Lewis Mumford and the Organicist Concept in Social

Lewis Mumford and the Organicist Concept in Social Thought
Author(s): Robert Casillo
Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1992), pp. 91-116
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709912 .
Accessed: 18/10/2014 10:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
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].
.
University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Lewis Mumfordand the
OrganicistConcept in
Social Thought
RobertCasillo
exponentsof social organitwentieth-century
One of thebest-known
strandsoforganicism,Lewis Mumfordhas wovenmanyofthesturdiest
cist thought-classical,medieval,and modem-into a complexwhole.
Throughouthis careerhe has emphasizedthe importanceof the family
and neighborhoodas indispensablecomponentsof a genuinelyorganic
social life.At the same timehis visionof the ideal societyembracesa
notonlywithitsnaturalenvironment
balancedor "organic"relationship
butalso withitsmaterialand technological
apparatus.To speakinbroader
terms,Mumfordhas soughtto definea versionof social organicism
a diverwhich-by allowingforindividual,local,and regionalautonomy,
of
and thepossibility historicaldevelopmentinterests,
sityofcompeting
and liberalsagainstsocial
escapesthechargeoftenlevelledbybothleftists
thatis, thatit assumesthe priorityof the collective
organicistthinking:
to a falselynormative
totality
overtheindividualand thusleadsinevitably
and
a
static,
characterizedby a centralizedauthoritariangovernment
or fascistreaction.Genhierarchical
organization-inshort,conservative
erally,Mumfordhas avoided the familiarpitfallsof social organicist
thought,in large part by subjectinghis own theoriesto criticismand
revision.If anything,the greatestchallengeto his social theorycame
in the 1950s and 1960s,withthe unparalleledexplosionof the chaotic
megalopolisand above all with the emergenceof what Jacques Ellul
has termedthe dominanceof techniqueor the "technologicalsociety."
and to
Techniquethreatensat once to replacethe organicenvironment
sacrificethelastvestigesofindividualand local autonomyto theimperativesof technologicaladaptation.Under such conditionsthe veryterms
' For theMarxistrejectionof organicismas implyingthepriority
of thesocial whole
of a Conceptfrom
to the part,see MartinJay,Marxismand Totality:The Adventures
Lukacs toHabermas(Berkeley,1984),27; Karl Popper'sliberalcritiqueof organicismis
discussedlaterin thispaper.
91
Copyright 1992 by JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS, INC.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
92
by whichMumforddefinesthe organicsocietywould seem to have lost
theirbasis in social reality.
sourcesofMumford'sorganicismare in
Some ofthemaintheoretical
as Coleridge,Ruskin,Morris,and,notleast,Hegel.
suchRomanticwriters
whole
For Hegel,as forMumford,Natureand realityforman integrated
this
are
essential
Yet
far
from
which
man
and
whole,
society
parts.
within
and pulseswithinner
beingseamlessor static,permitstensionand conflict
Not onlydoes Mumfordapproveofthe"originalHegelian
development.2
conceptionof the organicunityof naturaland social processes,in their
and transformation,"
he acceptsHegel's idealiscontinuousdevelopment
tic emphasison the role of consciousnessand ideologyin historicalproofmaterialconditionsin
cess. Althoughhe acknowledgestheimportance
societyand culture,Mumfordassertsthe relativeautonomyof man's
and so rejectsas inorganic(hencemechanis"idolum"orWeltanschauung
tic) the vulgarMarxistview that ideas, values, and aestheticsymbols
merelyreflector conceal materialfactors.3
revolutionin the naturalsciencesfurnishes
The nineteenth-century
the most immediatesource of Mumford'sorganicism.Writingin the
wake of Darwin and greatlyinfluencedby PatrickGeddes,the Scottish
biologist,sociologist,and urbanplanner,MumforddeniesthatNatureis
a staticNewtonianmechanism,a mathematically
predictableaggregate
of isolatedentities.Rather,macrocosmicand microcosmicNature emthe rule thatan organicwholeis
body what Geddes definesas synergy,
thinkof Nature,
more than the sum of its parts. One must therefore
minor
naturalentities,and indeedall of realityin termsof interacting
wholeswithinthewhole.But whileMumfordembracesDarwin'sviewof
Nature as an "ecology" or "web of life,"he cannotcompletelyaccept
of evolutionas competitive,
and
deterministic,
Darwin's interpretation
manifoldcooperarandom.Naturerevealscomplicatedinterdependences,
tions,and immanentpurpose.Natural formsgenerallyevolve to ever
hencegreatercooperation.
and integration,
higherlevelsofdifferentiation
to
offormative
energies,thecosmostestifies
Pervadedby a "superfluity"
an emergingorderand designwherebyfreedomcomplements
necessity,
and purposesupervenesupon chance.4
This designis neitherclosednorstatic,fornatureconstitutes
an open
(or at leastperiodically)to achieve
systemwhoseelementstendinherently
science,
"dynamicequilibrium."Originatingin late nineteenth-century
the conceptof dynamicequilibriumis foundedon a radicaldissociation
2 David F. Bowers,"Hegel, Darwin,and theAmericanTradition,"David F. Bowers
(ed.), ForeignInfluencesin AmericanLife (Princeton,1944), 152-56.
3Lewis Mumford,The Conductof Life (New York, 1951), 224-25; Mumford,The
ConditionofMan (New York, 1944), 8.
4 Mumford,
The Cultureof Cities(New York, 1938),302; Mumford,My Worksand
Days: A PersonalChronicle(New York, 1979), 189,361; Mumford,The Conduct,22-36.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
93
LewisMumford
betweenthe growthof livingorganismsand the mere"staticalequilibrium" of non-livingmatter.In the 1920s and 1930s the conceptwas
whomMumfordadmires,amongthem
developedbya numberofthinkers
the biologistWalterCannon, who describedthe body as ever seeking
Cannon'scolleagueat Harhomeostasis,
an internaldynamicequilibrium.
betweenphysicalsystems,
vard, LawrenceJ. Henderson,distinguished
which are staticand closed, and organic,open ones, which achieve a
ininteracting
Henderson
withtheirenvironments.
"dynamicequilibrium"
did not confinethisconceptto biologybut used it as Mumforddoes to
describethe "normative"stateof any social system.5
fromtherebellionagainstpositivBornin 1895,Mumfordbenefitted
ismin everymajordiscipline.In The GoldenDay (1926) he celebratesthe
of the
organicistconceptsthat had challengedthe "naive externalities
older physics."Whitehead'sholisticdescriptionof realityin termsof
alertedMumfordto thelimitations
"organic"interrelations
ever-altering
Summarizofmechanismwithitsstatic,quantifying,
isolatingabstraction.
ingtheBritishbiologistC. Lloyd Morgan'sconceptof "emergentevoluof a new factordoes not
tion," Mumfordnotes thatthe "introduction
just add to the existingmass, but producesan over-allchange,a new
whichaltersits properties.Propertiesthat could not be
configuration,
recognized in the pre-emergentstage
..
. then for the firsttime become
visible."6Mumfordis indebtedas well to the American"revoltagainst
led byJohnDewey,ThorsteinVeblen,CharlesBeard,James
formalism,"
all,
HarveyRobinson,and Oliver WendellHolmes, Jr.Anti-positivists
empirical,causal,and factualmethods
thesewriters
rejectedsimplistically
in favorofhistoricalmethod,culturalorganicism,
and an anti-formalistic
information.7
quest forinterdisciplinary
Mumford'ssocial organicismin somewaysresemblesHegel's concept
ofdifferentioftotality.
For Hegel,totality
impliedneitherthesuppression
as in Schelling,nora homogenousaggregate,
ationforthesakeofidentity,
as in a mass society,but ratherwhat MartinJayterms"hierarchically
juxtaposed" totalities.The movementof the
linked" and "horizontally
social whole,accordingto Jay,is generatedthroughthe contradictory
of various"subtotalities,"
whoserelationbecomesevermore
interaction
Like Mumford,
complexas theprocessadvancesto everhighersyntheses.
on
for
Hegel despisedabstractholismand insisted theneed "intermediate
on all levelsas opposed
and forconstantinteraction
[social]articulation"
to the suppressionof some partsin favorof others.AlthoughHegel is
I
C. E. Russett,The ConceptofEquilibriuminAmericanSocial Thought(New Haven,
434.
1966), 19, 117, 122-24;Mumford,The Conduct,32, 301; Mumford,The Condition,
6 Mumford,
TheGoldenDay (New York, 1957),113;Mumford,Technicsand Civilization(New York, 1934), 368-69;Mumford,The Cityin History(New York, 1961),29.
7Morton White,Social Thoughtin America: The RevoltAgainstFormalism(New
York, 1949), 12, 20, 23, 25, 27.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
94
thepartsof
he conceivedofthestateas expressing
rightly
deemeda statist,
society,notcancellingthem.8NonethelessHegel's systemraisedpolitical
problemswhichMumfordlike otherAmericansocial theoristshad to
surmount.Insofaras, for Hegel, the state embodiesthe totalityat its
theindividualnotonlycomesafterinstitupresentstageofdevelopment,
of the statein orderto act; he is
tionsbut also requiresthe intervention
subordinatedto if not submergedwithinthe totality.Moreover,since
and thus valorizesthe status
Hegel's idealisticmonismis deterministic
to presentcondireal freedomconsistsin conformity
quo as normative,
from
an irresistible
progressbeyondthe individual's
tions,whichresult
control.Hence Hegel inviteschargesoftenmadeby criticsoforganicism,
to a staticauthoritarianism
and fatalism,
namely,thatit leads inevitably
thesacrificeofthepartsto thewhole.Like theAmericancommunitarians
Daniel Mark Baldwin and Charles Horton Cooley, Mumfordseeks to
theexclusiverightofthestateto express
avoidthisimpassebychallenging
on thecapacityofthe
and dominatethesocial orderand also by insisting
creativeindividualto criticizeand transcendexistingconditions.9
Yet evenmorethanHegel, Mumford'ssocial organicismreflectsthe
to overthrow,
attemptof his Americanand European contemporaries
revise,and yetinsomewayspreserveHerbertSpencer'slegacy.A monistic
Spencerholds that all laws are derivablefromthe laws of
materialist,
parts.It follows
physics,and thatrealityis a seamlessweb ofinterrelated
that societyobservesthe same laws of organizationas Nature,which
providesanalogiesofman's social life.Evolutionrisesfromthehomogethe
theless integrated
to themoreintegrated,
neousto theheterogenous,
less equilibratedto the moreequilibrated,so thatat each stepthereis a
As "a systemofmutuallybetterfitbetweenorganismand environment.
actionssubserving
maintenanceof
dependentpartsseverallyperforming
the combination,"Spencersays,the social organismachievesa new and
at everystageofitsevolution.But unlikeComte,who
higherequilibrium
viewedsocial equilibriumas alwaysprovisional,Spencerbelieved(with
the
Hegel) thatsocial evolutionmustculminatein a staticequilibrium,
and integration.
