Synthesis of Thomas P. Hughes’, Human Built World: How to Think about Technology and Culture (2004)

I began reading Thomas P. Hughes, Human Built World: How to think about technology and culture (2004), with hopes of gaining insights into technology and culture. After reading the book, I have a basic knowledge of the history of technology and their effects on culture.

What was Hughes’ goal in writing this book?

In the beginning I was unable to determine the Hughes’ goal in writing this book. Hughes began his book with an introduction including an overview of each chapter. He presented a historical timeline of technology developments and reactions, both positive and negative, from critics of the times. Hughes discusses both cultural and ecological consequences resulting from the forward progression of technology. He focused on American events however he did discuss some developments in Germany, Russia and England.

I believe Hughes was writing this book to provide a knowledgeable understanding of technology. His goal was to provide readers with information on the history of technology in hopes of developing a more technologically literate public that will reject technological determinism in favor of social control of technology.

How effective is Hughes at exploring the human-built world? Does his definition of technology make sense?

In my opinion Hughes explores the human-built world comprehensively in America. He also makes connections between America and some European influences, especially Germany. One downfall however is Hughes failure to address the technological advances of other cultures of the world. Thus one can only conclude that Hughes’ intended target audience was Americans.

Hughes perceives technology as a creative process involving human ingenuity and bases his definition of technology on historical interpretations of technological events and works. Hughes focuses on technological machinery as resources to use in shaping the landscape. He feels the term technology is a somewhat new term that was not frequently used until the twentieth century. Hughes chooses to emphasize creativity and control derived from his background in history and engineering. Hughes’ definition of technology is as follows:

The craftsman, mechanics, inventors, engineers, designers, and scientists using tools, machines, and knowledge to create and control a human-built world consisting of artifacts and systems associated mostly with the traditional fields of civil, mechanical, electrical, mining, materials, and chemical engineering. Also consider it being used as a tool and as a source of symbols by many architects and artists. (pg. 4)

In my opinion, Hughes’ definition, although comprehensive, is limited due to his focus on the mechanical machinery aspects of technology. Hughes fails to address the other aspects such as language and the creation of the alphabet as writing. He emphasis on the mechanical arts may provide a focus but is problematic.

Some similar themes run through both Hughes and Postman. Are they legit? Do they seem to make sense?

Hughes and Postman have some common overlapping themes in their writings. I will discuss some of these themes beginning with religion.

First, both Hughes and Postman discuss the role of religion in shaping technology. Postman postulated that technological inventions have subverted religious morality and created a divorce of intellect. His view of advancing technology that would embed so deeply that it would begin to define the culture choking the moral and spiritual beliefs from society.

Religious beliefs have served as a basis of authority for centuries. It was thought by theologians that Christians had the ability to design tools and machines with the ability to transform the land into a Garden of Eden. Hughes reveals how humans have yearned to transform during the medieval and Renaissance culture. Hughes traces these desires from 45 B.C to the modern time in a historical time line of events and achievements. He discusses how Christian beliefs have structured and guided the developments of technology. The desire for a “second creation” of the Garden fueled the people; the human-built world is not the paradise the original Eden presented.

Hughes used the Judeo-Christian mythos as a means of explaining human technology use. Using the myth of the Garden of Eden as the premise of his argument Hughes states, “Humans have been engaged in creating a living and working place, a human-built world, ever since their ouster from the Garden of Eden” (pg. 7). He uses the ideology of technology being a gift from God and helping transform the world into a Garden of Eden, which was called “second creation”. Hughes presents a commonality with Postman when he presents Spengler’s ideals. Spengler associated mechanization with the decline of Western civilization. He believed the West was losing its moral and cultural center. Hughes continues and presents Lewis Mumford’s ideas of organic technology. Mumford believed humans should not limit themselves to machinelike creations but should create organic forms (pg. 61). He saw machines crushing the organic spirit and emotional and spiritual values essential for spontaneity and individuality. Hughes then says, “Favoring intimacy with machines, Americans did not have the fructifying close associations with nature and long-standing cultural traditions” (pg. 72). This was a result from Americans disconnect with their cultural roots. Foreign critics saw Americans as machines that had become interchangeable in appearance, attitudes, morals, and mores. Hughes also uses the Genesis belief that all creation was intended to serve a human purpose and that God has given humanity dominion over nature. However, he believes that technology should be used to attain this Edenic state.

Postman and Hughes both attempt to use religion and spiritual beliefs as basis of their arguments regarding technology. The role of religion in each argument is unrelated and different. I suspect that religion is a commonality due to its cultural impact on developing societies. Consequently both authors attempt to use religion as a supporting component to their argument.

Secondly, both Hughes and Postman warn of technology controlling society. Postman’s proposes that technology has yields a great deal of information and that information is the means by which human creativity will end. He asserts that “information” is an “enemy” and is dangerous. He claims innovations, such as the Gutenberg, have attempted to control information through books. He claims society’s gluttonous desire for information will lead to self-destruction. His deluded perception of reality is further evident by his ideals of the use of technology will ultimately render society to a bunch mindless people unable to think for their selves but rather relying upon technologies to think for them. Postman warns of a technopoly controlling the information given to people.

Hughes uses a contradictory argument. He surmises that society is technologically illiterate. He argues that humanity has failed to take responsibility for the environment and have not used technology to create an “eco-technological” environment. He calls for open divulgence of information between military and private companies for solving problems within the environment and society. Hughes also warns against complex technologies that may provide an opportunity for a privileged elite to redesign the human-built world along with humans through genetic engineering, robotics and nanotechnology. Hughes call to arms is reminiscent of Postman’s doomsday ranting.

