Winner-Do-Artifacts-Have-Politics-1980

Do Artifacts Have Politics?
Author(s): Langdon Winner
Source: Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1, Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? (Winter,
1980), pp. 121-136
Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652
Accessed: 06/10/2009 20:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Daedalus.
http://www.jstor.org
LANGDON WINNER
Do Artifacts Have Politics?
about
In controversies
and
technology
society,
there
is no
idea more
pro
vocative
than the notion that technical things have political qualities. At issue is
the claim that the machines,
structures, and systems of modern material culture
can be
of efficiency and pro
accurately
judged not only for their contributions
not
for
their
and
environmental
side effects,
positive
ductivity,
merely
negative
can
but also for the ways
in which
of
power and
they
embody specific forms
a
of
Since
this
kind
have
and
in
ideas
authority.
persistent
troubling presence
about the meaning
of technology,
discussions
deserve
attention.1
explicit
they
in Technology and Culture almost two decades ago, Lewis Mumford
Writing
gave
classic
to one
statement
version
of
the
theme,
arguing
that
"from
late
neo
lithic times in the Near East, right down to our own day, two technologies have
one authoritarian,
the other democratic,
the
recurrently existed side by side:
first system-centered,
but
the
other
unstable,
immensely powerful,
inherently
but resourceful
and durable."2 This
thesis
man-centered,
relatively weak,
stands at the heart of Mumford's
of
studies
the city, architecture,
and the his
concerns
of
and
voiced
in
mirrors
earlier
of Peter
the
works
technics,
tory
Kropotkin,
ism. More
America
William
and other nineteenth
Morris,
recently,
have
adopted
antinuclear
a
similar
and
prosolar
as
notion
century
critics of industrial
movements
energy
a
centerpiece
in
in
their
Europe
and
arguments.
Thus environmentalist
Denis Hayes
"The increased deployment
of
concludes,
nuclear power facilities must lead society toward authoritarianism.
safe
Indeed,
reliance upon nuclear power as the principal source of energy may be possible
only in a totalitarian state." Echoing the views of many proponents of appropri
ate
and the soft energy path, Hayes contends that "dispersed solar
technology
sources are more compatible
than centralized
technologies with social equity,
freedom and cultural pluralism."3
An eagerness to interpret technical artifacts in political
language is by no
means the exclusive property of critics of
systems.
large-scale high-technology
A long lineage of boosters have insisted that the
best"
and
that
science
"biggest
and industry made available were the best guarantees of
freedom,
democracy,
and social justice. The factory system, automobile,
radio,
television,
telephone,
the space program, and of course nuclear power itself have all at one time or
another been described as democratizing,
in
liberating forces. David Lilienthal,
T.V.A.: Democracy on theMarch, for example, found this promise
in the phos
121
122
LANGDON
WINNER
to rural
that technical progress was bringing
In a recent essay, The Republic of Technology,
television for "its power to disband armies, to cashier
phate fertilizers and electricity
Americans
during the 1940s.4
Daniel
Boorstin
extolled
to create
presidents,
a whole
new
democratic
world?democratic
before imagined, even in America."5
Scarcely a new invention
someone does not proclaim
it the salvation of a free society.
It is no surprise to learn that technical systems of various
in ways
comes
never
along that
kinds are deeply
of
in the conditions of modern politics. The physical arrangements
interwoven
and the like have fundamen
industrial production,
warfare,
communications,
the
of
and
the
exercise
power
experience of citizenship. But to go
tally changed
to argue that certain technologies
in themselves have
and
this
obvious
fact
beyond
seems, at first glance, completely mistaken. We all know
political properties
that people have politics, not things. To discover either virtues or evils in aggre
seems
and chemicals
transistors,
gates of steel, plastic,
integrated circuits,
a way of mystifying
human artifice and of avoiding the true
just plain wrong,
sources, the human sources of freedom and oppression,
justice and injustice.
more
even
than
foolish
the
hardware
appears
blaming the victims when
Blaming
it comes to judging conditions of public life.
the stern advice commonly given those who flirt with the notion that
Hence,
is not technology
technical artifacts have political qualities: What matters
itself,
but the social or economic system in which it is embedded. This maxim, which
is the central premise of a theory that can be called
in a number of variations
It serves as a
of
has an obvious wisdom.
determination
social
the
technology,
needed corrective to those who focus uncritically on such things as "the comput
er and its social impacts" but who fail to look behind technical things to notice
and use. This view
of their development,
the social circumstances
deployment,
idea that tech
determinism?the
provides an antidote to naive technological
an
as
and
of
unmediated
the
internal
sole
result
then,
dynamic,
nology develops
to
have not
Those
who
fit
its
molds
other
influence,
patterns.
society
by any
are
the ways in which technologies
shaped by social and economic
recognized
forces
have
not
gotten
very
far.
taken literally, it suggests that
But the corrective has its own shortcomings;
technical things do not matter at all. Once one has done the detective work
in
to reveal the social origins?power
holders behind a particular
necessary
of
stance of technological
will
have
impor
explained everything
change?one
tance. This conclusion offers comfort to social scientists: it validates what they
about the study
had always suspected, namely, that there is nothing distinctive
can return to their standard models
of technology
in the first place. Hence,
they
of interest group politics, bureaucratic politics, Marxist
of social power?those
have everything
of class struggle, and the like?and
models
they need. The
no
different from
in
this
of technology
social determination
view, essentially
is,
the
social
determination
of,
say,
welfare
policy
or
taxation.
on a special
are, however,
good reasons technology has of late taken
and political
scien
in its own right for historians,
fascination
philosophers,
so
reasons
in ac
of
far
models
social
science
the
standard
tists; good
only go
about the subject. In
is most
interesting and troublesome
counting for what
social and political
another place I have tried to show why so much of modern
can be called a theory of tech
statements
what
of
contains
recurring
thought
There
DO
ARTIFACTS
HAVE
POLITICS?
123
an odd
of notions often crossbred with orthodox
nological politics,
mongrel
The theory of technological
and socialist philosophies.6
liberal, conservative,
to the momentum
of
draws
attention
systems,
large-scale sociotechnical
politics
to the response of modern
societies to certain technological
imperatives, and to
In
the all too common signs of the adaptation of human ends to technical means.
so
a novel framework of interpretation and explanation for some
offers
it
doing
of the more puzzling patterns that have taken shape in and around the growth of
culture. One strength of this point of view is that it takes
modern material
technical artifacts seriously. Rather than insist that we immediately
reduce
to the interplay of social forces, it suggests that we pay attention to
everything
the characteristics
of technical objects and the meaning of those characteristics.