Spencer'sconclu"perfect"maximumof differentiation
sion reflectshis relianceon a physicalratherthanbiologicalmodel.10
Social organicismcutsacrosspoliticaldivisions.Assumingthatsocial
organicismimpliescontrolin a centeranalogous to the brain,Lester
Ward arguedforstateintervention.
Spencer,in contrast,thoughtof the
membersas dispersedamongthesocial organism.Thus,notcontrolling
D. G. Ritchie'spro-statist
argumentthatSpencer'sorganic
withstanding
8 MartinJay,Marxismand Totality,
53 and n., 58, 59.
9 David W. Noble, The Paradox of Progressive
Thought(Minneapolis,1958), 65, 67,
89-93.
10For Spencer,see Russett,The Concept,24, 25, 37, 38, 42-43; RichardHofstadter,
Social Darwinismin AmericanThought(Boston,1955),42.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford
95
societyresembledan "extremely
low typeof being,"Spencerconjoined
socialorganicism
withanti-collectivism
and laissezfaire:stateinterference
withany partof the social organismmightresultin damageto another
is essentialto progress,
part.Moreover,competition
weedingouttheunfit.
Social altruism,Spencersomehowfelt,would make up forlack of state
II
intervention.
Mumford'sdebtto Spencerand Social Darwinismcomesto himpartly
masterPatrickGeddes,whomMumfordpraises
throughhisself-confessed
forhis "ecologicalapproach,"his recognition
thatthe "worldofbiology
includedall humanphenomena,"and thatcitiesare "as mucha natural
structure
as anthillsor beavercolonies.""2More specifically,
Geddes exemplified"ReformDarwinism,"a movementtoward social solidarity
beguninthe1890s.UnlikeDarwin,Geddesregardedlifeand evolutionary
processas purposiveratherthanas theresultofaccidentalvariation.Since
Geddes claimedthatlove and cooperationare as importantas egoistic
in naturaland social processes,he appealedto Spencer'sidea
competition
of altruismagainstthe Darwin-Huxleyview of naturalselectionas the
consequenceof competition."3
Mumfordsimilarlyidentifies
a good and
bad Darwin,thefirstsympathetic
towardnaturallife,thesecondconcocting a demonicMalthusianvisionof the survivalof the fittist.
Mumford
wronglydismissesnaturalselectionas a "myth,"sincenaturealso reveals
"mutualaid,reciprocalinterplay.. , symbiosis"amongall beings.14 This
argumentowes muchto PeterKropotkin'sMutual Aid, whichcontends
thatan instinctof social solidarityand cooperationtypifies
bothnatural
species and human societies.Relyingon Darwin's evidenceof human
altruismand socialityin TheDescentofMan, Kropotkinaimedhisattacks
primarily
at Huxley.15
AlthoughMumfordand Geddes agreewithSpencerthatnaturaland
social evolutionachieveincreasingdifferentiation
and integration,
they
disagreewith him on otherkey issues. Obviously,World War I had
exploded Spencer'sargumentfor the pacifisticcharacterof industrial
after1900,
society.Like LesterWardand manyAmericansocial thinkers
MumfordrejectsSpencer's(and Hegel's) theorythatsocietymustinevitaor "closure"infavorofa dynamicequilibrium
blyreachstaticequilibrium
modelderivingfrombiology.Nor can Mumford,Geddes,or theirAmeriII
Hofstadter,
Social Darwinism,40, 41; Russett,The Concept,41; GretaJones,Social
Darwinismand English Thought:The InteractionbetweenBiologicaland Sociological
Theory(Brighton,1980), 56, 61.
12 Mumford,
of Lewis Mumford:The Early
SketchesfromLife: The Autobiography
Years(New York, 1982), 146.
inAmericanHistory:
"Social DarwinismRevisited,"Perspectives
13 Donald C. Bellomy,
New SeriesI (Cambridge,Mass., 1984),98.
14 RobertBannister,
Social Darwinism:Scienceand MythinAmericanSocial Thought
(Philadelphia,1979),248-49;Mumford,The Conduct,32.
Mutual Aid: A FactorofEvolution(New York, 1907), 1-75.
15PeterKropotkin,
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
96
monism,an inherently
acceptSpencer'smaterialistic
can contemporaries
philosophywhichinsistedon boththenecessityoftheindideterministic
to
ofall attempts
vidual'sadaptationto externalconditionsand thefutility
approach
remakesocietyand man.Mumford'sand Geddes'spro-planning
on
of stateintervention
somewhatresemblesLesterWard'sjustification
or "genic"activityhad issuedin the
thegroundsthatNature'sinstinctive
"telic" or consciouslypurposivecharacterof social life,and thatwhere
thecontradic16 Avoiding
thereis no integration.
thestatehas no function
tion in Spencerbetweenlaissez faireand social organicism,Mumford
holdsthatwhereaslaissez faireis inorganic,reducingsocietyto warring
atoms,the organicsocietyis necessarilycooperativeand integrated.
Mumford'sand Geddes'sattackon laissezfaireand socialcompetition
to JohnRuskin'sorganicism.17Although
to theirindebtedness
testifies
he had a keeneyefornatural
Ruskinrejectedthe"biologicalrevolution,"
formsand processes.Not onlydoes he describeall organicbeingsas ruled
by the "Law of Help," he thinksof natureas an ecological,synergetic
As natureis composedofhelpful,
interdependences.
systemofself-limiting
whose
functioning
parts,so Ruskin'sideal societyis an organichierarchy
forthegood ofthewhole;andjust as God rulesnature,
membersfunction
ofhierarchi18 Ruskin'sextraction
authority.
so societyrequiresa directive
cal valuesfroma divinelyorderednatureraisesa questiontobe considered
leads to a staticand represlater,thatis, whetherorganicismnecessarily
sive social vision.
and
For Ruskinas forMumfordthe ideal personis interdisciplinary
multioccupational-capableof harmonizingmentaland manual labor,
theoryand practice.As the teacher'saim is the "wholeness"and "balance" of the individual,he necessarilypursuesan "organic approach
to knowledge."Hence the centralityof craftforboth writers,as this
and expressesman's totalbeing.19Every
activityintegrates
unsystematic
humanactionis to be judged ethically,withina normative"hierarchy"
of needs and purposes.Both writerslamentthattechnology(not to be
confusedwithtechneor craft)and the divisionof labor have separated
intellectualand practicallife,sacrificedvalues to technique,and given
Mumford'sand Ruskin's call for a
rise to deadeningprofessionalism.
buttheawarenessthat
notreactionary
aestheticism
returnto craftsignifies
hence"organic"forms,and capacityto
art-with itssensuous,synthetic,
16
Noble,TheParadox,61-62;MarshallJ.Cohen,CharlesHortonCooleyand theSocial
Self in AmericanThought(New York, 1982),41-47; Mumford,Technics,274.
17
Mumford,Sketches,43, 330; PatrickGeddes,JohnRuskin,Economist(Edinburgh,
1888),passim.
18 JohnRuskin,TheLibrary
EditionoftheCollectedWorksofJohnRuskin,ed. E. T.
Cook and AlexanderWedderburn(London, 1902-12),7: 90, 98, 205, 207; 25: 390, 391;
27: 260-61,508; 28: 280, 343.
19Mumford,The Cultureof Cities,385; Mumford,Valuesfor Survival(New York,
1946), 140-59;Ruskin,Works,8: 85; 9: 44, 441; 10: 192, 194, 196.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford
97
technolexpressthe innerworld-had been devaluedunderquantifying
specialization,
counteracts
pedagogy
ogy. Justas theirinterdisciplinary
methodspointtowardsan organicsynthesisof
so theirinterdisciplinary
knowledge.20
Ruskinwas indebtedto classicalGreekeconomicsand held thateconomicsis organicallysubordinatedto social, political,and moralissues.
economicorthodoxy,
Rejectingtheabstractjargonofnineteenth-century
he denouncedlaissezfaireas anti-socialand purposelesswhilecallingfor
For him homo
and exploitativewage-system.
an end to the competitive
to theorthounfair
somewhat
Although
myth.
capitalist
was a
economicus
dox economists,Ruskinrealizedthattheiremphasison production,exchange,and privateacquisitionhad fosteredthe popular confusionof
Societyhad
moneywithreal values,social "illth"withgenuinewealth.21
estimations
market
not
by
valuable
is
"intrinsic,"
wealth
that
forgotten
organicist
humanneeds.ThusRuskingivesa literally
butonlyinsatisfying
to economicvalue. As "the trueveinsof wealth"are "in
interpretation
Flesh" so thereis, as he writesin UntothisLast, "no wealthbut life."22
Whereasorthodoxor "scarcity"economiststhoughtthatNature's"parsiovercomeonlybysaving,labor,and producmony"couldbe temporarily
tion,Ruskinforesawindustrialabundanceand arguedthat production
in consumptionof highquality,whichincludes
achievesits "perfection"
Ruskin's visionof abundanceaccords
culturaland social satisfactions.
viewofthe
withhisbeliefin nature'screativebounty,whilehisintegrated
economy,expressedthroughorganicanalogies,evokeshis ecology.23
"Thereis no wealthbutlife":forMumfordand Geddesthisis Ruskin's
Mumfordclaims that the abstractionsof Victorian
centralstatement.24
and habits
economistshad littleconnectionwiththereal needs,interests,
forvitaluse values,the
monetary
ofhumansociety.Theyhad substituted
value.Mockcostoflabortheoryforthemoreaccuratetheoryofintrinsic
Mumfordnotesthatin the
ing "Economic Man" as a mereabstraction,
thesupposed"ironlaw" ofwageshad reducedlaborto
century
nineteenth
leveland thatadequatehousingremainsalmostimpossible
thesubsistence
capitalism.Not onlydoes Mumforduse Ruskin'sterm
underunregulated
banish
productsin whichpecuniaryconsiderations
"illth"to characterize
does
as
Ruskin
he
but
of
in
argues
the
adulteration
food),
organicones(as
thattheworthofanyproductmustbe weighedagainstthehumancostin lifeand limb-of producingit. WhereasRicardo and Marx identified
value withproductivelabor,Mumfordtracesit to abundantnatureand
20 Mumford,The Pentagonof Power(New York, 1970), 55-57; Mumford,Values,
155-56.
