Authoritarian and Democratic Technics

Author(s): Lewis Mumford

Source: Technology and Culture, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter, 1964), pp. 1-8
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press and the Society for the History of Technology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3101118 .
Accessed: 17/10/2013 06:59

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 support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press and Society for the History of Technology are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Technology and Culture.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:59:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and
Authoritarian
Democratic
Technics
LEWIS MUMFORD*

"DEMOCRACY"IS A termnow confusedand sophisticated by indis-

criminate use,and oftentreatedwithpatronizing contempt.Can we
agree,no matterhow farwe mightdivergeat a laterpoint,thatthe
spinalprincipleof democracyis to place whatis commonto all men
above thatwhichany organization, institution, or groupmay claim
foritself?This is not to denytheclaimsof superiornaturalendow-
ment,specializedknowledge, technicalskill,or institutional
organiza-
tion: all thesemay,by democraticpermission, play a usefulrole in
thehumaneconomy.But democracy consistsin givingfinalauthority
to thewhole,ratherthanthe part;and onlylivinghumanbeings,as
such,are an authentic expression of the whole,whetheractingalone
or withthe helpof others.
Aroundthiscentralprincipleclustersa groupof relatedideas and
practices witha longforeground in history,
thoughtheyarenotalways
or in
present, present equal amounts, in all societies.Amongthese
itemsare communalself-government, freecommunication as between
equals,unimpeded accessto the commonstoreof knowledge, protec-
tionagainstarbitrary external controls,and a senseof individualmoral
responsibilityforbehaviorthataffects thewholecommunity. All living
organisms are in somedegreeautonomous, in thattheyfollowa life-
patternof theirown; but in manthisautonomyis an essentialcon-
ditionforhis further development. We surrender someof our auto-
nomy when ill or crippled: but to surrender it everyday on every
occasionwould be to turnlifeitselfintoa chronicillness.The best
lifepossible-andhereI amconsciously treading on contestedground-
is onethatcallsforan evergreaterdegreeofself-direction, self-expres-
* Mr.
Mumford,a memberof the ExecutiveCouncil of the Society for the
History of Technology,is the authorof many books, includingTechnics and
Civilization(1934) and The City in History,which receivedthe National Book
Award in 1961.
This paper is Mr. Mumford'sspeech at the Fund for the Republic Tenth
AnniversaryConvocationon "Challenges to Democracy in the Next Decade,"
held in New York City,January21, 1963. The articleis publishedin Technology
and Cultureby permission of the Fund for the Republic and the Centerfor the
Study of DemocraticInstitutions.
1

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:59:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2 Lewis Mumford

sion,and self-realization. In thissense,personality, once the exclusive

attribute of kings,belongson democratic theoryto everyman. Life
itselfin its fullnessand wholenesscannotbe delegated.
In framing thisprovisional definition I trustthatI havenot,forthe
sake of agreement, leftout anything important. Democracy,in the
primal sense I shall use the term, is necessarily visiblein relatively
most
smallcommunities and groups,whosemembers meetfrequently face
to face,interactfreely,and are knownto each otheras persons.As
soon as largenumbersare involved,democraticassociationmustbe
supplemented by a moreabstract, depersonalized form.Historicexperi-
enceshowsthatit is mucheasierto wipe out democracyby an insti-
tutionalarrangement thatgivesauthority onlyto thoseat theapexof
thesocialhierarchy thanit is to incorporate democratic practicesinto
a well-organized system under centralized direction, which achieves
thehighestdegreeof mechanicalefficiency whenthosewho workit
haveno mindor purposeoftheirown.
The tensionbetweensmall-scale associationand large-scaleorgani-
zation, between personalautonomyand institutional regulation,be-
tweenremotecontroland diffused local intervention, hasnow created
a criticalsituation.If our eyes had been open,we mightlong ago
havediscovered thisconflictdeeplyembeddedin technology itself.
I wishit werepossibleto characterize technicswithas muchhope
of gettingassent,withwhateverquizzicalreserves you maystillhave,
as in thisdescription of democracy.But the verytitleof thispaper
is, I confess,a controversial one; and I cannotgo farin my analysis
withoutdrawingon interpretations thathavenotyetbeenadequately
published, still lesswidely discussed or rigorously criticizedand evalu-
ated. My thesis,to put it bluntly, is thatfromlateneolithictimesin
the Near East, rightdown to our own day, two technologies have
recurrently existed side by side: one authoritarian, the otherdemo-
cratic,the firstsystem-centered, immensely powerful,but inherently
unstable, theotherman-centered, relatively weak, butresourceful and
durable.If I am right,we are now rapidlyapproaching a pointat
which,unlesswe radicallyalter our presentcourse,our surviving
democratic technicswill be completelysuppressed or supplanted, so
thateveryresidualautonomy will be wipedout,or will be permitted
only as a playfuldeviceof government, like nationalballotting for
already chosen leaders in totalitarian countries.
The dataon whichthisthesisis basedare familiar; buttheirsignifi-
cance has,I believe,been overlooked.What I would call democratic
technicsis the smallscale methodof production, restingmainlyon
humanskill and animalenergybut always,even when employing
machines,remainingunderthe active directionof the craftsmanor the