A necessary complement
to, rather than a replacement for, theories of the social
as
this perspective
determination
of technology,
identifies certain technologies
in their own right. It points us back, to borrow Edmund
political phenomena
Husserl's
injunction, to the things themselves.
philosophical
In what follows I shall offer outlines and illustrations of two ways in which
artifacts can contain political properties. First are instances in which the inven
tion, design, or arrangement of a specific technical device or system becomes a
Seen in the proper light,
way of settling an issue in a particular community.
and easily understood.
Second
examples of this kind are fairly straightforward
are cases of what can be called inherently political
man-made
sys
technologies,
tems that appear to require, or to be
strongly compatible with, particular kinds
of political relationships.
about cases of this kind are much more
Arguments
troublesome and closer to the heart of the matter. By "politics," Imean arrange
ments of power and authority in human associations as well as the activities that
take place within
those arrangements.
For my purposes,
here is
"technology"
to mean all of modern
to
understood
I
avoid
but
confusion
practical artifice,7
to
or
or
of
smaller
speak
systems of hardware
prefer
technology,
larger pieces
of a specific kind. My intention is not to settle any of the issues here once and for
and significance.
all, but to indicate their general dimensions
Technical Arrangements
as Forms
of Order
Anyone who has traveled the highways of America and has become used to
a little odd about some
the normal height of overpasses may well find
something
of the bridges over the parkways on
of the
Long Island, New York. Many
are
as
as
at the
little
nine
feet
of
clearance
low, having
overpasses
extraordinarily
curb. Even those who happened to notice this structural peculiarity would not
to it. In our accustomed way of look
be inclined to attach any special meaning
at
we
see
like
roads
and
the details of form as innocuous, and
ing
things
bridges
seldom give them a second thought.
It turns out, however,
that the two hundred or so
low-hanging overpasses
on
were
Island
Long
deliberately
designed to achieve a particular social effect.
Robert Moses,
the master builder of roads, parks, bridges, and other public
works from the 1920s to the 1970s in New York, had these overpasses built to
that would discourage
the presence of buses on his parkways.
specifications
to
evidence
According
provided by Robert A. Caro in his biography of Moses,
the reasons reflect Moses's
social-class bias and racial prejudice. Automobile
124
LANGDON
WINNER
as he called them,
owning whites of "upper" and "comfortable middle" classes,
would be free to use the parkways for recreation and commuting.
Poor people
and blacks, who normally used public transit, were kept off the roads because
One con
the twelve-foot
tall buses could not get through the overpasses.
was
access
to
limit
of
minorities
and
racial
low-income
sequence
groups to Jones
acclaimed public
Beach, Moses's widely
result by vetoing a proposed
extension
park. Moses made doubly sure of this
to Jones
of the Long Island Railroad
Beach.8
a story in recent American
life is fasci
political history, Robert Moses's
and his careful
and presidents,
governors,
nating. His dealings with mayors,
of
the
and
labor
unions,
press,
public opinion
manipulation
legislatures, banks,
are all matters that political scientists could
study for years. But the most impor
tant and enduring results of his work are his technologies,
the vast engineering
that
York
much
of
For
New
its
form.
after
present
projects
give
generations
Moses has gone and the alliances he forged have fallen apart, his public works,
and bridges he built to favor the use of the automobile
especially the highways
over the development
of mass transit, will continue to shape that city. Many of
structures of concrete and steel embody a systematic
his monumental
social
a way of
a
after
time,
that,
among people
relationships
engineering
inequality,
told
another
of
the
As
Lee
becomes
part
just
landscape.
planner
Koppleman
on
had
"The old son-of-a-gun
Caro about the low bridges
Parkway,
Wantagh
made sure that buses would never be able to use his goddamned
parkways."9
of architecture,
and public works contain many ex
Histories
city planning,
that contain explicit or implicit political pur
amples of physical arrangements
broad Parisian
poses. One can point to Baron Haussmann's
thoroughfares,
to prevent any recurrence of street
at
Louis
direction
Napoleon's
engineered
one can
fighting of the kind that took place during the revolution of 1848. Or
As
visit
any
number
of
grotesque
concrete
buildings
and
huge
plazas
constructed
on American
campuses during the late 1960s and early 1970s to de
university
and instruments
Studies of industrial machines
fuse student demonstrations.
some
that violate our normal
also turn up interesting political stories, including
innovations are made in the first place. If
about why technological
expectations
are introduced to achieve increased efficien
we suppose that new
technologies
shows that we will sometimes be disappointed.
cy, the history of technology
a
not the least of
change expresses
panoply of human motives,
Technological
which
is the desire of some to have dominion over others, even though it may
an occasional
and some violence to the norm of
sacrifice of cost-cutting
require
more from less.
getting
illustration can be found in the history of nineteenth
One poignant
century
At Cyrus McCormick's
industrial mechanization.
reaper manufacturing
plant in
a new and largely
in the middle
1880s, pneumatic molding machines,
Chicago
cost of
an
at
were
to
estimated
the
added
untested
innovation,
foundry
we
would
of
such
In the standard economic
$500,000.
things,
interpretation
the plant and achieve the kind of
expect that this step was taken to modernize
Robert Ozanne has shown
But
historian
efficiencies that mechanization
brings.
seen
a
must
context.
At the time, Cyrus
in
broader
be
why the development
II was engaged in a battle with the National Union of Iron Mold
McCormick
as a way to "weed out the bad
ers. He saw the addition of the new machines
DO
ARTIFACTS
HAVE
125
POLITICS?
element among the men," namely,
the skilled workers who had organized the
union local in Chicago.10 The new machines, manned by unskilled
labor, ac
inferior castings at a higher cost than the earlier process. After
tually produced
three years of use the machines were, in fact, abandoned, but by that time they
had served their purpose?the
destruction of the union. Thus, the story of these
at the McCormick
technical developments
ade
factory cannot be understood
quately outside the record of workers' attempts to organize, police repression of
in Chicago during that period, and the events
the labor movement
surrounding
the bombing at Hay market Square. Technological
history and American politi
cal history were at that moment
deeply intertwined.