21 Ruskin,Works,
7: 98, 207; 17: 52-53,55-56,60, 85-101,165; 27: 247, 509; 28: 103,
207.
22 Ruskin,Works,17: 55, 56, 85-101,102, 105, 131.
23 Ruskin,Works,17: 48, 101, 114, 171.
24
Mumford,The Condition,415.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
98
ofcertainthings,
theirpowerto foster
itas the"lifefunction[s]"
defines
Geddes's"biotechRuskinanticipated
to Mumford,
According
vitality.
value
Ruskin'sideaofintrinsic
interprets
nic"order,andGeddesrightly
shouldaimata livingwage,goodand
Theneweconomy
incaloricterms.
advantages.25
andcultural
food,a soundenvironment,
plentiful
fatherof the
seenas an unwitting
AlthoughRuskinis sometimes
monisforhefeared
ofplanning
wasequivocal,
welfare
state,hisadvocacy
institutions.26
overa varietyof corporate
engineering
tic collectivized
hopesnot
toinvesttheirreformist
prefer
andGeddessimilarly
Mumford
and
associations, existing
voluntary
butin individuals,
in bureaucracy
inGeddes'sdistinction
Theirfearofthestateisgrounded
urbanstructures.
what
andopenororganicplans.Typifying
closedormechanical
between
upon
ofsystems,"
theclosedplanis imposed
the"fallacy
terms
Mumford
thatbelongto life
thevariedfactors
ab extraandthus"neglect[s]
reality
the
byreasonofitscomplexneedsand organicpurposes."In contrast,
foritsessence
openplanacceptsthatlife"cannotbe reduced"toa system,
Thedistinction
between
closedandopen
is processnotstaticperfection.27
from
antithesis
(deriving
(and Ruskin's)
planscallsto mindColeridge's
themechanical
formimposedupona
between
GermanNaturphilosophie)
andtheorganicform
regardforitsproperties,
ab extra,without
material
of
and whichis morethana collection
whichshapesitselffromwithin,
the
works
paNo merelyidealconstruct, openplan
parts.28
individual
withlocalindividwithpre-existent
materials,
and"cooperatively"
tiently
butfirst
... understanding
them,
"perhapsguiding
ualsandassociations,
and newreslowgrowth
As openplansaccommodate
theirpurposes."
subtleand
balance
and
more
life
achieve
to
dynamic
theypermit
sponses,
inMumford's
oneseesa tension
ofform.29
Nonetheless,
richness
complex
of planning
and thevaluesof growth,
betweentheattractions
thought
change,andspontaneity.
wasunderattack.NotonlyhadSpencer
organicism
By1900Spencer's
Natureandsociety,
analogiesbetween
ofarbitrary
a multitude
presented
thedifferences
between
biological
buthe andhisfollowers
hadneglected
Mumford
"rule[s]out falsebiologicalanalogiesbeand socialsystems.
tweensocietiesand organisms,"
addingthatSpencerand othershad
theories,
"organismic"
Rejecting
"pushedthesetothepointofabsurdity."
See Mumford,Technics,76, 154, 179, 186, 194-95,216, 248-49; Mumford,The
Culture,177, 542; Mumford,The Condition,105, 385, 405-8.
26 p. D. Anthony,
JohnRuskin'sLabour: A Studyof Ruskin'sSocial Theory(Cambridge,England,1983),7, 55-56,87, 91, 123, 135, 152.
27 Mumford,The Conduct,175-76.
28 S. T. Coleridge,BiographiaLiteraria,ed. J. Shawcross(London, 1973), 2: 5-13,
ed. Thomas Raysor(Cambridge,
13-20;Coleridge,Coleridge'sShakespeareianCriticism,
Mass., 1930),224.
29
Mumford,The City,394, 87; Mumford,The Conduct,183.
25
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford
99
societyand
which,to quoteRussett,"expressa literalanalogybetween
Mumterminology,"
in
biological
couched
[are]
and
organisms
physical
largelyon social
fordfavorsan "organic"theoryof society,focusing
psychology.30
dependson at leastoneanalogy
Mumford's
organicism
Nonetheless,
GeddesextendtheAristotelian
and
social
life.
He
naturaland
between
their
control
(hencepurposively)
instinctively
thatorganisms
assumption
growthand thusfindtheirecologicalniche.Anysocietyor citymust
lestitgrowtoolarge
equilibrium"
"dynamic
achievean internal
likewise
andinterdepenThisrequires
self-limitation
from
within.
anddisintegrate
resemble
denceamongitsparts,which,as in thecaseofneighborhoods,
nucleus,"
thecityonelooksforits"organizing
cellsororgans.To define
centers
forassoci"subsidiary
"boundaries,"
andman-made
geographical
Butmanmustalso
"groupsandinstitutions."
ationandcommunication,"
a single
areproperly
thatcityandcountryside
truth
realizetheecological
theother.3"
Mumneither
ina good"symbiosis,"
dominating
unitexisting
theunconwhatGeddesterms
"conurbation,"
condemns
fordaccordingly
ForGeddes,London
intothecountryside.
expansion
trolled
metropolitan
it
aggregation
is
an
ameboid
for
Mumford,
growth";
is a "vastirregular
of"urbangranules."32
in Spencerian
organicism
flawbecameapparent
astonishing
Another
and
thefailureto showhowtheindividual
bytheturnofthecentury:
was
Spencer's
dissatisfying
connected.
Especially
societyareorganically
interdependence,
or economic
withfunctional
ofsolidarity
identification
Challenging
ratherthansharedvalues.33
connections
meremechanical
CharlesHortonCooleyarguedthatself
theAmerican
sociologist
Spencer,
and thattheselfis a productof
and socialprocessare psychological,
ofthe"priinthecommunal
context
The "socialself'originates
society.
and school,
playground,
neighborhood,
marygroup,"namelyfamily,
interactions.
andallothercooperative
whicharethebasisforsocialization
in
of
terms
analogies
are
not
organic
bonds
analyzable
"organic"
Society's
interacandsymbolic
butinobservable
psychic
structures
ormechanical
tionsand the sharedvaluesarisingfromthem.Cooleyemphasized,
in dialectical
balancewithsociety
is properly
thattheindividual
though,
to a majorshiftfromthe
in it.34Contributing
ratherthansubmerged
Cooleybelongedto an
biologicalviewof societyto socialpsychology,
30Mumford,The Culture,303; Russett,The Concept,67n.
31 Mumford,The City,52, 53, 93, 184.
32 PatrickGeddes,CitiesinEvolution:
totheTownPlanningMovement
AnIntroduction
and to theStudyof Civics(New York, 1968),26; Mumford,The City,93, 534, 539.
The Social Thought
33 JeanQuandt,From theSmall Townto theGreatCommunity:
Intellectuals(New Brunswick,1970), 17, 24, 28, 57-58,87, 171n.
ofProgressive
in TheMajor WorksofCharlesHorton
34 CharlesHortonCooley,Social Organization
Cooley:Social Organizationand Human Natureand theSocial Order(Glencoe, 1956),
3-5,23-31; Noble, The Paradox, 109; Cohen, CharlesHortonCooley,124-30,164-74.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
100
whichincludedJohnDewey,Josmovement
American"communitarian"
iah Royce,JamesMark Baldwin,George HerbertMead, and JaneAddams,all of whomemphasizedthe social selfand the importanceof the
In part the importanceof the
humannature.35
social in understanding
theoryof the primarygroupis that,contraryto Spencer,it emphasized
cooperationratherthan competitionas the basis forsociety.But even
as thisconceptenabledCooley,Baldwin,and
moreimportant-insofar
Mumfordto definea supposedlynormaland universalhusubsequently
manityin its fundamentaland timelesssituation-it provideda fixed
and hencea
social and evenpoliticalstandardforevaluatinginstitutions
means of escapingthe relativismtypicalof the evolutionarypoint of
view.36
knewthat
Cooley,Dewey, RobertPark, and othercommunitarians
HenrySumtheirsocial categoriesresembledthoseofEuropeanthinkers:
betweensocietiesofstatusand modernones
nerMaine,whodistinguished
ofthemetropolis
on
ofcontract;GeorgSimmel,who examinedtheeffect
who
GemeinFerdinand
distinguished
T6nnies,
mentallife;and especially
The firstis the organic,familial,cooperative,
schaftfromGesellschaft.
and culturallyintegrated
societyof the agrarianvillage;the second,the
atomizedand artificialsocietyof the moderncity,withits divisionof
But whereasin
labor,markets,statebureaucracy,and class conflict.37
is a "given"unityof willsintowhich
Tonniesthe medievalcommunity
were democraticand, like
one is born,the Americancommunitarians
Mumford,stressedvoluntaryassociations.They identifiedthe organic
communitywith the small town or city constitutedby such primary
and school.Theyadmireditsface-to-face
neighborhood,
groupsas family,
politics,and local autonomy.Notwithstanding
relations,participatory
the freeminglingof classes in social and politicallife
social differences,
ofcommonvalues.As thesecommunities
were
thedevelopment
permitted
craftprevailed
undifferentiated
sociallyand economically,
comparatively
overindustrialspecializationand a commoncultureexisted.38
Not onlydoes MumfordacceptCooley'sviewoftheselfas a product
buthe believesthatselfand societyarefundamentally
ofsocialinteraction
Hence his (and Geddes's) insistenceon participatory
psychicconstructs.
erred
Romanticism
socialdramaand symbolism.