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:59:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Authoritarian
and DemocraticTechnics 3

farmer, each groupdeveloping its own gifts,throughappropriate arts

and social ceremonies, as well as makingdiscreetuse of the giftsof
nature.This technologyhad limitedhorizonsof achievement, but,
just because of itswide diffusion and itsmodest demands, it had great
powers of adaptationand recuperation.This democratictechnics
has underpinned and firmlysupportedevery historiccultureuntil
our own day, and redeemedthe constanttendencyof authoritarian
technicsto misapplyits powers. Even when payingtributeto the
mostoppressive authoritarian regimes, thereyet remainedwithinthe
workshop or the farmyard some degreeof autonomy, crea-
selectivity,
No
tivity. royalmace, no slave-driver's whip, no bureaucraticdirective
leftits imprinton the textilesof Damascusor the potteryof fifth
centuryAthens.
If thisdemocratictechnicsgoes back to the earliestuse of tools,
authoritarian technicsis a muchmorerecentachievement: it begins
aroundthefourthmillennium B. C. in a newconfiguration of technical
invention, scientificobservation, and centralized politicalcontrolthat
to
gave rise thepeculiarmodeof lifewe maynow identify, without
eulogy,as civilization.Underthe new institution of kingship, activi-
tiesthathadbeenscattered, diversified,cutto thehumanmeasure, were
unitedon a monumental scaleintoan entirely new kindof theological-
technological massorganization. In the personof an absoluteruler,
whosewordwas law,cosmicpowerscame downto earth,mobilizing
and unifying the efforts of thousandsof men,hithertoall-too-auto-
nomousandtoo decentralized to act voluntarily in unisonforpurposes
thatlay beyondthevillagehorizon.
The new authoritarian technology was notlimitedby villagecustom
or humansentiment: its herculeanfeatsof mechanicalorganization
restedon ruthless physicalcoercion,forcedlaborand slavery,which
brought into existence machinesthatwere capableof exerting thou-
sandsof horsepower centuries beforehorseswereharnessed or wheels
invented.This centralized technicsdrewon inventions and scientific
discoveriesof a high order: the writtenrecord,mathematics and
astronomy, irrigation and canalization:above all, it createdcomplex
humanmachinescomposedof specialized,standardized, replaceable,
interdependent parts-theworkarmy,themilitary army,thebureauc-
racy. These work armiesand militaryarmiesraisedthe ceilingof
humanachievement: thefirstin massconstruction, thesecondin mass
destruction, both on a scalehitherto inconceivable. Despiteitsconstant
driveto destruction, thistotalitarian technicswas tolerated, perhaps
even welcomed,in hometerritory, for it createdthe firsteconomy
of controlledabundance: notably,immensefood crops thatnot merely
supporteda big urban populationbut releaseda large trainedminority

