Representation and Power STEVEN LUBAR The problem of descending from the world of thoughts to the actual world is turned into the prob lem of descending from language to life. [Marx and Engels, The German Ideology} No ideas but in things. [William Carlos Williams] In 1492 Elio Antonio de Nebrija approached Queen Isabella of Spain to ask for her support for the first grammar of the Castilian language. Ivan Illich tells the story: “But unlike the request of Colum bus, who wanted resources to establish a new route to the China of Marco Polo, [the request] of Nebrija urges the Queen to invade a new domain at home. He offers Isabella a tool to colonize the lan guage spoken by her own subjects; he wants her to replace the peo ple’s speech by the imposition of the queen’s lengua—her language, her tongue.” Nebrija’s argument went thus: “My illustrious Queen. Whenever I ponder over the tokens of the past that have been pre served in writing, I am forced to the very same conclusion. Language has always been the consort of empire, and forever shall remain its mate. Together, they come into being, together they grow and flower, and together they decline.” Without a grammar, Nebrija continued, the people’s unbound and ungoverned speech was a challenge to the crown. Grammar would impose rules on speech and writing and thus help bring the people’s thoughts under the control of central au thority.1 Just as grammars were the consort of modern empire, so, I will argue in this article, are technological representations the consort of modern technological bureaucracy. By technological representations Dr. Lubar, curator at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History, is spending this year as visiting professor in the Department of History and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania. He thanks Jack Brown, Joe Corn, Robert Friedel, Nina Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, Susan Smulyan, Carlene Stephens, Deb orah Warner, and a Technology and Culture referee for their comments on this article. 'Ivan Illich, Shadow Work (Boston, 1981), p. 34.© 1995 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved. 0040-165X/95/3602-0010$01.00 S54 Representation and Power S55 I mean the plans, blueprints, gauges, rulebooks, instruction manuals, and models—the marks on paper, wood, and steel—that describe and abstract technology. Technological representations, I argue, make it easier to bring technological actions under the control of authority. Thus, technological representations allow and encourage the situat ing of technological knowledge into a managerial context. With the rise of industrial capitalism, technological representations became es sential to the control of work. They bound together the engineers, managers, and workers of industrial society. They made possible technological systems, the coordinated use of technology by groups of people. New ways of creating, manipulating, and enforcing the use of technological representations played a vital role in modern technology’s enormous cultural and economic success. Historiography These representations are also enormously useful to the historian, for they are an expression of the social nature of technological knowl edge, an expression of the social relations of technology that are a necessary infrastructure for industrial society. This article uses these aspects of technological representation to draw together two major themes in the recent historiography of technology, technology as vi sual thinking and technology as social process. The insight that technology is a form of knowledge and, more particularly, that it is a very special sort of knowledge based on a unique, three-dimensional, visual thought, is the central concept in the visual-thinking historiographic theme. In the history of technol ogy, this idea goes back at least to Sigfried Giedion, who suggested the importance of the “graphical representation of movement”; it goes back much further among practitioners of technology, of course.2 It was encouraged by scientific work on left- and right-brain specialization in the 1970s. The seminal modern writings are Eugene Ferguson’s “The Mind’s Eye” (1977) and Brooke Hindle’s Emulation 2Sigfried Giedion, Mechanization Takes Command: A Contribution to Anonymous History (1948; reprint, New York, 1969), p. 16. For an indication of the value that engineers and technologists placed on graphic representation...
Read full abstract