Accordingto Mumford,
in praisingRein emphasizingantisocialsubjectivity,
as did Burckhardt
CitingCooley,Mumovermedievalcorporatism.
naissanceindividualism
in
the
fordobservesthat"Gemeinschaft"
"primarygroup,with
originates
35Cohen,CharlesHortonCooley,105-24.
36Noble,The Paradox, 16, 109-10,114-16.
37 MortonWhiteand Lucia White,The Intellectualversusthe City:From Thomas
(Cambridge,Mass., 1962), 146, 156, 158, 164; Quandt,
Jefferson
toFrankLloyd Wright
From theSmall Town,17; FerdinandTonnies,FundamentalConceptsof Sociology,tr.
CharlesF. Loomis (New York, 1940),passim.
38 Quandt,From theSmall Town,5, 7, 8, and passim.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford
101
Hereis another
largely
'given'relationships."
itsspontaneous,
instinctual,
ortoopoputoolargespatially
mustavoidbecoming
reasonthatsocieties
socialintercourse,
might
seemtopromote
lous,forthough
greatnumbers
fieldforcollective
actionin a village."Seedbedsof
thereis a "greater
as
deserveprotection
neighborhoods
localandthencewidercommunity,
urban
on uncontrolled
fundamental
social "cell[s]"and as a restraint
Mumford
thepolitical
valueofsmallassociations,
growth.39
Appreciating
local
Fathersfailedto makethe"democratic
laments
thattheFounding
So, too,he
unitthebasic cell" of our wholesystemof government.i"
inwhich,
laborbeingonly
undifferentiated
societies
prefers
comparatively
no majordivisions
existbetween
culture
andsociety.
divided,
moderately
sources.In
is fedbyseveralotherAmerican
Mumford's
organicism
notedthatEmerson,
MelThoreau,Hawthorne,
1941F. 0. Matthiessen
theorganicsocietywithsharedvalues
all identified
ville,and Whitman
and the "union"of laborand culture.41But whileMortonand Lucia
linkMumford
whichthey
withEmerson'sorganicism,
Whitecorrectly
contend
thatMumford
sharesEmertheymistakenly
traceto Coleridge,
as wellas hisanti-urbanism.42
loveofNatureandsolitude
son'santi-social
butanti-megalopolitan;
andwhereas
Mumford
isnotanti-urban
Actually,
Emerson(likehisAmerican
Romanticcolindividualistic
theradically
does. At the sametime,
leagues)has no theoryof society,Mumford
withVanWyckBrooks,Ranhasaffinities
Mumford's
socialorganicism
withtheshort-lived
andWaldoFrank,whowereassociated
dolphBourne,
dreamed
thesewriters
magazineTheSevenArts.As CaseyBlakeobserves,
culture
anda democratic
a new"post-industrial"
ofcreating
community
thattheorganic
ethosofmutuality."43
Believing
grounded
onan "organic
inAmerica
toclosethedivision
cultural
unity,
theysought
society
requires
anddaily
moraltheory
between
high-toned
between
highandlowculture,
practice.Yet Bournedied young,Brookslaboredon whatsometimes
ofa harmonious
to an historical
amounted
earlyNew England,
fantasy
contrast
into
Mumford
and Frankventured mysticism.
deepenedhis
by
sociooforganicism
criticalunderstanding
scientific,
through
historical,
research.
logical,and anthropological
wasofmajorimporThorstein
studied,
Veblen,withwhomMumford
Mumford
of
his
social
tanceto thedevelopment
acceptsVeorganicism.
In both
ofneolithic
as idyllicifnotutopian.
blen'sdescription
"savagery"
communal
theneolithic
writers
values,a humanscale,
villagesignifies
39Mumford,The Condition,281; Mumford,The UrbanProspect(New York, 1968),
62; Mumford,The Culture,250-51.
40 Mumford,
The Urban,224.
41 F. 0. Matthiessen,
AmericanRenaissance:Artand Expressionin theAgeofEmerson
and Whitman(London, 1941),xiv-xv.
42 Whiteand White,The Intellectual,
24-35,204-8,228, 235-36.
ofLiteraryBiography:Volume63: Modern
43 Casey Blake,"Waldo Frank,"Dictionary
AmericanCritics,1920-1955(Detroit,1988), 122-30.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
102
equalitybetweenmen and
collectiveor "democratic"participation,
and an "instinct
of workmanship"
whereby
each
women,agrarianism,
hisshareforthegeneralwelfare.
Without
private
proppersonproduces
andpredaemulative
competition,
erty-andhencefreefromparasitism,
womenforthegentleartsof
neolithic
villageesteems
tion-thepeaceful
ofindividuals
participation
Justas thefunctional
nurture
andcultivation.
Veblenthus
dispelsscarcity.44
so productivity
prevents
class conflict,
culture
as represented
by
thedefeatofneolithic
by"barbarism"
deplored
avidofprivate
andcontemptuaristocracies
property
warrior
competitive
theneolithic
work.Gradually
villagegiveswayto the
ous ofproductive
and alienating
scale.Simisecrecy,
priestly
city,withitsclassdivisions,
civilization
themorbid
form
ofpost-neolithic
larly,forthelaterMumford
withitsregimented
urbanmassesdominated
istheurban"megamachine,"
bentonimperial
anda priesthood
expansion.
aristocracy
byanexploitative
return
to
the
village,
and
a
neolithic
To be sure,Veblendoesnotenvision
it as beingtoostatic,tribal,closed;yettheyhopeto
criticizes
Mumford
inan industrial
"instincts"
orsuffocated
setting,
reviveitslongperverted
theneocontinue
insiststhatall healthy
neighborhoods
whileMumford
Indeed,whatDavidNoblesaysofVeblenappliestoMumlithicpattern.
totheprimary
groupandstandsas
ford:theneolithic
villagecorresponds
oftheuniversally
socialunit,themeasure
thebasicand"unconquerable"
in a primitive
or urban
exists,whether
human.So longas thispattern
of
huto
"normative"
the
there
remains
returning
possibility
setting,
manity.45
"barbarism"
For bothVeblenand Mumford,
inorganic
prefigures
of a parasiticupper
undercapitalism.
The dominance
socialrelations
andcomparable
oftheexploitative
warrior
aristocracies
class,descendant
hasresulted
as a "tumor"onthebodyofsociety,
towhatVeblendescribes
in thegeneraldevaluation
workin favorof conspicuous
of productive
wasteand leisure.Confusing
moneyvalueswithrealwealth,capitalism
to thepecuniary
and theinstinct
ofworkmanship
sacrifices
production
thatneolithic
YetVeblenbelieved
andfinanciers.
interests
ofbusinessmen
iftheeconomy
weretakenoverbyan eliteof
valuesmightbe recovered
would
likeFrederick
experts,
Taylor'sefficiency
who,somewhat
engineers
butefficiently
andproducdirect
theindustrial
profit
plantnotforprivate
thatthispossibility
washighly
unlikely.46
though,
Veblenrealized,
tively.
(New York, 1914),36-37;Veblen,
Veblen,The Instinctof Workmanship
44Thorstein
The Theoryof the Leisure Class (New York, 1965), 6, 16; Mumford,The City,8-20;
Mumford,The Mythof theMachine(New York, 1967), 130-61.
270; Mumford,The Culture,285; Mumford,The
45 ThorsteinVeblen, The Theory,
City,21-54;Mumford,The Myth,161-62;Noble, The Paradox,209, 216, 218, 223-24.
46 Veblen,The Theory,
9-10, 17, 246, 253, 275; Veblen,The Engineersand thePrice
System(New York, 1921),7, 8, 28-29,31; David Riesman,ThorsteinVeblen(New York,
1960), 61; JohnP. Diggins,The Bard of Savagery:ThorsteinVeblenand ModernSocial
Theory(New York, 1978), 15, 16, 21, 25.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford
103
of
thedissociation
reappears
in Mumford:
MuchofVeblen'scritique
and hence
theidealofa functional
valuesfromproductivity;
pecuniary
many
affords
forwhichAmericanhistory
society,
producer's
non-class
BackofLabor,Bellamy's
Looking
theKnights
analogues(thePopulists,
wasdrawnin
to whichMumford
ward);andtheconceptoftechnocracy,
for
betweenthesewriters,
congruity
the 1930s.But thereis no perfect
by
andimbalanced
cramped,
is impoverished,
Veblen'ssocialorganicism
need.
of
human
varied
orchestrations
richly
withMumford's
comparison
with
ofworkmanship
identifies
theinstinct
Veblensometimes
Although
fearof scarcity
leadshim
his Malthusian
a gratuitous
"play"instinct,
and impersonal
to defineit in termsof a parsimonious
moregenerally
disVeblen'spuritanical
The samevalueunderlies
efficiency.
productive
symbolism
ofritual,ceremony,
drama,indeedofall cultural
paragement
self-advertisement.
As David Riesman
invidious
ornament,
as wasteful
ofsocial
issuesina conception
withproductivity
notes,Veblen'sobsession
administrasimilarto thatofEdwardBellamy:centralized
organization
as wasteful,
theadaptation
ofsociety
to
ofcompetition
tion,elimination
ofworkmanship,
Forall hispraiseoftheinstinct
organization.
industrial
tothemachine
andwasso impressed
tosubmit
humanity
Veblenexpected
it withthesocial
thathe tendedto identify
by itsmodernascendancy
on technocracy
andthemaGiventhisonesidedemphasis
processitself.
a socialorganicist.47
Bycontrast,
Veblencannotreallybeconsidered
chine,
ofnaturalabundance
reflects
hisassumption
socialthought
Mumford's
in
functionalism
ofaesthetic
Despitehisoverestimation
andsuperfluity.
of
but
claims
not
the
only play
the1930s,thelaterMumford
recognizes
in artandarchitecture,
ornament
justas
andsymbolic
ofself-expression
to
ofdramaandritual.Again,reacting
he emphasizes
thesocialefficacy
withindustrial
Mumford
isoverly
productivtheDepression,
preoccupied
criticalofthosewho,like
ityin the1930s,yeton thewholehe is highly
concern
believea one-sided
EdwardBellamyandmostmodern
utopians,
holdsthesolutionto all social
or machinery
withindustrial
efficiency
problems.48
his assumption
reflects
Mumford's
precedents
appealto neotechnic
humannature.
evolution
holdsthesecretofbedrock
thatman'shistorical
societies
arethe
Mumford's
preferred
Yet evenmorethantheneolithic,
townorcity.He praisesthesecommunities
Greekpolisandthemedieval
withthe
economic
interdependence
fortheirsmallscale,socialintimacy,
limits"
within
andslow,purposive,
"organic
growth
adaptive
countryside,
Greek
castelessand unspecialized,
and the openplan. Comparatively
4'Veblen, The Theory,116, 117, 151-54,176, 374, 379; Riesman,ThorsteinVeblen,
9n, 33, 51.
48 Mumford,The Conduct,34-35; Mumford,Technics,333-37,356, 360; Mumford,
The Storyof Utopias(New York, 1922); Mumford,The Pentagon,215-19.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
104
the
whereby
crafttraditions
and medievalsocietyenjoyedflourishing
forsocialand especially
thebroadoutlooknecessary
individual
acquired
Inseparable
frompolitical
inthecaseofthepolis-politicalparticipation.
partoftheeveryday
life,Greekand medievalartformed
and religious
At the
so thatcultureandsocietywereintertwined.
socialenvironment,
in
was "organically"
embedded
sametime,theeconomy bothinstances
themodememunfavorably
contrasts
insociety.
LikeRuskin,Mumford
andcompetition
to
accumulation,
value,laissezfaire,
phasison exchange
socialfunctheGreekandmedievalconcernforuse value,distribution,
tion,andeconomiccooperation.49
thepolisas hissocialideal,Mumford
criticizes
Butrather
thandefining
ofwomenas wellas forclinging
slavery
andthesubjection
itforaccepting
shouldhave"moralized,"
tribalvalues.PlatoandAristotle
to autarchic,
Nor
it
as
Peter
Firchowclaims,that
is
true,
commerce.
notcondemned,
thatRenaiscontends
Mumford's
utopiaistheMiddleAges;forMumford
atfirst
a necessary
corrective
andindividualism
provided
sancecapitalism
No less dubiousis
and traditionalism.50
to medievalotherworldliness
constitutes
thatmedievalauthoritarianism
MeyerSchapiro'sassertion
viewofthe
Thisis notto denythatMumford's
Mumford's
socialideal.51
andMorris
notjustto Geddes,Kropotkin,
MiddleAgesowessomething
Cobtradition
whichincluded
Romantic
Coleridge,
buttoa conservative
theMiddleAgesas
andRuskin.Idealizing
Pugin,Carlyle,
bett,Southey,
bondsofloyalty
united
hierarchical
anauthoritarian,
society
bytraditional
ofit
thesewriters
as opposedto cashorcontract,
thought
andobedience
becauseit seemedto consistnotofhostileclasses
as a truecommunity
But
whole.52
corporate
butoffunctional
ranks,eachwithinan organic,
the
ofsocialfunctionalism,
he interprets
offers
a version
whileMumford
or hierarchical
ratherthanin authoritarian
MiddleAgesin democratic
statewasweak,thatthepolyterms.
He happilynotesthatthemedieval
in itsavoidance
oftheMiddleAgeswas "democratic"
technictradition
of monopolizable
fuelsand tools,and thatmedievalguildsachievedand selfbesidessocial participation-ameasureof self-government
he
existed,
admitsthatfeudaloppressions
Although
Mumford
protection.
amongtheclasses.53
byreciprocities
findsthemmitigated
49For Mumfordon the Greeks,see The Story,40-41; The City,124-33,165, 168,
183-86.For Mumfordon the Middle Ages, see The City,248-328; The Condition,108,
161, 163.
A Collectionof Literary
50PeterFirchow,"Lewis Mumford,"in AmericanWriters:
II, Part2 (New York, 1981),483; Mumford,The Condition,110,
Biographies,
Supplement
148; Mumford,The City,416; Mumford,The Culture,71; Mumford,Technics,44.
51Meyer Schapiro,"Looking Forward to Looking Backward,"PartisanReview,5
(July,1938), 18.
En52 Alice Chandler,A Dream of Order:The MedievalIdeal in Nineteenth-Century
glishLiterature(London, 1970),passim.
TheCulture,67-68;Mumford,TheCity,270-77;Mumford,ThePentagon,
53 Mumford,
130-39;Mumford,The Myth,236.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford
105
Yet thepolisand themedievalcitymightseemalmostidealbycomparisonwithmodernurbanAmerica.Imbuedwiththeidealoflifeas a unified
saw that the division
whole,Jane Addams and othercommunitarians
sunderedtheoreticaland practical
of labor had eclipsedcraftsmanship,
education,intellectualand manuallabor,and spatiallysegregatedsocial
classes.Here are groundsforDewey's repudiationofexclusivelyliterary
cultureand Addams's and Geddes's convictionof the inadequacyof the
also saw
threeR's and purelyvocationaltraining.The communitarians
that older neighborhoodsand institutionshad deterioratedamid the
the
growthof urban mass society.Formerlythe basis of community,
primarygroupshad yieldedto moreimpersonal"secondarygroups":the
factory,the office,the courts,the police,and the press.Increasinglyin
the modernmetropolisone's sense of communitydependedon remote
mechanicaldevices,whiledemocracywas reducedto strainedidentificastate.Even smalltowns
bodiesand a bureaucratic
tionwithrepresentative
and regions-JosiahRoyce's buildingblocks of nationalcommunitywerebecomingappendagesof metropolises.54
critique,Mumfordobservesthatthe
thiscommunitarian
Reiterating
Americancolonialvillagebrokeup whentradeled to physicalexpansion,
widercontacts,and thedwindlingof "commonconcerns."He tracesthis
to the extremedivisionof labor undercapitalism,allied
fragmentation
ofthe
state.The balancedpersonality
and themilitaristic
withtechnology
could not survivethe separationof mentalfrommanualskills
craftsman
emphasisofupperclass education,whichintensified
and theoverliterary
social segregation.Meanwhilethe city grew so large that face-to-face
and region.As
relationsdeclinedalong withthe family,neighborhood,
ofmediating
mechanical
the
product
at
best
theunityofmasssocietywas
devicessuchas thepressand radio,thecitizenbecamea vicariousspectaPoliticalbureaucraciesprolifertor and consumerof mereinformation.
ated, since the big city could no longerfunctionon the older, more
intimatecommunalbasis.55
house
is thesettlement
reforms
ofthecommunitarian
The best-known
and in particularJaneAddams's Hull House in Chicago,whosepurpose
was to providea social, cultural,and educationalcenterin slum areas.
Addams, Cooley, and JohnDewey also saw the school as a means of
democraticvaluesand
industrial
specializationwhilefostering
combatting
partlyblamed
primarygroup relations.Althoughthe communitarians
moderncommunicationsand technologyfor the loss of community,
146, 151-55,161, 164, 168-69,170, 173, 179-83,
54 Whiteand White,TheIntellectual,
216; Quandt,From theSmall Town,69, 79-80,87-89,91, 92, 98, 116, 146, 151-56,164;
ofAmericanStudies(New
An Interpretation
Maurice Stein,The Eclipseof Community:
York, 1965),26-27.
and Civiliza55Lewis Mumford,Sticksand Stones:A StudyofAmericanArchitecture
tion(New York,1926),35, 37,53; Mumford,Technics,165,172-78;Mumford,The Urban,
38, 39; Mumford,The Culture,249, 260; Mumford,The Condition,390.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
106
Dewey,Veblen,Cooley,and Parkalso welcomedthemas a meansof
it.LikeCooley,Deweyclaimedthattheproperuseofmodern
restoring
groupto thelargersociety
shouldextendtheprimary
communications
toPark,thepresscannotsubstiAccording
andthusenhancedemocracy.
butcan connectgroups.56
tutefortheoldercommunity
As late as 1962 Mumfordobservesthat "We shall never... [deal]
groups,unless ... we
with... large unitsand differentiated
effectively
(likeGeddes)of
thesmallunit."An enthusiast
rebuildand revitalize
CanonBarnett
andJaneAddams,
houseanditsfounders
thesettlement
ofthecommuClarencePerry,
whoconceived
also celebrates
Mumford
a
modemcitybecome"Parasitopolis,"
Lestthesprawling
nitycenter.57
and GeddesproMumford
entity,
andinorganic
bloated,dysfunctional,
garden
EbenezerHoward'ssmall-scale,
low-density
pose to implement
urban
excessive
onan openplan,thesewouldtransplant
cities.Conceived
to regional
whilecontributing
a naturalenvironment
within
populations
Mumford
agreeswithDeweyand Geddesthatwork
decentralization.58
and manuallabor,literacyand practical
shouldbalanceintellectual
isalsoneededinordertopromote
curriculum"
yeta "common
knowledge;
willresultin informed
political
values.Ideallysuchreforms
communal
so that politicswill be a "constant... processin daily
participation,
in the 1930sthatmodem
contends
Mumford
also frequently
living."59
and
to restoreimmediacy,
intimacy,
has thepotential
communications
McLuhan'sdubious
whilein 1951he anticipates
encounters,
face-to-face
a globalvillage.60
mediaarecreating
claimthatelectronic
as most
wereexcessively
optimistic,
Mumford
andthecommunitarians
had at bestpartialsuccess.AfterWorldWar
oftheirproposedreforms
commuisa spatialbutnota spiritual
II sociologists
accepted
that"society
individual
identification
exists
without
that
"interdependence
and
nity,"
to thinkthat
Justas Addamswas merelydreaming
withthewhole."61
the divisionof labor,so Cooleyand
artsand craftscouldcounteract
machinofindustrial
withthereality
creativity
Deweyfailedtoreconcile
62
neither
were
which
the
new
faith
in
too
much
media,
ery. Havingplaced
saw theirhopesfordemocracy
art nor dialogue,the communitarians
56Quandt,From theSmall Town,29, 33, 51, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 71, 75, 101-16,137,
140; Whiteand White,The Intellectual,152-53,159-61,170-72;Cohen, CharlesHorton
Cooley,69, 183-84,200, 224, 226.
The UrbanProspect,18, 36, 62, 64, 66-67;Mumford,The City,500.
57 Mumford,
58 PatrickGeddes,PatrickGeddes:Spokesman
ed. M.
forMan and theEnvironment,
Stalley(New Brunswick,1972), 188-89;Mumford,The City,234, 514-24.
59Mumford,Values,163, 165, 178,213; Mumford,The Culture,382.
239-41;Mumford,The Conduct,238.
60 Mumford,Technics,
61 Stein,The Eclipseof Community,
47-69;JohnDewey, The Publicand itsProblems
(New York, 1927),98; Cohen,CharlesHortonCooley,229; Whiteand White,TheIntellectual,234-35.
62
Quandt,FromtheSmall Town,92, 95, 96, 97, 202n.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford
107
likewise
derailedbybureaucratic
resistance
inpartiesandstatesandalso
In appealing
bythecitizens'
neglect
oftheirresponsibilities.
toeducation
the
forcitizenship
as a mainsourceofsocialreform
theymiscalculated
riseof specialization
irresistible
whilesuccumbing
to circularlogic:to
bring
abouttheneweducational
system,
institutions
already
hadtopossess
thevaluesthesystem
was intended
to produce.63
Thereis,however,
lessjustification
forothercriticisms
which-having
beenlevelledagainstMumford's
andcolleaguesamongthe
predecessors
or socialdemocratic)American
communitarians
(whether
progressive
himself.
also extendto Mumford
thecommunitarians
thought
Although
ofthemselves
as liberalreformists,
somecriticshavesoughtreasonsto
An exemplar
conservative.
chargethemwithbeingessentially
of"sociowhichemphasizes
logicalfunctionalism,"
interdependence
between
societyand theindividual,
Cooleyinsistedthatevenif one failsto grasp
societyas an orderly,
equilibrated
whole,it alwaysremainsone.64The
social organicism
cut acrosspolitical
othercommunitarians'
similarly
andunity,
totheirbiastowards
and
divisions
thanks
interaction
harmony
as Cooleydid,to assumethateachindividual
is a
adjustment.
Tending,
of
socialmicrocosm,
theory
theyespousednota classbuta functional
inwhichgroupsandindividuals
workadaptively
withtherestand
society
are preferred
in whichreconciliation
and slow development
to group
conflict
andrevolutionary
idealistbiasenchange.Thecommunitarians'
forsocialchangeas onethemto dismiss
materialist
couraged
arguments
fearofsocialstrugsided.All thissupposedly
explainstheirconservative
inpolitical
andtheirtimidity
theiridealofassociation,
gle,whichviolated
reform,
as theyfearedthestateas inorganic.
Instead,theysoughtto
suchmethodsof socialcontrolas
reducesocialimpersonality
through
ofvalintheworkplace
andthetransformation
"psychic
improvements"
uesin education.65
On different
linesJamesB. Gilberthas launchedan indiscriminate
WarII
andespecially
attackagainstearlytwentieth-century
post-World
and
socialdemocratic,
socialreformers,
manyofwhomwereprogressive,
LikeJean
Mumford.
Reform
Darwinist
communitarians
whoinfluenced
andequilibloveofharmony
Quandt,Gilbertholdsthattheirexcessive
intolerant
ofclassdivision
andsocialconflict
riumissuedinan ideology
in
and
other
middle-class
andthus favorofpsychic
improvements
palliaforthesettlement
houseand theemphasis
tives.He has onlycontempt
63 See JamesKloppenberg's
Social Democracyand Progcritiquein UncertainVictory:
ressivism
in Europeanand AmericanThought,1870-1920(New York, 1986),255, 379-80,
381, 385.
(New York,
6 Edward C. Jandy,CharlesHortonCooley:His Life and Social Theory
1942),87; AlbertJ.Reiss,"Introduction,"Cooleyand SociologicalAnalysis(Ann Arbor,
1968),4; Russett,The Concept,139.
65 For thiscritique,
see Quandt,FromtheSmall Town,28, 129, 131-39,186n,214-15n;
Cohen, CharlesHortonCooley,179.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
108
holdsthat
ButunlikeQuandt,Gilbert
as a meansofreform.
oneducation
sinceit aimedat
and anti-regionalist,
thisideologywas anti-democratic
to thesocialwhole.
oftheindividual
thesubordination
as
thesereforming
intellectuals
Castinga widenet,Gilbertportrays
statecollectivism
witha paternalistic,
of a centralizing
the architects
andbureauin whichan eliteoftechnocratic
experts
welfare
emphasis,
roleas
indispensable
to
an
play
themselves-were
crats-thereformers
influenced
Greatly
Veblenis oneofmanyexamples.
planners.
large-scale
socibelieved
that,justas modern
thesecollectivists
byEdwardBellamy,
so thestateshouldpattern
itself
industrial
organization,
etyshouldimitate
The goalwas
corporation.
on thenewmodelofthemoderncommercial
andto
system
theindustrial
andeconomic
within
individuals
tointegrate
andefficiency.
To thisend
ofproduction
directthemin thesoleinterest
and theworksituation
bymeans
theworker
theysoughtto manipulate
manageof
scientific
the
new
techniques
through
psychology
ofindustrial
devisedbyFrederick
Taylorand Elton
psychology
mentand industrial
Mayo.NotonlydidMayobelievewithTaylorthatthe"scienceofhuman
he
of laborand management,
theinterests
couldharmonize
relations"
oftheprimary
groupin the
believedthatit couldachievetherecovery
conceived
schemethestatewasfalsely
Underthecollectivists'
workplace.
toadminhencededicated
ofthecommunity,
embodiment
as theobjective
ofprivileged
class
or civic"service"ratherthanto thesupport
istrative
theyunderstood
ofitsownpower.As forsociety,
interests
ortheextension
groupsofproducers
classesbutoffunctional
notofcompeting
itinterms
defined
entirely
by theirwork.Finally,Gilbertholdsthatthiskindof
andstatesocialnon-participatory,
managerial,
functional,
collectivismvagueoroftheimpossibly
istic-is thelogicalresultoftheapplication
conflicts
class
ofsociety,
whichconceals
ganicor "biological"metaphor
as truecommunalism.66
resultsadvertised
collectivist
whilepromoting
towardcollecwellthemovement
Gilberthasdocumented
Although
colare largelyunfairto Mumford's
tivismin the 1920s,his criticisms
if
is
not
that
a
writer
seems
to
think
leagues.AgainlikeQuandt,Gilbert
andradically
ofall classcooperation,
skeptical
materialist,
revolutionary,
Admitor proto-fascist.
he is necessarily
a conservative
anti-capitalist,
and thesocialwas a lasting
of theindividual
tedly,thereconciliation
(as formanyothers).
and socialdemocrats
fortheprogressives
problem
socialharmony,
theyneverdidso to
muchtheyemphasized
Yethowever
thegroupor state.
theindividual
within
thepointofabsorbing
JamesB. Gilbert,DesigningtheIndustrialState:TheIntellectualPursuitofCollectivismin America,1880-1940(Chicago, 1972), 10, 15, 19,20-44,53-60,73, 99, 287. For the
see Loren Baritz,The Servantsof Power:A Historyof the
rise of industrialpsychology,
Use ofSocial Sciencein AmericanIndustry(Middletown,Conn., 1960),7, 16-17,28-31,
and Uplift:ScientificManagementin theProgressive
77-116; Samuel Haber, Efficiency
Era, 1890-1920(Chicago, 1964),xi, 89-95,143, 167. However,Haber also recognizesthe
democraticemphases.
progressives'
66
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford
109
inexamples,
Crolyare paradigmatic
Baldwin,Cooley,and Herbert
ideallyremainsat once socialand morally
sistingthattheindividual
fromthe communitarians'
is inseparable
This viewpoint
autonomous.
towardopenexperiment
pragmatic
conceptofparticipatory,
democratic
for
allowing
equilibrium
endedsocialchange-nota staticbuta dynamic
andgroupsandthusa degreeofconflict.
individuals
between
differences
on communimisguided,
however
emphasis,
Hencethecommunitarians'
paternalistic
Far frombeingauthoritarian,
cationsto enlargeawareness.
moderntensionbefelttheirreconcilable
thesereformers
collectivists,
Refreedom.
localistic
anddemocratic,
centralization
tweenbureaucratic
ofthestateto
emphasison thesuperiority
jectingHegel'sconservative
roleof
disciplinary
uponboththeeducative,
theyinsisted
theindividual,
Their
individual.
criticalroleoftheresponsible
groupsandthecreative,
as David Nobleputsit,in no senseacceptsthe
offreedom,"
"sociology
evaluates
the
butrather
statusquo as thebestpossiblesocialarrangement
theyrejected
ofwills.Accordingly
inthelightofanidealharmony
present
ofcommunal
ofthestateas theembodiment
laissezfaireandconceived
forexperts,
theythought
thenecessity
theyrecognized
ethics.Although
and
valuesbutas advising
orcreating
democracy
ofthemnotas usurping
socialcontrol,
theyviewed
Insteadof extolling
information.
providing
without
values.Although
theybeas instrumentalists
experts
efficency
ofa moresocialized
reform
pointedin thedirection
lievedthatwelfare
Fearful
as a threat
to freedom.
"service"state,theyalsosawpaternalism
to
theyrefused
functional
groupsunderstatesocialism,
of subsuming
envisioned
and indeed
or dutiesat theexpenseofrights
stressfunctions
in
inindustry.
Theydiffered
self-government
(as didtheGuildSocialists)
distinguished
towardprivateproperty,
yettheygenerally
theirattitudes
toregulate
forpower.Iftheysought
foruseandproperty
between
property
avoidthe
in
to
so
order
did
they
ratherthanto commandcapitalism,
ofindustry
ownership
evilofstatedominance
through
greater
potentially
onesidedmaterialist
thesereformers
Andfinally,
rejected
and property.
are
valuesandeducation
thatcultural
becausetheyunderstood
ideologies
revolution
neither
that
social
and
change,
to voluntary lasting
essential
is sufficient
to fosterpublicvirtue:an idealistposition
normachinery
Mumford's.67
which,likemostoftheirideas,resembles
and even
reaction,
allegedconservativism,
WhatthenofMumford's
paragraphis indebtedto Noble, The Paradox, 72-73, 92-95, 106-7;Jandy,
148,254CharlesHortonCooley,182-87;and especiallyKloppenberg,UncertainVictory,
56, 267-68,271-72,349-61,373, 381-84,391, 396-97,400, 401, 402, 411, 502n.Suggesting
avoidedcollectivismpartlybecause theyreand communitarians
thatthe progressivists
jected social organicism,Kloppenbergseemsto accept the commonassumption,which
and authoricollectivist
Mumfordaimsto disprove,thatorganicisttheoriesare inherently
butlike
tarian.Actually,someofthewritersKloppenbergadmiresweresocial organicists;
Mumfordtheysoughtan organicismthatavoideda repressivecollectivism.