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:59:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 Lewis Mumford
forpurelyreligious,scientific, bureacratic,or militaryactivity.But
the efficiency of the systemwas impairedby weaknessesthatwere
neverovercomeuntilour own day.
To beginwith,the democratic economyof theagricultural village
resistedincorporation into the new authoritarian system.So even
theRomanEmpirefoundit expedient, onceresistance was brokenand
taxeswere collected,to consentto a largedegreeof local autonomy
in religionandgovernment. Moreover,as longas agriculture absorbed
the laborof some90 per centof the population, masstechnicswere
confinedlargelyto the populousurbancenters.Since authoritarian
technicsfirst tookformin an age whenmetalswerescarceandhuman
raw material, capturedin war,was easilyconvertible into machines,
itsdirectors neverbothered to inventinorganic mechanical substitutes.
But therewere even greaterweaknesses:the systemhad no inner
coherence:a breakin communication, a missinglinkin the chainof
command, andthegreathumanmachines fellapart.Finally,themyths
upon which the whole systemwas based-particularly the essential
mythof kingship-were irrational,withtheirparanoidsuspicionsand
animosities and theirparanoidclaimsto unconditional obedienceand
absolutepower. For all its redoubtableconstructive achievements,
authoritarian technicsexpressed a deephostility to life.
By now you doubtlesssee thepointof thisbriefhistoricexcursus.
That authoritarian technicshas come back today in an immensely
and
magnified adroitlyperfectedform.Up to now, followingthe
optimistic premises of nineteenth century thinkers likeAugusteComte
and HerbertSpencer,we have regardedthe spreadof experimental
scienceandmechanical invention as thesoundestguarantee of a peace-
ful,productive, above all democratic, industrialsociety.Many have
even comfortably supposedthatthe revoltagainstarbitrary political
power in the seventeenth centurywas causallyconnectedwith the
industrial revolutionthataccompaniedit. But what we have inter-
preted as the newfreedom now turnsoutto be a muchmoresophisti-
cated versionof the old slavery:forthe riseof politicaldemocracy
duringthe last few centurieshas been increasingly nullifiedby the
successful resurrection of a centralized authoritarian technics-atech-
nicsthathad in factforlonglapsedin manypartsof theworld.
Let us fool ourselvesno longer. At the very momentWestern
nationsthrewofftheancientregimeof absolutegovernment, operating
undera once-divine king,theywere restoring thissamesystemin a
farmoreeffective formin theirtechnology, reintroducing coercions
of a militarycharacterno less strictin the organizationof a factory
than in that of the new drilled, uniformed,and regimentedarmy.
During the transitionalstages of the last two centuries,the ultimate

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:59:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and DemocraticTechnics
Authoritarian 5

tendencyof this systemmightbe in doubt, for in many areas there

were strong democraticreactions;but with the knittingtogetherof
a scientificideology, itselfliberatedfrom theological restrictionsor
humanisticpurposes, authoritariantechnics found an instrumentat
hand that has now given it absolute commandof physical energiesof
cosmic dimensions.The inventorsof nuclearbombs,space rockets,and
computersare the pyramidbuildersof our own age: psychologically
inflatedby a similarmythof unqualifiedpower, boastingthroughtheir
science of their increasingomnipotence,if not omniscience,moved
by obsessionsand compulsionsno less irrationalthan those of earlier
absolute systems:particularlythe notion that the systemitselfmust
be expanded,at whatevereventualcost to life.
Through mechanization, automation, cybernetic direction, this
authoritarian technicshas as last successfullyovercomeits mostserious
weakness: its original dependence upon resistant,sometimeactively
disobedientservo-mechanisms, still human enough to harborpurposes
thatdo not always coincide with those of the system.
Like the earliestformof authoritarian technics,thisnew technology
is marvellouslydynamicand productive:its power in everyformtends
to increase without limits,in quantities that defy assimilationand
defeat control, whetherwe are thinkingof the output of scientific
knowledgeor of industrialassemblylines. To maximizeenergy,speed,
or automation,withoutreferenceto the complexconditionsthatsustain
organiclife,have become endsin themselves.As withthe earliestforms
of authoritariantechnics,the weight of effort,if one is to judge by
national budgets,is toward absolute instrumentsof destruction,de-
signedforabsolutelyirrationalpurposeswhose chiefby-productwould
be the mutilationor exterminationof the human race. Even Ashur-
banipal and Genghis Khan performedtheir gory operations under
normalhumanlimits.
The center of authorityin this new systemis no longer a visible
personality,an all-powerfulking: even in totalitariandictatorshipsthe
center now lies in the systemitself,invisiblebut omnipresent:all its
humancomponents,even the technicaland managerialelite, even the
sacred priesthood of science, who alone have access to the secret
knowledge by means of which total control is now swiftly being
effected,are themselvestrappedby the very perfectionof the organi-
zation they have invented. Like the pharoahs of the Pyramid Age,
these servantsof the systemidentifyits goods with theirown kind of
well-being: as with the divine king, their praise of the systemis an
act of self-worship;and again like the king,they are in the grip of an
irrationalcompulsionto extendtheirmeans of control and expand the
scope of theirauthority.In this new systems-centered collective,this