In cases like those of Moses's
ma
low bridges and McCormick's
molding
chines, one sees the importance of technical arrangements that precede the use of
the things in question.
can be used in ways that
It is obvious that technologies
enhance the power, authority, and privilege of some over others, for
example,
the use of television to sell a candidate. To our accustomed way of
thinking,
are seen as neutral tools that can be used well or
technologies
poorly, for good,
in between. But we usually do not stop to
a
evil, or something
inquire whether
a
a
have
device
and
built
in
been
such
that
it
way
given
might
designed
produces
set of consequences
logically and temporally prior to any of its professed uses.
Robert Moses's bridges, after all, were used to carry automobiles
from one point
to another; McCormick's
machines were used to make metal castings; both tech
purposes far beyond their immediate use. If
nologies, however,
encompassed
our moral and
includes only cate
political language for evaluating technology
to
not
with
and
if
do
tools
it
does
attention to the
include
uses,
gories having
our
of
the
and
we will be
of
then
artifacts,
meaning
designs
arrangements
to
blinded
much that is intellectually
and practically crucial.
the point is most easily understood
Because
in the light of particular
in
tentions embodied
in physical form, I have so far offered illustrations that seem
almost conspiratorial.
But to recognize the political dimensions
in the shapes of
not
we
does
that
look
for
conscious
technology
require
conspiracies or malicious
intentions. The organized movement
of handicapped
in the United
people
States during the 1970s pointed out the countless ways
in which machines,
instruments,
and
structures
of
common
plumbing fixtures, and so forth?made
sons to move about
a condition
freely,
to
say that designs
public life. It is safe
from
long-standing
neglect
than
from
use?buses,
sidewalks,
buildings,
it impossible for many handicapped
per
that systematically
excluded them from
arose more
unsuited for the handicapped
anyone's
active
intention.
But
now
that
the issue has been raised for public attention,
it is evident that justice requires a
are
A
now
whole
of
artifacts
and rebuilt to
remedy.
range
being redesigned
accommodate
this minority.
that have
Indeed, many of the most
important examples of technologies
are
those that transcend the simple
political consequences
categories of "in
tended" and "unintended"
are
These
instances
in
which
the very
altogether.
of
so
technical
a
is
in
biased
process
development
thoroughly
particular direc
tion that it regularly produces results counted as wonderful
breakthroughs
by
some social interests and
crushing setbacks by others. In such cases it is neither
correct nor
intended to do somebody else harm."
insightful to say, "Someone
one
must
deck has been stacked long in ad
Rather,
say that the technological
126
vanee
to
favor
certain
social
LANGDON
WINNER
interests,
and
that
some
were
people
to
bound
a better
receive
hand than others.
a remarkable device
tomato harvester,
re
mechanical
perfected
by
searchers at the University
of California
from the late 1940s to the present,
offers an illustrative tale. The machine
is able to harvest tomatoes in a single
a
the
from
the ground, shaking the fruit loose,
row,
pass through
plants
cutting
tomatoes
and in the newest models
the
into large plastic
sorting
electronically
tons of produce headed for
gondolas that hold up to twenty-five
canning. To
accommodate
the rough motion
of these "factories in the field," agricultural
The
researchers
have
bred
new
varieties
of
tomatoes
that
are
hardier,
sturdier,
and
less tasty. The harvesters replace the system of handpicking,
in which crews of
farmworkers would pass through the fields three or four times putting ripe to
matoes
in lug boxes and saving immature fruit for later harvest.11 Studies
in
California
indicate that the machine
reduces costs by approximately
five to sev
en dollars per ton as
to
are by no
But
the
benefits
compared
hand-harvesting.12
means
divided
in
the
In
in the
fact, the machine
equally
agricultural economy.
a
in
has
this
instance
been
the
occasion
for
of
social
garden
thorough reshaping
tomato
in
of
rural
California.
production
relationships
the ma
By their very size and cost, more than $50,000 each to purchase,
chines are compatible only with a highly concentrated
form of tomato growing.
With the introduction of this new method of harvesting,
the number of tomato
four thousand in the early 1960s to about
growers declined from approximately
in 1973, yet with a substantial
six hundred
increase in tons of tomatoes pro
thousand
By the late 1970s an estimated thirty-two
jobs in the tomato
as
a
direct consequence
of mechanization.13
Thus,
industry had been eliminated
a jump in productivity
to the benefit of very large growers has occurred at a
sacrifice to other rural agricultural communities.
duced.
The
University
of California's
research
like the tomato harvester is at
attorneys for California Rural Legal
a group of farmworkers
and other
are
officials
University
spending tax
chines
ful
of
private
interests
to
the
detriment
and
development
on
agricultural
ma
this time the subject of a law suit filed by
an
Assistance,
representing
organization
suit charges that
interested parties. The
on projects that benefit a hand
monies
of
farmworkers,
small
farmers,
con
sumers, and rural California generally, and asks for a court injunction to stop the
has denied
these charges,
practice. The University
arguing that to accept
them "would require elimination
of all research with any potential practical
application."14
of the tomato
far as I know, no one has argued that the development
students of the controversy, William
harvester was the result of a plot. Two
Friedland and Amy Barton, specifically exonerate both the original developers
of the machine
and the hard tomato from any desire to facilitate economic con
As
social
in that industry.15 What we see here instead is an ongoing
and
in
scientific
which
invention,
process
corporate
knowledge,
technological
profit reinforce each other in deeply entrenched patterns that bear the unmistak
able stamp of political and economic power. Over many decades agricultural
in American
has
research and development
land-grant colleges and universities
to
in
It is
the face of
tended
favor the interests of large agribusiness concerns.16
such subtly ingrained patterns that opponents
of innovations
like the tomato
centration
DO
harvester
are made
to
seem
ARTIFACTS
HAVE
or
"antitechnology"
127
POLITICS?
For
"antiprogress."
the
harves
ter is not merely the symbol of a social order that rewards some while punishing
of that order.
others; it is in a true sense an embodiment
Within a given category of technological
change there are, roughly speaking,
two kinds of choices that can affect the relative distribution of power, authority,
and privilege in a community.