67 This
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
110
notas dividedinto
tothinkofsociety
prefers
Mumford
crypto-fascism?68
and cooperative
integrated
groupsbutas a comparatively
antagonistic
even
conflicts
between
thedominant
"underlies
hewrites,
whole."Unity,"
in turn
of thesisand antithesis
sinceeach resolution
forcesof society,
theirclaimsin a newemergent
whichreconciles
producesa synthesis
determines
historical
change
Marx'sbeliefthatclass conflict
pattern."
on
of
reconciliation,
a betrayal Hegel'semphasis
is thusforMumford
andthe"organicunityofnaturalandsocialpromutuality,
reciprocity,
Mumford
as a "fetish,"
the"utopiaofthepartisan"
Dismissing
cesses."69
is the"laborproblem"
modern
problem
deniesthattheonlyfundamental
bya groupor class.
ofproduction
andthatitscureliesin theownership
or "truesocialgroup,"theproletariat
In no sensean "organicentity"
unified
notby"common
collections
ofindividuals"
to"arbitrary
amounts
collecofthesameguild-butbya "common
incraftsmen
functions"-as
functional
is
a
Mumford's
ofloyalty
andhate."70
alternative
tivesymbol
economicgroupsare harmonized
societyin whichall "non-parasitic"
anddishonest
repressive
within
whatsomemightviewas theinherently
pronounceof"producer."
Despitesomerevolutionary-sounding
category
ofGedis
no
Reminiscent
in
Mumford
the
revolutionary.
ments
1930s,
filiation"
enableshim
of"organic
Mumford's
principle
des'sheroCarlyle,
similarto organic
as a continuous
development
to viewsocialhistory
life.71
sharesthedesire
to supposethatMumford
It is a mistake,
though,
or self-identical
social
fora static,authoritarian,
ofmanyconservatives
His ideal,likeCooley's,is alwaysa "dynamicequilibrium"
harmony.
or thefunctional
Neverdoes he stressmutualities
of diverseelements.
ofgroupsto thepointofconceiving
anysocietyas perfectly
integration
in a
or change:the"variouselements
or immune
to conflict
harmonious
forthereis alwaysa "tug
areneverincomplete
equilibrium,"
civilization
ones."72
and thelife-conserving
functions
and pullof... life-destroying
a societycan achievethe
notsimplywhether
Mumford
oftenquestions
it
of a normative
totality-inshort,a utopia-butwhether
perfection
as a social
oughtto wantto do so. As fortheidea of theindividual
innerandouter,
between
whichimpliestheperfect
harmony
microcosm,
espousesit in his
and whichsomecommunitarians
assumed,Mumford
in
handicraft
periodsthe
that
even
moments
yetrealizes
Emersonian
distancefrombuMumford's
itsfulfilment.
divisionoflaborprevented
defifromhiscritique
ofSpencer's
canbe inferred
reaucratic
collectivism
68 JamesT. Farrell,"The Faith of Lewis Mumford,"in The League of Frightened
Philistines(New York, 1949), 108-9,116-18,121-22,122n; MeyerSchapiro,"Looking
Forwardto LookingBackward,"21, 23.
69
Mumford,The Conduct,224-25.
70 Mumford,The Story,240, 245; Mumford,Technics,191.
7" Mumford,The Story,304; Mumford,The Golden,113.
72
Mumford,Technics,64.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford
111
relations.
adjustment"
ofinnertoexternal
nition
oflifeas the"continuous
thattheorganism
democratic
principle
Mumford
adds thepotentially
Although
according
toitsinnerneeds.73
mustalsoshapeitsenvironment
ofpositive
liberty,
Mumattracted
tosocialfunctionalism
andtheconcept
ofindividuals
and
overtherights
ford'srefusal
tostresssocialobligations
corporatism.
Likewise
himfromfascist
groupsis sufficient
to dissociate
ofregionsand social
hisorganicist
on therelative
autonomy
insistence
is an attempt
between
statepower
institutions
to mediatedemocratically
andtheindividual.
Yet it is not altogether
thatMumford
has been
incomprehensible
sincehewas,
andbureaucratic
conservatism,
accusedofauthoritarianism
resembling
managerial
collecforat leasta decade,tempted
bysomething
and Civilization
andThe
tivism.
Duringthe1930s,thedecadeofTechnics
regulation,
advocateda plannedeconomy,
Cultureof Cities,Mumford
oflanduse,and thecreation
ofa "service"or
and evennationalization
to thepowerstateofpreceding
welfare
stateas an alternative
periods.
assertsthe"collecbytheSovietUnion,Mumford
Profoundly
impressed
will.74
on demotive"interest
andthe"collective"
Despitehisinsistence
and regionalfederalism,
Mumregionalautonomy,
craticparticipation,
a
of
ford's massive enterpriserequires high degree
centralized,
Justas a "bolder
control-notopenbutclosedplanning.
bureaucratic
so it
willtoucheveryaspectoftheindustrial
complex,"
socialeconomy
... withreference
to the
organically,
is necessaryto "rationalizeindustry
theorganicist
thisis a
entire
socialsituation."
rhetoric,
Notwithstanding
MumLikeVeblenandGilbert's
formula
forbureaucracy.75
collectivists,
under
a "well-managed
fordisdrawntotechnocracy,
society"
envisioning
to
Whenhe refers
of expertsin "humanengineering."
thesupervision
is thecontrolling
itis unclearwhether
society
socialcontrol,"
"intelligent
Forall hisdisdainofBellamyite
utopias
subject.76
agentorthecontrolled
focused
onindustrial
andonesidedly
production,
militaristically
organized
and
and efficiency
fetishizes
productivity
duringthisperiodMumford
admiresFrederick
TaylorandEltonMayo.As CaseyBlakesays,Mumfordconfused
withorganization."
organicism
Thereis a further
majorworksof the
irony.AlthoughMumford's
andalthough
he
oftechnological
determinism
1930sdisprove
thetheory
is properly
subordinate
to socialvalues,uses,and
insiststhattechnology
ofhisvisionofsocialreconciliation.
standsatthecenter
ends,themachine
of the
destructive
Mumford
industry
arguesthatthe environmentally
The Culture,322; Mumford,The Conduct,36.
73 Mumford,
74 Mumford,Technics,380, 383, 403, 417; Mumford,The Culture,348.
75
Mumford,The Culture,375, 377, 380; Mumford,Technics,390, 413.
76 Mumford,
Technics,404, 411.
" Mumford,Technics,270, 271, 275, 383-85;Casey Blake,"Lewis Mumford:Values
overTechnique,"Democracy,3 (1983), 131-32.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
112
"neoandflexible
is beingreplacedbymoreefficient
century
nineteenth
the
thedynamo,
suchas steel,aluminum,
electricity,
technic"inventions
towardsocialinterconandtheautomobile.
Tendinginherently
airplane,
once
thesemachines,
and "basic communism,"
regionalism,
nections,
andfreed
from
wasteful
canons
capitalist
placedinthehandsofengineers
achievewhatamountsto a
(as Veblentoo had hoped)mustvirtually
biotechnic
utopia.78
someof thedangersKarl
utopiaof the 1930ssuggests
Mumford's
andutopianthinking.
Identifying
Popperclaimsto findin all organicist
to recastsocietyin contrast
withtheutopianimpulsetotally
organicism
Popperarguesthatthe
withpatient,liberal,piecemealimprovement,
leads to regimentation,
of theorganicmetaphor
wholesaleapplication
andthesacrifice
oftheindividual
to the
elitism,
authoritarian
hierarchy,
oftheclosedsocietywasPlato,whofeared
Thefirst
architect
collective.
theorganicbodyas a fixed
Admiring
changeand lovedpermanence.
hesoughttomodelsociety
nature),
vegetable
(reason,emotion,
hierarchy
as to arresttheorganictendency
to growth
uponthebodybutso rigidly
inanorganism,
toclassconflict
comparable
anddecay.As thereisnothing
inan organicsociety.
Eachgrouphasitsplace
so thereis noclassconflict
eliteofguardians
trained
bya technocratic
beinggoverned
andfunction,
theorganicsocietyor at leastPopper'sversion
of
in wisdom.Ironically,
incidenand control-apattern
fulfilled,
it leadsto mechanical
rigidity
tally,in Carlyleand Ruskin.79
cultural
sometimes
envisions
regeneraEvenintothe1950sMumford
or a humanistic
frommessianic
priesthood.
inspiration
tionas resulting
thisbodyseemsinorganic,
and
foritself,
Sinceitclaimscultural
expertise
of
souls."
this
become
During
itsmembers
"engineers
Stalinesque
might
andbysocial
isstillfascinated
management
byindustrial
decadeMumford
However,
by
planning.
thatmustinvolvelargescale,centralized
projects
totalitarian,
andseesutopiasas inherently
technocracy
the1960sherejects
But
Poppermayhaveinfluenced.80
static,andmechanical-anargument
as inherently
doesnotrejectorganicism
utopian
unlikePopper,Mumford
He holdsthatwhenPlatoattempted
tocreatehisorganic
andtotalitarian.
society,his inadequateconceptof theorganicled himto mechanism.
thatofa gardener
or experiUnlikeAristotle,
whosemethodresembled
whether
Platoneveraskedhimself
mentalbiologist,
themathematizing
... wasinfactan attribute
life."Insteadofcooperoforganic
"perfection
lifeafter
a "geometric
simplified
atingwithNature,this"button-molder"
the individualto the group,he falselydeduced
absolute."Sacrificing
78 Mumford,
Technics,212-67,281, 354,400; Blake,"Values overTechnique,"129-31.
79Karl Popper,The OpenSocietyand Its Enemies(Princeton,1963), 1: 12, 18,20, 21,
36, 40, 50-51,56, 70, 77, 80, 100, 103, 141, 166, 173,262n.
Interpretations
80Mumford,
96-99;Mumford,TheCity,573; Mumford,
TheCondition,
and Forecasts:1922-1972(New York, 1973),288-89;Mumford,The Pentagon,219.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford
113
class inequalityand vocationalspecializationfromindividuals'unequal
In short,Plato identified
proportion,
theorganicwithhierarchy,
talents.81
staticqualitiesimposablefromwithout.But Mumfordnow
symmetry:
it withqualitiesamenableto open plans:spontaneity,
decisivelyidentifies
and coopervoluntaryparticipation,
patience,immanentdevelopment,
ation.
Mumford'sattackon utopianismparallelshis decisivedevaluationof
Althoughhe
the role of machineryin shapingthe organiccommunity.
ofneotechnic
inventions,
he refusestoemphadoesnotdenytheusefulness
and indeedhe acknowledgestheirrolein increasing
size themonesidedly,
conurbationand social disorder.Thereis, says Mumford,no mechanical
a moral"transformation"
amongindividuals,
devicecapable ofeffecting
and meremechanicalprogresswill not automaticallyimproveman's estate.82Whereasin the 1930sMumfordhad greetedneotechniccommuniin 1945he deploresrelianceon commucationswithexcessiveenthusiasm,
nications technologyas a substitutefor moralityand higher goals.
his admissionin 1967 of the unlikelypossibilitythat
Notwithstanding
modem technologymay help to restorethe organiccity,in 1970 he
Yet ifrenewaldepends
excoriatesMcLuhan's idea oftheglobalvillage.83
on neitherthe state nor technocracynor machinery,on what does it
depend?Mumfordappeals in greatpart to the inwardrealmof ethics,
religion,poetry,and craft,to thosefewindividualswho,having
morality,
and specializedworld,are capable
bureaucratized,
resistedtheindustrial,
mechanismsand automatisms.The firststep
of rejectingits conformist
towardrenewalis the recoveryof "innerautonomy"-the autonomy,
atomizedindividliberaltheorist's
however,notofthenineteenth-century
ual but of a responsibleand socializedmoralagent.In accordancewith
Mumford'sassumptionof the social self,the nextstepis the "returnto
individualsin small associated
of like-minded
the group,"the gathering
nuclei.84Here one sees the importanceof WilliamMorristo the later
medievalismnor colMumford,forMorrisespousedneitherreactionary
socialismbased on voluntaryassociationsand
lectivismbut a guild-type
local needs.Like Mumford,Morrisplaceshis hopeson humantraitsthat
and individuals.
are "stillactive,"in families,communities,
institutions,
As forthemachine,MorrisinspiresMumford'sargumentthatit should
and to makeroomforthosehandibe used chieflyto eljiminate
drudgery
craftartswhich,forMumford,are the guaranteeof autonomy.85
Yet theseprojectswerecomplicatedbytherealitiesofpost-warsociety
81 Mumford,The City,174, 177, 183, 184.
82 Mumford,
The Conduct,4-5.
83 Mumford,
The Pentagon,293-99.
84 Mumford,
The Conduct,255, 274.
85 Mumford,
The Pentagon,155, 156, 355-56.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
114
in the1950s
towardtechnology
mounting
pessimism
andbyMumford's
modern
technolhadidentified
and 1960s.In hisearlierworksMumford
Ellul,
Jacques
like
his
rival
great
Now,
withthemachine.
ogyprimarily
ofmachines,
butechniques,
system
seesit as an interlocking
Mumford
elites-a "megamachine"
andadministrative
scientific
armies,
reaucrats,
Mumalthough
Moreover,
andhumancomponents.
madeupofinorganic
as an
technology
fordhad earlierrejectedthe theoryof autonomous
his laterwritings
comeclose to
of Westerndevelopment,
explanation
bein modemmasssocietyhas necessarily
Ellul'sthesisthateverything
anditsimpersonal
in relation
to technology
valuesofefficomesituated
At once purposeless,
unpredictable,
ciencyand organizedintelligence.
and ever
anti-or non-ideological,
morallyindifferent,
self-augmenting,
To be
hasinEllul'sviewbecomeautonomous.86
technology
encroaching,
as earlyas 1934,in Technics
thisposition
hadapproached
sure,Mumford
bymodem
"imposed"
referring
tothesocialcollectivism
andCivilization,
of
thatmachinestendto be used regardless
and observing
technics,
tendedto
Mumford
thesituation
demandsit.87But generally
whether
machines
thanofindividual
system
thinklessintermsofa technological
banal
defense
of
their
use-the
technology-and
on
value
whose
depends
fromcapitalist
canons.However,
upontheirliberation
moreparticularly
"naroutlookchanges.Notingtheincreasing
in the 1960sMumford's
he fearfully
thatmanis
suggests
ofchoicesto thetechnological,
rowing"
all otheraltemawhichdestroys
system
a technological
within
integrated
reducesdemocracy
(and socialism)to
tives.Justas themegamachine
ofmodemcommunication
so thetechniques
an ideological
masquerade,
nowexpress
hismessage
Indeed,howcouldthemessiah
forestall
dialogue.
LikeEllul,Mumford
fearsthatanyattempt
technology?
exceptthrough
solutionsand
to resolvethesocialimpassemustrelyon technological
To quoteTheCityinHistory:
reentrench
thetechnology.
musttherefore
blocksall itsroads.Nothing
toescapefromMegalopolis
"Theveryeffort
societyunlessit can be done
can happenin thenewtypeofinfra-urban
themachine."88
whichinevitably
implicates
bymassorganization,"
Mumford
confronts
withother,no lessseThe technological
system
oftheorganiccommunity
veredifficulties.
His hopesfortherestoration
interms
whichhedefines
ofthehumanessence,
dependontherestoration
has
humanity
purposes
of the responsesand aboveall the intelligent
transacprocessandinitssymbiotic
theevolutionary
through
developed
It followsthatto restorehuman
tionswiththenaturalenvironment.
But as Ellul pointsout,
mustalso be restored.
naturetheenvironment
it
hasreplacedthenatural
to
man:
no
mediates
Nature
longer
technology
86 Mumford,
Society,tr.John
ThePentagon,263-99;JacquesEllul, The Technological
Wilkinson(New York, 1964),passim.
87 Mumford,
Technics,281, 240.
88 Mumford,The Pentagon,159; Mumford,
The City,512, 554.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
115
LewisMumford
Evenworse,
adaptations.
uponhumanity
unprecedented
andthusimposed
itself
normanto reestablish
itallowsneither
thenaturalworldtorestore
in TheCulture
ofCitiesMumford
withit.89
Although
a symbiotic
relation
theimporhaslessened
hadsaidthatthe"notionthatmodemtechnology
bythe
theoppositeofthetruth,"
tanceofthenaturalhabitatis precisely
areconstantly
beingreplaced
1960she acknowledges
thatorganicforms
The gravestconsequenceof
by "ingeniousmechanical... substitutes."90
environment
is that,in fixing
manwithina foreign
thesedevelopments
traitsirrelehisevolutionary
withNature,theyrender
incommensurable
necessity
eitherofadaptingto or,whatis lesslikely,
vantto theurgent
system.It shouldbe addedthat
of revolting
againstthetechnological
acquiredpurposiveness
evolutionarily
Mumford's
appealto humanity's
is basedon a neoas a finaldefense
deformations
againsttechnological
Lamarckian
fewscientists
can nowaccept.
teleology
His faithintherecovery
of
NoraretheseMumford's
onlydifficulties.
stemsfromhisprofound
beliefin thecontinuity
theorganiccommunity
ofhistory
toyieldinsight
into
andinthecapacity
ofhumansocialhistory
authentic
socialnature.The pastteachesthelessonthatthe
humanity's
blockofanorganic
society
primary
groupisthevitalnucleusandbuilding
mechanism.
onesided
savedfrom
Ideallythisgroupis madeupofautonofromthe
moralagentscapableof withdrawing
mousindividuals-free
judgingand
and ofcritically
(likegoodEmersonians)
groupvoluntarily
tothepresumed
evenrebelling
society.
Appealing
againstthesurrounding
oftheprimary
or at leastpost-neolithic
groupand
transhistorical
reality
Mumford
likesto comparethepresent
situatheautonomous
individual,
communities
of
tionto ancientRome,whenscattered
yetindestructible
amidthe
newsourcesofspiritual
individuals
disaffected
growth
provided
to Ellul,however,
deaththroesoftheRomanbureaucracy.9'
According
to thetechnological
society,
itis uselessto lookto thepastforsolutions
notevento
ofsocialorganization,
toanypastform
whichisincomparable
Ellulfurther
farmorecumbersome
"megamachine."
Mumford's
Egyptian
to withdraw
pointsoutthatin thepastitwaspossiblefortheindividual
whereasnowhe cannotesdid notintrude,
to a placewheretechnique
liesin placing
majorcontradictions
cape.92One ofthelaterMumford's
individual
or spontaneous
historical
faithin the morallyautonomous
hasdeveloped
often
when(as Mumford
incomparably
admits)technology
methods
fortheshapingofthepersonality
through
propasophisticated
mostof
thusrobbing
and administrative
routine,
ganda(or advertising)
So too,despiteMumand subjectivity.
ofgenuine
inwardness
humanity
that
theneotechnic
the
he
admits
ford'sappealto primary
village
group,
89 Ellul, The Technological,
63, 79.
90Mumford,The Culture,313; Mumford,The City,527.
91 Mumford,The Transformations
ofMan
92
78.
Ellul, The Technological,
(New York, 1956), 178-88.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RobertCasillo
116
and thateverywhere
onslaught,
underthetechnological
is disappearing
have vanof the "ruraland communalunderlayer"
the "safeguards"
savebytechnology
As theseare notlikelyto be reconstructed,
ished.93
lastworks,forall their
(perhapsas a sortof themepark),Mumford's
of
leaveone witha visionof thedisappearance
optimism,
intermittent
posthistoric
short,ofourpostmodern,
humanity-in
man,ofnormative
condition.
ofMiami.
University
93 Mumford,The Pentagon,346, 351.
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions