seen as there is this underarching question, not overarching, in the back of everyones minds of can we have this Perfect Society . 24 ontrikes me is on page the caption when he sees the right white rat, there is discussion that shows all these fears are acquired. He gave me the idea that we are still wondering if we can erase all fear and live in a Perfect Society. By looking at these babies, can we find a way to raise the perfect human . Yes, right. It is a utopian kind of thinking that if you simply get children early enough and have all this laboratory data, that we wipe out fear. We wipe out certain kinds of things without were in stinks, unchangeable, or particular to particular people. Right . This is in visioning human nature as a kind of blank state, where it leads you. He talks about parenthood the entire time. He only talks about the mother. Nowhere does he mention the father. But he is using parents and parenthood. Yeah. That might capture something about what is new and old in that invocation apparent to me meanr of parent to mother. It was the mothers in almost every instance. He uses is more objective scientific term of parenthood. This habitsting with and tradition to think of the parent as the mother. I thought it was interesting how much he dismisses the instinct in favor of the Scientific Method, especially the female instinct. About when the woman realizes she is responsible for raising her child. Loadys she would rather this burden anywhere else, on heredity, on the divine shoulder. The mothersaying like does not want instinctively to take on this burden and teach her child how to be like the perfect child or whatever. Then she finally comes to accept it eventually. Yeah. This brings us neatly back to litman, the friendly comfortable feeling of believing you are bigger than you are, more important than you are in the scheme of things. This critique of religion, right . Not takingfort for responsibility for your own active role in the world. That fits watson especially because of the kind of action that creates something as deep , the pairing of a furry rabbit with a hammering sound, which he says everybody recoils from. He creates a fear of the animal. The new create a life long deep fear of anything furry. Even santa claus. Matthew . Not found it interesting just in this piece but in all the ones we read, even though they seem progressive, they seem state in social tradition. This might be a stretch. This piece, we came out of the roaring 20s per there is a huge desire. He talks about how if you give too much affection to your child, they will be spoiled. That might be why this was clung on so tightly because people saw what happened to this generation of kids that lived through the 1920s with materials and they want to get away with that from that. Frederick is still trying to keep the woman in the home, and not very socially progressive. Using progressive techniques to keep things may be closer to where they were . That is an interesting tension. I think it does run through these pieces, even maybe emma even in watson who seems the most hostile to inherited traditions. I found it interesting to think about the audiences of all these pieces. She assumes everyone reading has a house. Watson assumes these children will be born into good families who will use the best methods to raise their kids. On page 31, hes talking about the experiment on the child who had been at home. He says here is a beautiful two and a half year old child tenderly nurtured in one of our best american homes. It kind of struck me as a most idealistic almost idealistic. We are putting all this effort into the Perfect Society and systemizing everything, but there are still people in the background who have no access to this or no way of achieving it. Yeah, right. Also, there are still accidents. Unless we train all the dogs not to bark at babies. Some of this will elude the control of the systematizer in the end. Good. Theres is more to say about watson. But i think we see the links between these thinkers, some of the tensions coming to the fore in their pieces. We will come back to some of the tensions we did not talk about overtly but might be embedded in litmans term about science being the discipline of democracy. If experts are the answer, an expertrun society, what happens to those who are not experts, those in the factories, or the entrance raised in laboratories . Democracye vision of the United States was poised to adopt . To some of theck techniques rather than the substance. As we close, i want us to think do toall these readings victorian ideas about humanism, character, labor, the dignity of labor, mens and womens roles, and most importantly, seemingly natural and it down ideas, whether rule of thumb or otherwise. The break from tradition is incomplete, as we have noticed. But it certainly seems like something new on the horizon. We will pick up with new ideas about race and racial identity on thursdays class. Thank you for a great discussion. I have papers for a couple of people up here. Eveningus each saturday at 8 00 and midnight for classroom lectures from across the country on different topics and eras of american history. Lectures are also available as podcasts. Visit our website. Download them from itunes. American history tv travel ed to the library of congresss kluge center in 2003. The Center Welcomes scholars to pursue Research Interest with their scholars. We s w