Often the crucial decision is a simple "yes or no"
or not? In recent years
we going to develop and adopt the
choice?are
thing
international
about
and
many local, national,
disputes
technology have centered
on "yes or no" judgments about such things as food additives, pesticides,
the
nuclear reactors, and dam projects. The fundamental
building of highways,
or not the
to join
choice about an ABM or an SST is whether
thing is going
are
a
as
fre
of
its
Reasons
for
and
against
society
piece
operating equipment.
as important as those concerning the adoption of an important new law.
quently
A second range of choices, equally critical inmany instances, has to do with
or arrangement
of a technical system after the
specific features in the design
decision to go ahead with it has already been made. Even after a utility company
can
to build a large electric power line, important controversies
wins permission
route
to
and the design of its towers;
the placement of its
remain with respect
con
even after an organization
has decided to institute a system of computers,
troversies can still arise with regard to the kinds of components,
programs,
modes of access, and other specific features the system will include. Once the
tomato harvester had been developed
in its basic form, design altera
mechanical
addition of electronic
tion of critical social significance?the
sorters, for ex
on
effects
the balance of wealth
the character of the machine's
ample?changed
most interesting research on
of
the
and power in California
Some
agriculture.
in a
and politics at present focuses on the attempt to demonstrate
technology
mass
concrete fashion how seemingly
innocuous design features in
detailed,
and other technologies
industrial machinery,
systems, water projects,
David Noble
is
of
mask
choices
Historian
social
actually
profound significance.
now
tool systems that have different
studying two kinds of automated machine
transit
and labor in the industries
implications for the relative power of management
that might employ them. He is able to show that, although the basic electronic
of the record/playback
and mechanical
and numerical control sys
components
are
tems
element
in the
choice
the
similar,
for social struggles
cutting, efficiency,
of one
design
on the shop floor. To
or the modernization
over
another
has
crucial
consequences
see the matter solely in terms of cost
of equipment
is to miss a decisive
story.17
The
From such examples I would offer the following general conclusions.
we call
our world. Many
are ways of
in
order
things
"technologies"
building
for
technical devices and systems important in everyday life contain possibilities
or
of
human
deliber
different
not,
many
ways
activity. Consciously
ordering
or inadvertently,
societies choose structures for technologies
that influence
ately
how
people
are
going
to work,
communicate,
travel,
consume,
and
so forth
over
a very
are made,
structuring decisions
long time. In the processes by which
situated and possess unequal degrees of power as
different people are differently
well as unequal levels of awareness. By far the greatest latitude of choice exists
the very first time a particular instrument,
is introduced.
system, or technique
Because choices tend to become strongly fixed inmaterial equipment,
economic
128
WINNER
LANGDON
vanishes for all practical
and social habit, the original flexibility
are
once
In
initial
commitments
made.
that sense technological
the
purposes
or
that establish a
innovations are similar to legislative acts
political foundings
For that
framework for public order that will endure over many generations.
investment,
same
the
reason,
one
attention
careful
would
to
give
the
rules,
roles,
and
rela
to such
as the
tionships of politics must also be given
things
building of high
and
the
of
television
the
creation
networks,
ways,
tailoring of seemingly
on new machines. The issues that divide or unite
features
people in
insignificant
society are settled not only in the institutions and practices of politics proper,
but also,
wires
and
and
nuts
transistors,
Inherently
in tangible
less obviously,
Political
and
of steel and concrete,
arrangements
bolts.
Technologies
None of the arguments and examples considered thus far address a stronger,
more
and society?the
troubling claim often made in writings about technology
are by their very nature political in a specific way.
belief that some technologies
to this view, the adoption of a given technical system unavoidably
According
that have a distinctive political
it conditions for human relationships
with
brings
cast?for
or
centralized
example,
decentralized,
egalitarian
or
re
inegalitarian,
pressive or liberating. This is ultimately what is at stake in assertions like those
one authoritarian,
the
of Lewis Mumford
that two traditions of technology,
cases
I cited
In all the
other democratic,
exist side by side inWestern
history.
are relatively flexible
in design and arrangement,
and
above the technologies
one can recognize a particular result produced
variable in their effects. Although
in a particular setting, one can also easily imagine how a roughly similar device
or situated with very much different political
or system
might have been built
consequences.
idea we
The
now
must
examine
and
evaluate
is that
certain
kinds
and that to choose them is to choose
of technology do not allow such flexibility,
a particular form of political life.
A remarkably forceful statement of one version of this argument appears in
anar
in 1872. Answering
Friedrich Engels's little essay "On Authority" written
an
to
be abolished altogeth
evil that ought
chists who believed that authority is
for authoritarianism,
er, Engels launches into a panegyric
among
maintaining,
in modern
other things, that strong authority is a necessary condition
industry.
To advance his case in the strongest possible way, he asks his readers to imagine
a social revolution de
that the revolution has already occurred.
"Supposing
throned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production
to adopt entirely the point of view of the
and circulation of wealth. Supposing,
that the land and the instruments of labour had become the
anti-authoritarians,
of the workers who use them. Will
collective
property
authority have dis
appeared or will it have only changed its form?"18
His answer draws upon lessons from three sociotechnical
systems of his day,
mills,
cotton-spinning
and
railways,
ships
at sea. He
observes
through
becoming finished thread,
tions at different locations in the factory. The workers
tasks,
from
running
another. Because
work
the
steam
engine
these tasks must
is "fixed by the authority
to
that,
on
its way
to
a number
cotton moves
carrying
the
of different opera
perform a wide variety of
products
and because
be coordinated,
of the steam," laborers must
from
one
room
to
the timing of the
learn to accept a
DO
HAVE
ARTIFACTS
129
POLITICS?
to
at regular hours and
Engels, work
according
rigid discipline. They must,
to
to
wills
the
their
individual
subordinate
persons in charge of factory
agree
that produc
If they fail to do so, they risk the horrifying possibility
operations.
"The automatic
tion will come to a grinding halt. Engels pulls no punches.