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:59:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 Lewis Mumford

Pentagonof power, thereis no visiblepresencewho issues commands:

unlike Job's God, the new deities cannot be confronted,still less
defied. Under the pretextof saving labor, the ultimate end of this
technicsis to displace life,or rather,to transferthe attributesof life
to the machineand the mechanicalcollective,allowing only so much
of the organismto remainas may be controlledand manipulated.
Do not misunderstand thisanalysis. The dangerto democracydoes
not springfromany specificscientificdiscoveriesor electronicinven-
tions. The humancompulsionsthatdominatethe authoritarian technics
of our own day date back to a period beforeeven the wheel had been
invented.The dangerspringsfromthe fact that,since Francis Bacon
and Galileo definedthe new methodsand objectives of technics,our
great physical transformations have been effectedby a systemthat
deliberately eliminates the whole human personality,ignores the his-
toric process,overplaysthe role of the abstractintelligence,and makes
controlover physicalnature,ultimatelycontrol over man himself,the
chiefpurposeof existence.This systemhas made its way so insidiously
into Western society,that my analysisof its derivationand its inten-
tions may well seem more questionable-indeedmore shocking-than
the facts themselves.
Why has our age surrenderedso easilyto the controllers, the manipu-
lators,the conditionersof an authoritariantechnics? The answer to
this question is both paradoxical and ironic. Present day technics
differsfromthatof the overtlybrutal,half-bakedauthoritarian systems
of the past in one highlyfavorableparticular:it has accepted the basic
principle of democracy,that every member of society should have
a share in its goods. By progressivelyfulfilling
thispart of the demo-
cratic promise,our systemhas achieved a hold over the whole com-
munitythatthreatensto wipe out everyothervestigeof democracy.
The bargainwe are beingaskedto ratifytakesthe formof a magnifi-
cent bribe. Under the democratic-authoritarian social contract,each
memberof the communitymay claim everymaterialadvantage,every
intellectualand emotionalstimulushe may desire,in quantitieshardly
available hithertoeven for a restrictedminority:food, housing,swift
transportation, instantaneouscommunication,medical care, entertain-
ment,education. But on one condition: that one must not merelyask
for nothingthat the systemdoes not provide, but likewise agree to
take everythingoffered,duly processed and fabricated,homogenized
and equalized,in the precisequantitiesthatthe system,ratherthanthe
person, requires. Once one opts for the systemno furtherchoice
remains.In a word, if one surrendersone's lifeat source,authoritarian
technicswill give back as much of it as can be mechanicallygraded,
quantitativelymultiplied,collectivelymanipulatedand magnified.

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:59:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and DemocraticTechnics
Authoritarian 7