Thirdly, Postman believes technology has cast a magical spell over humans leaving us captivated and awestruck. Hughes also recognizes that technology has marveled and awestruck humans allow them to exercise godlike creative powers. Hughes argues that in the twentieth century God was no longer needed. Man had esteemed himself and was full of hubris as a result of mechanization. Technologies brought an sense of power and control. These are also reminiscent of Postman’s writing.

How and where does education fit in Hughes’ scheme of the human-built world? Does it? Is education a technology according to Hughes?

In my opinion, education is necessary to accomplish the goal of Hughes’ writing. My conjecture is that education would be used to impart technologically knowledge to society. Hughes states, “In order to participate effectively in project design specifically and technology policy generally, however, the public needs to learn about the engineering, architectural, and managerial processes used in creating and nurturing ecotechnological systems” (pg. 170). He also talks about environmentalists educating the public.

Education is necessary to impart knowledge upon society. Children must be educated as well as adults. I feel educational learning would be a continually process in order to effectively participate in policy decisions. The human-built world was created from the minds of people who had been educated through formal or experiential learning. Therefore one could deduce that education was the beginning of the human-built world as well as a necessity in improving and sustaining it.

I do not feel that Hughes would consider education a technology. Hughes definition of technological as stated above focuses on creativity and control of a human-built world associated mostly with the sciences. I would consider education an open system from Hughes’ discussion of systems.

How effective do you think Hughes has been in providing an understanding of technology?

Hughes goal in writing this book was to provide an understanding of technology. In my opinion, Hughes gives an inclusive historical representation of American technology. Although he mainly focuses on the mechanization of technology, I feel I have gleaned knowledge of technology. He also discusses some of the consequences these advancing technologies have had on the environment and culture including the arts and humanities. After reading this book I have a better understanding of the role technology has had on culture and environment. However, Hughes has failed to change my level of participation in activist pursuits.

Final Summary

Hughes book is largely reflective of Western traditions and technological developments. Technology however was developed throughout the world. His book misses a great deal by focusing on the engineering aspects of technology. He also attempts to address some of the political and economic aspects of technology that is something Postman largely ignored.

Technology is developed and used to serve a purpose. The consequences and ramifications of using the technology is not always anticipated or an expected outcome. Hughes proposes that society should make choices about the technology they use and the effects that it will have on them and the environment. He also questions if the Judeo-Christian belief is responsible for the ill effects of technology on the environment. He suggests that Americans are in infatuated with new technologies and will overlook their problems.

Postman offered the divorce of technology and intellect while Hughes offers the divorce of technology and economics. I agree with Hughes that machine technology produced goods and services that excited consumers. Inventors gained fame and monetary wealth while technologies mass production of goods served to improve the quality of life for all people. Hughes discussed how Russia and Germany were the same the U.S. early on and looked to one another for inventing and learning ideas. The Soviet Union was trying to be more like America and looked at us a model. The world was looking and admiring Ford idealizing him for his accomplishments and electricity spawned mechanization. In my Postman blog I mentioned electricity as a technology and how dependent we are on it to use other technologies.

While reading I thought of America as a melting pot of cultures with a common thread that are all seeking the “American dream”. With the vast differences in cultures and religious ideals it is difficult to hold on and sustain the cultural traditions of the past- our cultural roots. It may be that the same desire that drove the first immigrants to America may be promoting this disconnect and withdrawal of traditions and religious beliefs that founded this country.

In chapter 4, Hughes discusses technology’s systems, controls and information and discovers the challenges that come with managing it. Hughes states, “Technological and organization systems are often so complex, so large, and so heterogeneous that interdisciplinary interactive groups sharing perspectives and information are needed to create and control them” (pg. 78). I was surprised that the military had such an influence on the development of communications and control. Forman’s conclusion that scientific talent flows where national priorities place incentives of money, prestige and excitement was of no surprise to me. The systems approach was applied to urban areas to solve the pressing urban problems.

Hughes discusses the arts (designing, building, paintings) in chapter five. A push to manufacture mass products arose using materials less organic and more man-made, such as plastic or steel with some opposition. In addition, designers used function to dictate design in buildings. Artists began to look at machines as works of art and making them the focus of paintings and photographs.

Hughes then discusses the movement against the spread of rigid order and control. Artists and architects alike went against the systems, order and control, which probably spurred the hippie movement. John Cage put on events or “happenings” during the 1960s in hippie communities. Music stressed more freedom and improvisation than rigid form. Architects pushed for freely evolving urban places.

Hughes concludes his book with the presentation of an ecotechnological system as the interaction of the natural and human-built systems. Most historical cities were shaped by nature and technology and are prime examples of an ecotechnical environment.

In the early chapters Hughes offered the assumption that humans were attempting to create a living and working place, a representation of the Garden of Eden. He proposed that humans would accomplish this “Edenic recovery” through the use technology. Hughes repeatedly talks about technology being used to transform the land in a godlike manner however he suggests that the human-built world would not be a paradise of beauty and utility they desired. Why? Developing technologies and mechanization came at a cost- an environmental cost. He wails that humans have been poor stewards of what God has given by laying waste to pristine environments and destroying ecosystems in the name of progress.

In essence I think Hughes is attempting to drawing attention to the ecological responsibility we have to preserve and develop more natural environments. He presents examples of cities using technology to redesign layouts and architecture to counter natural forces and make for better living. He proposes that the public must participate in technology policy and projects.

In my opinion, Hughes’ bottom line is: Incorporating the natural ecology in developments and using technologies to correct the mistakes of the past we can create a better world and “return to the Garden”.