"is much more despotic than the small
of a big factory," he writes,
machinery
who
capitalists
ever
workers
employ
have
been."19
are adduced in
Engels's analysis of the necessary operating
of
for railways and ships at sea. Both require the subordination
conditions
run
to
sees
to
it that things
workers to an "imperious authority" that
according
an idiosyncracy of capitalist social organ
plan. Engels finds that, far from being
of all
arise "independently
and
subordination
of
ization, relationships
authority
us
are
condi
social organization,
[and]
together with the material
imposed upon
tions under which we produce and make products circulate." Again, he intends
this to be stern advice to the anarchists who, according to Engels,
thought it
a
at
and superordination
subordination
single
simply to eradicate
possible
Similar
lessons
All
stroke.
such
are
schemes
nonsense.
roots
The
of
unavoidable
author
in the human involvement with
itarianism are, he argues, deeply
implanted
"If man, by dint of his knowledge
and inventive genius,
science and technology.
has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by
a
as he
independ
employs them, to veritable despotism
subjecting him, insofar
ent of all social organization."20
to justify strong authority on the basis of supposedly
necessary
Attempts
conditions of technical practice have an ancient history. A pivotal theme in the
Republic is Plato's quest to borrow the authority of techn? and employ it by analo
the illus
gy to buttress his argument in favor of authority in the state. Among
is that of a ship on the high seas. Because large
trations he chooses, like Engels,
nature need to be steered with a firm hand, sailors
sailing vessels by their very
must yield to their captain's commands; no reasonable person believes that ships
a state is
can be run democratically.
Plato goes on to suggest that governing
as a physician.
rather like being captain of a ship or like practicing medicine
Much
same
the
nized
technical
that
conditions
activity
require
create
this
also
central
need
rule
in
and
decisive
action
in orga
government.
argument, and arguments like it, the justification for authority is
to
no
longer made by Plato's classic analogy, but rather directly with reference
as
as Engels believed
to
case
If
it
basic
is
itself.
the
be,
technology
compelling
one would expect that, as a society adopted increasingly complicated
technical
systems as its material basis, the prospects for authoritarian ways of life would
In Engels's
be greatly enhanced. Central control by knowledgeable
people acting at the top
In this respect, his
of a rigid social hierarchy would seem increasingly prudent.
stand in "On Authority"
appears to be at variance with Karl Marx's position in
will
Volume One of Capital. Marx tries to show that increasing mechanization
render obsolete
dination
that,
manufacturing.
the hierarchical division of labor and the relationships of subor
in his view, were necessary during the early stages of modern
The
"Modern
Industry,"
he
writes,
"...
sweeps
away
by
technical means the manufacturing
division of labor, under which each man is
bound hand and foot for life to a single detail operation. At the same time, the
this same division of labour in a
capitalistic form of that industry reproduces
in
still more monstrous
the
the workman
shape;
factory proper, by converting
into
a
living
appendage
of
the machine.
. . ."21 In Marx's
view,
the
conditions
130
WINNER
LANGDON
that will
eventually dissolve the capitalist division of labor and facilitate prole
tarian revolution are conditions
latent in industrial technology
itself. The dif
in Capital and Engels's
in his essay raise an
ferences between Marx's position
after all, does modern
important question for socialism: What,
technology make
or
we
see here mir
in
tension
life?
The
theoretical
necessary
possible
political
rors many troubles in the practice of freedom and authority that have muddied
the tracks of socialist revolution.
to the effect that
Arguments
technologies
cal have
been
In my
here.
in a wide
advanced
of
reading
such
of
variety
notions,
are in some sense
inherently
far
contexts,
there
however,
too
politi
to summarize
many
are
two
basic
of
ways
case. One version claims that the adoption of a
stating the
given technical sys
tem actually requires the creation and maintenance
of a particular set of social
conditions as the operating environment
of that system. Engels's position
is of
this kind. A similar view is offered by a contemporary writer who holds that "if
you
nuclear
accept
power
also
you
plants,
a techno-scientific-industrial
accept
in charge, you could not have nuclear
elite. Without
these people
military
some kinds of
power."29 In this conception,
require their social en
technology
to
vironments
in
structured
be
a
in much
way
particular
same
the
sense
that
an automobile
in order to run. The thing could not exist as an
requires wheels
as well as material
effective operating
conditions
entity unless certain social
were met. The meaning of "required" here is that of practical (rather than logi
cal) necessity. Thus, Plato thought it a practical necessity that a ship at sea have
one captain and an
obedient crew.
unquestioningly
A second, somewhat weaker,
version of the argument holds that a given
kind of technology
is strongly compatible with, but does not strictly require,
of a particular stripe. Many
social and political relationships
advocates of solar
are
now
more
that
hold
that
of
energy
variety
compatible with a
technologies
democratic,
clear
power;
energy
society
egalitarian
same
at the
time
requires
than
they
case
Their
democracy.
energy
do not
systems
that
maintain
that
is, briefly,
on
based
coal,
oil,
about
anything
solar
nu
and
solar
is decentral
energy
a technical and political sense: technically
it is vastly
speaking,
izing in both
more reasonable to build solar systems in a disaggregated,
widely distributed
manner than in
centralized
plants; politically
speaking, solar energy
large-scale
to manage
and local communities
accommodates
the attempts of individuals
are
are more
with
that
because they
their affairs effectively
systems
dealing
sources. In
than huge centralized
and controllable
accessible,
comprehensible,
this view, solar energy is desirable not only for its economic and environmental
it is likely to permit in other areas
benefits, but also for the salutary institutions
of public life.23
to be
there is a further distinction
Within
both versions of the argument
a
are
to
of
the workings
that
internal
made between conditions
given technical
concerns
are
to
internal social
it.
thesis
and
that
external
those
system
Engels's
relations said to be required within cotton factories and railways, for example;
what such relationships mean for the condition of society at large is for him a
separate
are
compatible
society
In contrast,
question.
removed
with
from
democracy
the
the
solar
pertains
organization
advocate's
belief
to the way
of
those
that
solar
technologies
they complement
technologies
as
aspects of
such.
are, then, several different directions that arguments of this kind can
follow. Are the social conditions predicated
said to be required by, or strongly
There
DO
HAVE
ARTIFACTS
131
POLITICS?
compatible with, the workings of a given technical system? Are those conditions
internal to that system or external to it (or both)? Although writings that address
such questions are often unclear about what is being asserted, arguments in this
an important presence
in modern political discourse.
general category do have
They enter into many attempts to explain how changes in social life take place
in the wake of technological
innovation. More
they are often used
importantly,
to buttress attempts to justify or criticize proposed courses of action
involving
new
or
reasons
for
the
technology. By offering distinctly political
adop
against
tion of a particular technology,
arguments of this kind stand apart from more
commonly employed, more easily quantifiable claims about economic costs and
benefits, environmental
impacts, and possible risks to public health and safety
that technical systems may involve. The issue here does not concern how many
jobs will be created, how much income generated, how many pollutants added,
or how many cancers
produced. Rather, the issue has to do with ways in which
choices about technology have important consequences
for the form and quality
of
human
associations.
If we
examine social patterns that comprise the environments
of technical
we
to specific
find
certain
devices
and
almost
linked
systems,
systems
invariably
of
is: Does this
ways
organizing power and authority. The important question
state of affairs derive from an unavoidable
social response to intractable proper
ties in the things themselves, or is it instead a pattern imposed independently
by
a
governing body, ruling class, or some other social or cultural institution to
further its own purposes?
most obvious example, the atom bomb is an
Taking the
inherently political
artifact. As long as it exists at all, its lethal properties demand that it be con
trolled by a centralized,
chain of command
closed to all
rigidly hierarchical
influences that might make its workings unpredictable.
The internal social sys
tem of the bomb must be authoritarian;
no
there is
other way. The state of
affairs stands as a practical necessity
of
any larger political system
independent
in which the bomb is embedded,
independent of the kind of regime or character
of
its rulers.
structures
social
states
democratic
Indeed,
and
must
that
mentality
to find
try
the
characterize
to ensure
ways
that
of
management
the
nuclear
weapons do not "spin off' or "spill over" into the polity as a whole.
The bomb is, of course, a special case. The reasons very rigid relationships
of
are
authority
in its
necessary
immediate
should
presence
be
clear
to
anyone.
If, however, we look for other instances in which particular varieties of tech
of a special pattern of power
nology are widely perceived to need the maintenance
and authority, modern
technical history contains a wealth of examples.
a monumental
in The Visible Hand,
Alfred D. Chandler
study of modern
to defend the hypothe
business enterprise, presents impressive documentation
sis
that
tion,
the
transportation,
centuries
tralized,
Typical
construction
require
the
hierarchical
of Chandler's
and
and
day-to-day
of
development
organization
reasoning
made
possible
Technology
liable movement
of goods
and
of locomotives,
repair
a
administered
is his analysis
stock,
systems
in the nineteenth
particular
fast, all-weather
and passengers,
rolling
of many
operation
communication
social
form?a
of
produc
twentieth
large-scale
cen
skilled managers.
by highly
of the growth of the railroads.
transportation;
as the
as well
and
and
track,
but
safe,
regular,
maintenance
continuing
stations,
roadbed,
round
re
132
WINNER
LANGDON
of a sizable
the creation
administrative
equipment,
required
to
It meant
of a set of managers
the employment
these
supervise
over an extensive
activities
of an
area; and the appointment
geographical
to monitor,
administrative
command
and
of middle
and top executives
evaluate,
and
houses,
other
organization.
functional
the work
coordinate
of managers
for
responsible
the
day-to-day
operations.
his book Chandler points to ways inwhich technologies used in the
of electricity,
chemicals, and a wide range of indus
production and distribution
trial goods "demanded" or "required" this form of human association.
"Hence,
of
railroads
demanded
the
creation
of
the first
the operational
requirements
Throughout
administrative
in American
hierarchies
business."25
ways of organizing these aggregates of people
and apparatus? Chandler
shows that a previously
dominant
social form, the
small traditional family firm, simply could not handle the task in most cases.
he does not speculate further, it is clear that he believes there is, to be
Although
realistic, very little latitude in the forms of power and authority appropriate
tech
within modern
sociotechnical
systems. The properties of many modern
over
such
that
and
for
refineries,
example?are
nologies?oil
pipelines
If such
and
of
economies
scale
speed are possible.
impressive
whelmingly
are
to
and
certain
work
systems
safely,
effectively,
efficiently, quickly,
require
ments of internal social organization
have to be fulfilled; the material possi
available
could not be exploited
bilities
make
that modern
technologies
as one compares sociotechnical
institu
that
otherwise. Chandler
acknowledges
sees
one
in
which
cultural
tions of different nations,
attitudes, values,
"ways
structure
and
affect
these
social
systems,
imperatives."26
ideologies, political
Were
there other conceivable
But the weight of argument and empirical evidence in The Visible Hand suggests
that any significant departure from the basic pattern would be, at best, highly
unlikely.
It may
example,
prove
be
that
of
capable
other
of
those
of
arrangements
worker
democratic
conceivable
decentralized,
factories,
administering
refineries,
in
and
Yugoslavia
other
countries
is often
for
authority,
could
self-management,
communications
and railroads as well as or better than the organizations
teams in Sweden
from automobile
Evidence
assembly
plants
and
power
systems,
describes.
Chandler
and worker-managed
to
presented
these
salvage
pos
over this matter here, but
I shall not be able to settle controversies
to
to
I
be
bone
of
contention. The available
consider
their
what
merely point
to
that
show
evidence tends
many large, sophisticated
systems are
technological
control. The
in fact highly compatible with centralized, hierarchical managerial
or
not
to
this
do
with
whether
has
pattern is in
interesting question, however,
sibilities.
sense
any
a
of
requirement
such
systems,
a
rests on our judgments
cal one. The matter ultimately
are practically necessary
in the workings
of particular
if
what,
such
anything,
measures
require
of
the
is not
that
question
an
solely
empiri
steps, if any,
and
kinds of technology
about what
structure
of human
associations.
Was Plato right in saying that a ship at sea needs steering by a decisive hand and
an obedient crew?
that this could only be accomplished
by a single captain and
correct
in
the
of
that
Is Chandler
large-scale systems require
saying
properties
control?
hierarchical managerial
centralized,
To
moral
answer
such
questions,
claims of practical
we
necessity
w7ould
(including
have
to
examine
those advocated
in
some
detail
in the doctrines
the
of
DO
HAVE
ARTIFACTS
133
POLITICS?
economics) and weigh them against moral claims of other sorts, for example, the
in the command of a ship or that
notion that it is good for sailors to participate
a
to
in a
workers have
be involved in making and administering
decisions
right
of societies based on large, complex technological
factory. It is characteristic
that
however,
systems,
reasons
moral
other
than
those
of
necessity
practical
claims one
"idealistic," and irrelevant. Whatever
appear increasingly obsolete,
may wish to make on behalf of liberty, justice, or equality can be immediately
neutralized when confronted with arguments to the effect: "Fine, but that's no
way
to run
a railroad"
(or
steel
or
mill,
or
airline,
communications
and
system,
so on). Here we encounter an important
quality in modern political discourse
are justified in
think about what measures
and in the way people commonly
response to the possibilities
technologies make available. In many instances, to
are inherently political is to say that certain widely
say that some technologies
reasons
of
the need to maintain
crucial
accepted
practical necessity?especially
entities?have
tended to eclipse
systems as smoothly working
technological
other sorts of moral and political reasoning.
One attempt to salvage the autonomy of politics from the bind of practical
involves the notion that conditions of human association found in the
necessity
of technological
internal workings
systems can easily be kept separate from the
a
as
whole.
Americans
have
polity
long rested content in the belief that arrange
ments of power and authority
inside industrial corporations,
public utilities,
and the like have little bearing on public institutions,
and ideas at
practices,
was
as
a
at
That
the
taken
fact of life that
stops
large.
"democracy
factory gates"
had nothing to do with the practice of political freedom. But can the internal
and the politics of the whole community
be so easily
politics of technology
recent
ex
A
business
leaders, contemporary
separated?
study of American
"visible hand of management,"
found them remarkably
emplars of Chandler's
with
impatient
such
democratic
as
scruples
"one
one
man,
vote."
If
democracy
for the firm, the most critical institution in all of society, American
of a
ask, how well can it be expected to work for the government
doesn't work
executives
when
nation?particularly
that
attempts
government
to
with
interfere
the
achievements
of the firm? The authors of the report observe that patterns of
in the corporation become for businessmen
"the
authority that work effectively
desirable model against which to compare political and economic relationships
in the rest of society."27 While
such findings are far from conclusive,
they do
common
reflect a sentiment
in the land: what dilemmas
like the
increasingly
a
not
or
crisis
is
of
redistribution
wealth
broader
energy
require
public partici
pation
but,
rather,
stronger,
centralized
public
Carter's
management?President
proposal for an Energy Mobilization
An especially vivid case in which
Board and the like.
the operational requirements of a technical
system might influence the quality of public life is now at issue in debates about
the risks of nuclear power. As the supply of uranium for nuclear reactors runs
as a
in
out, a proposed alternative fuel is the plutonium
generated
by-product
reactor
cores.
economic
ceptable
gers
these
Well-known
in regard
concerns,
ards?those
objections
its risks
of
costs,
to the
international
however,
that involve
stands
to
plutonium
environmental
proliferation
another
less
the sacrifice of civil
focus
recycling
contamination,
of nuclear
widely
and
weapons.
appreciated
liberties. The
on
its unac
its dan
Beyond
set
widespread
of
haz
use of
134
WINNER
LANGDON
as a fuel increases the chance that this toxic substance
plutonium
might be sto
len by terrorists, organized crime, or other persons. This raises the prospect,
and not a trivial one, that extraordinary measures would have to be taken to
from theft and to recover it if ever the substance were
safeguard plutonium
as
in the nuclear
stolen. Workers
industry as well
ordinary citizens outside
to
could well become subject
security checks, covert surveillance,
background
wiretapping,
and
informers,
even
emergency
measures
under
martial
law?all
justified by the need to safeguard plutonium.
Russell W. Ayres's
recycling
study of the legal ramifications of plutonium
concludes: "With the passage of time and the increase in the quantity of pluto
to eliminate
the traditional checks the
nium in existence will come pressure
on
courts and legislatures place
the activities of the executive and to develop a
to enforce strict safeguards." He avers
powerful central authority better able
that "once a quantity of plutonium had been stolen, the case for literally turning
the country upside down to get it back would be overwhelming."31
Ayres antic
I
have
of
the
kinds
about
and
worries
that,
thinking
argued, characterize
ipates
true that, in a world in which human
It
is
still
inherently political technologies.
is "required" in an absolute
beings make and maintain artificial systems, nothing
sense.
Nevertheless,
once
a course
of
action
is
underway,
once
artifacts
like
the kinds of reason
nuclear power plants have been built and put in operation,
of social life to technical requirements
pop up as
ing that justify the adaptation
"Once recycling be
as flowers in the spring. In Ayres's words,
spontaneously
the
than
real
rather
theft
become
hypothetical,
gins and the risks of plutonium
will seem compelling."28
case for
infringement of protected rights
governmental
and im
After a certain point, those who cannot accept the hard requirements
as
dreamers and fools.
peratives will be dismissed
*
*
*
I have outlined indicate how artifacts can
The two varieties of interpretation
in which specific
In the first instance we noticed ways
have political qualities.
or
a
or
of
features in the design
device
system could provide a
arrangement
in a given
convenient means of establishing
patterns of power and authority
a range of flexibility
in
of
the
dimensions
of
this
kind
have
setting. Technologies
form. It is precisely
because they are flexible
that their con
their material
to
must
actors able
be
with
for
understood
reference
the
social
sequences
society
are chosen. In the second instance
to influence which designs and arrangements
we examined ways in which the intractable properties of certain kinds of tech
are
linked to particular
institutionalized
nology
strongly, perhaps unavoidably,
of
and
initial
about
the
choice
whether or not
power
patterns
authority. Here,
to adopt something
There are no alter
is decisive in regard to its consequences.
or arrangements
a
that
native physical
make
would
significant dif
designs
no
for
creative
intervention
there
are, furthermore,
ference;
genuine possibilities
or socialist?that
could change the intrac
by different social systems?capitalist
or
alter
of
its political effects.
of
the
the
entity
tability
quality
significantly
is applicable in a given case is often
To know which variety of interpretation
some of them passionate ones, about the meaning of
what is at stake in disputes,
for how we live. I have argued a "both/and" position here, for it
technology
DO
ARTIFACTS
HAVE
135
POLITICS?
are applicable in different circum
that both kinds of understanding
a
Indeed, it can happen that within
particular complex of technology?
seems to me
stances.
a
of
system
or
communication
for
transportation,
aspects
example?some
may
in their possibilities
for society, while other aspects may be (for
be flexible
I
intractable. The two varieties of interpretation
better or worse) completely
have
examined
here
can
overlap
and
at
intersect
many
points.
some
issues on which people can disagree. Thus,
These
are, of course,
of energy from renewable resources now believe they have at last
proponents
a set of
communitarian
tech
discovered
intrinsically democratic,
egalitarian,
the
social
In
of
build
best
however,
estimation,
consequences
my
nologies.
on
will
renewable
the
energy systems
ing
surely depend
specific configurations
of both hardware and the social institutions created to bring that energy to us. It
may be that we will find ways to turn this silk purse into a sow's ear. By com
of nuclear power seem to believe
parison, advocates of the further development
that they are working on a rather flexible technology whose adverse social ef
fects can be fixed by changing the design parameters of reactors and nuclear
waste disposal systems. For reasons indicated above, I believe them to be dead
wrong in that faith. Yes, we may be able to manage some of the "risks" to public
health and safety that nuclear power brings. But as society adapts to the more
indelible features of nuclear power, what will be the
dangerous and apparently
in
toll
human
freedom?
long-range
My belief that we ought to attend more closely to technical objects them
selves is not to say that we can ignore the contexts in which
those objects are
situated. A ship at sea may well require, as Plato and Engels insisted, a
single
captain and obedient crew. But a ship out of service, parked at the dock, needs
a caretaker. To understand which
and which contexts are
only
technologies
an
to
must
and
is
that
involve
both the study of
us,
important
why,
enterprise
as
as
a
technical
and
their
well
systems
specific
history
thorough grasp of the
of political theory. In our times people are often
concepts and controversies
willing to make drastic changes in the way they live to accord with technological
innovation at the same time they would resist similar kinds of changes justified
on political
If for no other reason than that, it is important for us to
grounds.
achieve
a clearer
view
of
these
matters
than
has
been
our
habit
so
far.
References
ll would
like to thank Merritt
Roe Smith,
Leo Marx,
David Noble,
Charles
James Miller,
Loren Graham,
Gail Stuart, Dick Sclove,
and Stephen Graubard
for their
Weiner,
Sherry Turkle,
comments
on earlier drafts of this essay.
and criticisms
thanks also to Doris Morrison
of the
My
of California,
for her
Agriculture
Library of the University
Berkeley,
bibliographical
help.
2Lewis Mumford,
"Authoritarian
and Democratic
5 (1964):
Technics,"
Technology and Culture,
1-8.
3
Denis Hayes,
Rays ofHope: The Transition to a Post-Petroleum World (New York: W. W. Norton,
1977), pp. 71, 159.
4David Lilienthal,
T. V.A.:
on theMarch
and Brothers,
(New York: Harper
1944), pp.
Democracy
72-83.
5Daniel J. Boorstin,
The Republic of
& Row,
1978), p. 7.
Technology (New York: Harper
as a Theme in Political
Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control
6Langdon Winner,
Thought
1977).
Press,
(Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.
7The meaning
of
I employ
in this essay does not encompass
some of the broader
"technology"
definitions
ofthat
found in contemporary
for example,
the notion of "technique"
literature,
concept
136
LANGDON WINNER
in the
of Jacques Ellul. My purposes
here are more
limited. For a discussion
of the diffi
writings
to define
see Ref. 6, pp. 8-12.
that arise in attempts
"technology,"
8Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York (New York: Random
1974), pp. 318, 481, 514, 546, 951-958.
House,
9Ibid., p. 952.
10Robert Ozanne,
A Century of Labor-Management
Relations atMcCormick
and International Harvest
er (Madison, Wis.:
of Wisconsin
Press,
1967), p. 20.
University
11
The
of the tomato harvester
is told in Wayne
D. Rasmussen,
"Advances
in
early history
as a Case
American
The Mechanical
Tomato Harvester
Agriculture:
Study," Technology and Culture,
531-543.
9(1968):
12Andrew Schmitz
and David
"Mechanized
and Social Welfare:
The Case
Seckler,
Agriculture
of the Tomato
American Journal of Agricultural
52 (1970): 569-577.
Harvester,"
Economics,
13William H. Friedland
and Amy Barton,
"Tomato Technology,"
13:6
Society,
(September/Oc
tober 1976). See also William
H. Friedland,
Social Sleepwalkers: Scientific and
Technological Research in
of California,
of Applied
Behavioral
Davis, Department
Sciences,
California Agriculture,
University
No.
Research Monograph
13, 1974.
culties
1, 1979.
of California Clip Sheet, 54:36, May
and Barton,
"Tomato Technology."
and critical analysis
of agricultural
research
in the land-grant
is given
in
colleges
Hard
Hard
Times
Mass.:
Schenkman,
1978).
Tomatoes,
James Hightower,
(Cambridge,
17David Noble,
inMachine
"Social Choice
The Case of Automatically
Controlled
Ma
Design:
in Case Studies in the Labor Process (New York: Monthly
chine Tools,"
Review
Press, forthcoming).
18Friedrich Engels,
"On Authority"
in The Marx-Engels
(ed.)
Reader, 2nd ed., Robert Tucker
(New York: W. W. Norton,
1978), p. 731.
14University
15Friedland
16A history
"Ibid.
20Ibid., pp. 732, 731.
21Karl Marx,
vol. 1, 3rd ed., Samuel Moore
and Edward Aveling
(trans.) (New York:
Capital,
530.
The Modern
1906),
p.
Library,
Four Arguments for the Elimination
(New York: William
Morrow,
of Television
22Jerry Mander,
1978), p. 44.
The Sun Builders: A
Barbara Emanuel,
and Stephen Graham,
23See, for example, Robert Argue,
to Solar, Wind and Wood Energy
Guide
in
Canada
Renewable
in Canada,
(Toronto:
People's
Energy
is an implicit component
of renewable
this implies the
1978). "We think decentralization
energy;
decentralization
of energy systems,
communities
and of power. Renewable
energy doesn't
require
sources of
Our cities and towns, which
mammoth
transmission
corridors.
disruptive
generation
on centralized
have been dependent
energy supplies, may be able to achieve some degree of auton
their own energy needs"
and administering
omy, thereby controlling
(p. 16).
in American Business (Cam
Revolution
24Alfred D. Chandler,
Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial
Press,
1977), p. 244.
Belknap, Harvard
University
bridge, Mass.:
2sIbid.
26Ibid., p. 500.
27Leonard Silk
(New York: Simon
Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business
and David Vogel,
and Schuster,
1976), p. 191.
The Civil Liberties
28Russel W. Ayres,
Fallout," Harvard Civil Rights-Civil
"Policing Plutonium:
374.
10 (1975):443,
Liberties Law Review,
413-4,