"Is this not a fair bargain?" those who speak for the systemwill
ask. " Are not the goods authoritarian technicspromisesreal goods? Is
thisnot the hornof plentythatmankindhas long dreamedof, and that
every ruling class has tried to secure, at whatever cost of brutality
and injustice,foritself?" I would not belittle,stillless deny,the many
admirableproductsthistechnologyhas broughtforth,productsthat a
self-regulatingeconomywould make good use of. I would only suggest
that it is time to reckon up the human disadvantagesand costs, to
say nothing of the dangers, of our unqualifiedacceptance of the
systemitself. Even the immediateprice is heavy; for the systemis
so far frombeing under effectivehuman directionthatit may poison
us wholesale to provide us with food or exterminateus to provide
nationalsecurity,beforewe can enjoy its promisedgoods. Is it really
humanly profitableto give up the possibilityof living a few years
at Walden Pond, so to say, for the privilegeof spending a lifetime
in Walden Two? Once our authoritariantechnics consolidates its
powers,with the aid of its new formsof mass control,its panoply of
tranquillizersand sedativesand aphrodisiacs,could democracy in any
form survive? That question is absurd: life itself will not survive,
exceptwhat is funneledthroughthe mechanicalcollective. The spread
of a sterilizedscientificintelligenceover the planet would not, as
Teilhard de Chardinso innocentlyimagined,be the happy consumma-
tion of divine purpose: it would ratherensurethe finalarrestof any
furtherhuman development.
Again: do not mistakemy meaning. This is not a prediction of
what will happen, but a warning againstwhat may happen.
What means must be taken to escape this fate? In characterizing
the authoritariantechnicsthat has begun to dominateus, I have not
forgottenthe great lesson of history: Prepare for the unexpected!
Nor do I overlook the immensereservesof vitalityand creativitythat
a more humane democratictraditionstill offersus. What I wish to
do is to persuade those who are concerned with maintainingdemo-
cratic institutionsto see that their constructiveeffortsmust include
technologyitself. There, too, we must returnto the human center.
We must challenge this authoritariansystem that has given to an
underdimensioned ideology and technologythe authoritythat belongs
to the humanpersonality.I repeat: life cannot be delegated.
Curiously,the firstwords in supportof this thesiscame forth,with
exquisite symbolic aptness,from a willing agent-but very nearly a
classic victim!-of the new authoritarian technics.They came fromthe
astronaut,John Glenn, whose life was endangeredby the malfunc-
tioningof his automaticcontrols,operatedfroma remotecenter. After

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:59:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 Lewis Mumford
he barely saved his life by personal intervention,he emerged from
his space capsulewith theseringingwords: " Now let man take over! "
That command is easier to utterthan obey. But if we are not to
be drivento even more drasticmeasuresthan Samuel Butlersuggested
in Erewhon, we had bettermap out a more positivecourse: namely,
the reconstitutionof both our science and our technics in such a
fashionas to insertthe rejectedpartsof the humanpersonalityat every
stage in the process. This means gladly sacrificingmere quantityin
orderto restorequalitativechoice, shiftingthe seat of authorityfrom
the mechanicalcollectiveto the humanpersonalityand the autonomous
group,favoringvarietyand ecological complexity,insteadof stressing
undue uniformity and standardization,above all, reducingthe insensate
driveto extendthesystemitself,insteadof containingit withindefinite
human limitsand thus releasingman himselffor other purposes. We
must ask, not what is good for science or technology,still less what
is good forGeneral Motors or Union Carbide or IBM or the Pentagon,
but what is good for man: not machine-conditioned, system-regulated,
mass-man,but man in person,movingfreelyover every area of life.
There are large areas of technologythat can be redeemed by the
democraticprocess,once we have overcomethe infantilecompulsions
and automatismsthat now threatento cancel out our real gains. The
very leisure that the machine now gives in advanced countriescan
be profitablyused, not for furthercommitmentto still other kinds
of machine,furnishingautomaticrecreation,but by doing significant
forms of work, unprofitableor technically impossible under mass
production: work dependentupon special skill,knowledge, aesthetic
sense. The do-it-yourself movementprematurelygot bogged down in
an attemptto sell still more machines;but its slogan pointed in the
rightdirection,provided we still have a self to do it with. The glut
of motor cars that is now destroyingour cities can be coped with
only if we redesignour cities to make fulleruse of a more efficient
human agent: the walker. Even in childbirth,the emphasisis already
happilyshiftingfroman officious, oftenlethal,authoritarian procedure,
centeredin hospitalroutine,to a more human mode, which restores
initiativeto the motherand to the body's naturalrhythms.
The replenishment of democratictechnicsis plainlytoo big a subject
to be handled in a finalsentence or two: but I trustI have made it
clear that the genuineadvantagesour scientificallybased technicshas
broughtcan be preservedonly if we cut the whole systemback to a
point at which it will permithumanalternatives, humaninterventions,
and human destinationsfor entirelydifferentpurposes fromthose of
the systemitself.At the presentjuncture,if democracydid not exist,
we would have to inventit, in order to save and recultivatethe spirit
of man.

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:59:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions