technology and culture Book Reviews 699 could have been used as a standard to evaluate some of the lesser contributions on radar that were included. Second, comments concerning the 20 percent of the entries in foreign languages. Some Russian-language entries have annotations that fall below the standards so well demonstrated everywhere else. Some are just translations of the title or are limited to such laconic comment as “Kostenko was an electrical engineer” (entry 165). There are bad translations, when for instance, Litve is rendered as Latvia rather than Lithuania (entry 458). The name of the Spanish engineer Leonardo Torres y Quevedo is consistently transformed to Quevado. A larger proportion of the foreign entries have annotations limited to “not seen,” which may be excusable if the material is not easily accessible. What is less tolerable is to see the same label on a number of entries in English, especially doctoral dissertations located in the United States or Britain. Finally, stricter editorial control might have prevented minor glitches from slipping through. My copy of E. Scott Barr’s An Index to Biographical Fragments in Unspecialized Scientific Journals was published in 1973 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press) rather than 1974 as stated (entry 59). There are also several typographical errors. But these deficiencies are minor and detract little from an otherwise excellent contribution. Perhaps there is room for a similar annotated bibliography covering foreign languages only. Romualdas Sviedrys Dr. Sviedrys teaches courses in technology transfer to developing countries and technology forecasting to engineering students at Polytechnic University. Steinmetz: Engineer and Socialist. By Ronald R. Kline. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Pp. xii + 401; illustrations, notes, appendix, bibliography, index. $39.95. Early in this century Charles Proteus Steinmetz (1865—1923) gained fame not only among electrical engineers but also among the general public as a scientist, a socialist, and an electrical “wizard.” In this well-researched biography, Ronald R. Kline emphasizes his con tributions to engineering, his conception of socialism, and his place as cultural hero. Born in Breslau, Germany (now Wroclaw, Poland), Steinmetz studied mathematics and physics at the local university and joined a student Socialist group. Threatened with arrest under the antiSocialist laws, he fled to Zurich and, in 1888, emigrated to the United States, at a moment when electrical development was opening oppor tunities for entrepreneurs and engineers. With theoretical training far beyond that of American “electricians,” he gained experience in a small manufacturing firm and began “the fruitful interaction between 700 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE theory and practice that characterized his career” (p. 36). A paper on magnetic hysteresis and, in 1893, what Kline considers “his most lasting contribution to electrical engineering, the method of analyzing AC circuits with complex numbers” (p. 77), brought him professional recognition. The General Electric Company established him in Schenec tady, New York, with his own laboratory. While obtaining numerous patents for GE, he wrote textbooks, led the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, taught at Union College, and became celebrated as a “modern Jove,” a dwarfed hunchback who commanded vast forces of nature. Steinmetz joined the Socialist municipal administration of Schenec tady, elected in 1911, and initiated improvements in parks and schools. He articulated his views to nontechnical groups and in popular magazines, as well as in the book America and the New Epoch (Harper, 1916). In 1922, although his party had fragmented, he ran as a Socialist for New York State Engineer. The comrades of his youth might not have recognized his evolu tionary and technocratic vision of socialism. The operation of socio economic laws, he believed, would lead to the institution of a govern ment modeled on the modern corporation. Universal electric power would replace human toil. Holding office by virtue of effective performance, the economic managers would be constrained only by an elected “tribuniciate” with veto power. As Kline remarks, “Stein metz’s favored position at GE led to an optimism unlikely to be shared by most corporation employees” (p. 230). Comparing Steinmetz’s social theory to the concept of “corporate liberalism” currently explored by scholars, Kline finds that it “com bined the politics of his youth with his enthusiasm for the business corporation to produce ... a corporate socialism...
Read full abstract
Dec 30, 2021
Nashwan Al-Emad + 1
Open Access
